Ergonomic regulations would have protected workers and employers

Ergonomic regulations would have protected workers and employers
EDITOR:
A recent Vindicator column discussed the congressional rebellion against OSHA's ergonomics regulation, saying it was a benefit rather than a setback for working Americans.
As a consultant for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I know that for the past 10-plus years, we in the field have been working to reduce or prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders -- sprains and strains, if you will. WMSDs do not include the periodic sore back or tired shoulder or neck. The OSHA ergonomic standard differentiates between these types of injuries.
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage or spinal disc with several distinct features that are the result of long time exposure and are diagnosed by a medical history, physical examination or other medical test.
When the regulation was proposed and finally adopted, it gave employers the ability to distinguish between job-related injuries and possible off-duty injuries, contrary to what the columnist stated and the position of some local radio talk show hosts.
Regulation is needed because --
UWMSDs are among the most prevalent lost time injuries and illnesses in almost every industry.
UWMSDs are among the most painful work related injuries.
UWMSDs are a contributing factor to the loss of production and quality of work.
OSHA is responsible for ensuring that every working man and woman works in a safe, healthy environment.
The proposed regulation was one of the most flexible OSHA regulations ever passed. It gave the employer many options to address ergonomic concerns. It went so far as allowing an employer to do nothing in abatement of a potential risk factor if no recordable WMSDs ever occurred. It only addressed and mandated action for those employers who were truly experiencing recordable WMSDs.
The Vindicator column stated that the regulation would encourage abuse by workers prone to malingering. On the contrary, the regulation addressed these workers, and through required assessment, training and documentation would flush out the malingerers and address the truly injured.
The congressional action which took place was nothing more than a political thank you and a true vote against organized labor.
The estimated 4.6 million musculoskeletal disorders that would have been prevented were ignored. The 10-plus years of studies were ignored. Proposed ergonomic action suggested by recognized research organizations such as the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were ignored.
Many take the position that government should not regulate business but should let them regulate themselves. As stated in The Vindicator column, "Most companies are committed to the safest workplace possible, because it's good business, there will always be a need to protect workers from irresponsible, careless and shady employers." This is the only statement within the article which I agree with. The fact is, those good businesses would not have to worry about OSHA. It's the careless and shady ones which would. Apparently, considering the outcry, there are more of those than the other.
JOHN P. LESEGANICH Sr.
Canfield
Technology center makes more sense than arena
EDITOR:
Bertram de Souza's March 11 column hit the nail on the head. The Mahoning Valley needs a civic arena like Warren needs more massage parlors. The amazing part of this waste of taxpayer money is the politicians falling all over each other trying to get control and a piece of the $26 million pie. It's going to wind up being a white elephant, and the county will be strapped with the cost of managing and maintaining the structure. In addition, it will be a drain on YSU's already stressed resources by obligating them to use it for basketball games when they can't fill the smaller Beeghly Center.
Mr. de Souza is also correct in his assertion that the Valley would be better served with a technology center on the YSU campus. If there is one thing the Valley is decades behind in, it's technology. Pittsburgh, Cleveland and even Akron are light years ahead of the Mahoning Valley when it comes to good-paying technology jobs.
I suspect that until the current crop of politicians leaves, we'll be forced to pay for arenas, Avantis, blimps, and semi-pro basketball.
BILL JOHNSON
Boardman
Many questions must still be asked about closings
EDITOR:
It seems to me that there are very basic questions to ask in reply to your recent article, & quot;Mahoning Valley official: Jobless to still get help. & quot;
The state says that there will be a facility in each county after the Lisbon and Warren local OBES offices close and that jobless services will still be available at each site. The main questions in my mind that should be asked are:
Will face-to-face services be available for laid off workers to apply for unemployment insurance benefits?
What other jobless services will be available?
Who is going to pay for the facilities in each county?
When all the administrative money for staff and rent from unemployment insurance is pulled out of local offices to fund telephone centers, will local communities have to pay for the centers out of their own scarce Workforce Investment Act dollars or find alternative or new dollars to fund them?
How much is the budget for the current local offices services? Will those dollars be available for local facilities?
How many customers does each local office serve? How many state staff positions will be left in each local community after the offices are closed? & quot;
The closure of the local offices may be on & quot;hold & quot; until the end of the year, but the plans remain to close the offices. The closures are a serious issue that will harm your local communities.
DEBI BOWLAND
Waterville
X The writer is a former administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services.
A response to hatred
EDITOR:
A recent letter to the editor deserves a response of utter disgust of certain hateful minds in this world.
Just how do we profile an individual who places blame on President Clinton for the devastating shooting rampages taking place in our high schools or an individual who wishes ill-will on anyone defending the ex-president?
In my estimation, the author of these beliefs is one, who is very spiteful and, yes, a very unhappy person.
Thank God for this great country and to the most of us who condemn hatred and do not fall in line with that letter-writer's irresponsible statements.
GEORGE SENDA
Niles