Ergonomics Gurus: Worker Safety = Productivity -- Battle Over Stress Injuries Rages

CHICAGO - Replacing cushy boardroom chairs with steel stools from the factory floor was a risky ploy, but it worked for Pat Hirschberg, who wanted her bosses to buy comfortable chairs for employees.

"They got the point right away," said Hirschberg, health and safety director for clothing-maker Oshkosh B'Gosh. "I scheduled the meeting for all day, but they were squirming around, trying to get comfortable within an hour. It didn't take long for them to agree to getting adjustable chairs for our workers.

"They took it with real good humor."

But it was no joke to the Oshkosh, Wis., company's troops who suffered aches, pains and, in some cases, crippling injuries while perched on the stools working. Nor would it be a joke among those who toil in many other factories and offices across the nation.

Repetitive-stress injuries, among them carpal tunnel syndrome, are disorders stemming from unpleasant working conditions, and they are rising faster than any other workplace health concern.

Hirschberg and thousands like her are disciples of ergonomics, the science of fitting the workplace to the worker. Their message is that management concern for worker comfort not only enhances employee health but also may boost productivity and cut costs.

It is a message that many resist and one that has sparked bitter fights in Washington and in courtrooms.

Computer keyboard-makers may have the biggest stake in this fight. At this point, computer manufacturers are split. Some include warnings with their products that overuse can lead to injuries, but others such as International Business Machines and Digital Equipment contend there is no evidence that keyboard use can cause injury and thus no need for warnings.

But Digital lost a court case last month when a jury in New York awarded $5.3 million to a woman who contends she was injured from using a Digital keyboard and the company had failed to warn of this possibility. It was the first court finding against a keyboard-maker.

The finding encouraged many ergonomics experts because much interest in the field is fueled by the realization that using computer keyboards can afflict office employees with injuries that once were seen mostly in assembly-line workers.

Reports of these injuries have risen nearly eightfold in the last decade, said Dr. Linda Rosenstock, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, "and many people afflicted are in their 20s and 30s. About 20 percent of those severely injured never get back to work."

The increases may be tied to pressure to improve productivity and competitiveness in a world economy. New technologies that enable workers to produce more also can cause injury.

This month, 1,000 ergonomics disciples from around the country gathered in Chicago to swap success stories and generally get fired up for another year of trying to make workplaces healthier.

The conference was sponsored by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration - two federal agencies that have been under fire by a Republican-controlled Congress that for a time last year not only outlawed any guidelines to push ergonomics but also forbade collecting information on the subject.

The ergonomics ban expired in October, and now OSHA is gearing up again to develop workplace standards aimed at reducing the risk of repetitive-stress injuries.

"We want to move this out of the political arena and get it back into the professional arena of safety and health where it belongs," said Peg Seminario, director of occupational safety and health for the AFL-CIO.

But despite support for government guidelines voiced at the Chicago meeting by business people as well as labor, organized opposition to government ergonomics guidelines remains strong. Its basic theme is that there isn't enough scientific understanding of the problem to justify government action.

"There is no consensus in the medical community at this time as to what causes these injuries," said Al Lundeen, a spokesman for the National Coalition on Ergonomics, a group of employer associations and businesses opposed to guidelines. "Guidelines could require businesses to spend billions of dollars and still get no results."

That argument resonated well in the last Congress where many members asserted that "bad ergonomics never killed anyone." But physicians point out that medical action is often taken to help people even in the absence of a complete scientific understanding of some malady.

"We know a fair amount about repetitive-stress disorders," said Dr. R. Samuel Mayer, medical director of employee health services at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago.

"We can't say specifically that this dose of daily keyboard typing will cause this individual an injury, but we can devise strategies to reduce the risks," Mayer said.

Redesigning a task to reduce repetitive stress isn't exactly rocket science, many employers agree. It usually requires only asking the employee who has been doing the job what should be changed.

At Sequins International, a women's apparel plant in New York, injuries dropped significantly when the workers were provided with adjustable chairs.

At Navistar International's Melrose Park, Ill., engine plant and technical center, people from an ergonomics team regularly meet with workers who have ideas for making their jobs easier.

One man who had regular shoulder pain was required to keep his hands raised above his shoulders to operate the controls for a lift device, said Bob Hilsen, plant manager for technical operations. Getting the control box below the man's shoulders was enough to end the pain.