OSHA Getting Tougher About Ergonomics 126
Pfhreakaz0id writes "Looks like the U.S. government is starting to (seriously) look at workplace injuires. See the story at CNN. Labor Secretary Alexis Herman
says, 'Real people are suffering real injuries that can disable their bodies and destroy their lives.' Amen.
Under the rules, a worker who has an ergonomic injury diagnosed by a doctor would be entitled to have the work environment fixed to relieve the cause -- by changing the height of an assembly line or computer keyboard, for example.
"
Finally! (Score:2)
why penalize the employer? (Score:2)
Theres no reason an employer should have to provide special workstations for employees who have a problem typing all day long. Why in the world would you want to continue a job as a typist when you have CTS? That's just plain stupid.
Filling in ADA's gap (Score:3)
- Under ADA, my organization was required to arrange for a 35" TV to be attached to a PC running in 640x480 mode so that he could use the PC (granted, this wasn't due to work-related injuries).
- Someone I work with has carpal-tunnel syndrome so bad (this is a work-related injury) that our organization was required to arrange for voice-recognition SW & headset for her -- the good side is she can now prepare documents far, far faster than anyone else can.
This move is clearly intended to prevent work-related injuries from getting so bad that ADA kicks in.Christopher A. Bohn
Great! (Score:1)
This is ridiculous: I have to sustain an actual injury (and have it treated) before anything can be done? That's like saying "IF you splash the cleaning fluid on your face and it eats away all your flesh AND a doctor verifies that you have no flesh on your face THEN you (but only you) can stop using the industrial bleach."
---
heh (Score:1)
Man they are slow =(
I hope I'm not lying when I'm saying that the swedish government is really focusing on it.. at least that's the impression I got. If you have another story please correct me =)
More Lawsuits Coming... (Score:2)
I'm sure there were well intended purposes for this but unless it's tightly regulated it'll be another out of control loop hole for the 'lawsuit lottery'.
Ergonomic?? Don't think so... and a website nit (Score:1)
The buttons on this pen seem like they would take some real getting used to.
And now for more of the same...
The Freepen site was very interesting, even though I my browser supports both text and graphics, the good folks at FreePen thought I needed Flash to display their menu.
While a whizbang menu it was, I expect more than just good looks for the time it took to download. For instance, when I hit the back button in my browser, the 85k(!) Flash menu didn't catch that I wasn't viewing the same page anymore.
Also, they claim that there were no repetive stress injuries before computers...umm...there were none, or they weren't reported/known as such. I seem to recall hearing that typists in the '20s and '30s frequently had wrist pain. They also imply that using a pen is always better than the mouse.
I don't know about you but my hand *hurts* after 20 minutes of writing. I surf all day and not have my wrist/hand hurt. (College essay tests were hell.
i just don't think that the pen is going to help the problem any...seems like the Logitech and MS ergo mice are a better solution (where the wrist is allowed to maintain a "neutral" position.)
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:4)
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
There's no reason an employer should have to provide oxygen for employees who have a problem breathing all day long. Why in the world would you want to continue a job as a coal miner when you have Black Lung? That's just plain stupid.
--
No, I think that you are the one that is stupid...
hasty waste of money (Score:3)
A good friend of mine designs workstations for large companies and can see that this is not going to do anyone much good. They've been spending a ton of money on this already, throwing out pefectly good funiture for new more "ergonomic" stuff. Mostly, it's been going to overwheight whiners who would be better off if they simply exercised and tried to keep healthy. A thousand dollar chair won't solve their problems. Data entry people and others who could really benifit won't.
On the blue colar front, the low threshold will waste more than it fixes. As a former RPS PM loader, I can assure everyone that manual labor will wear you out regardless of back protectors, converyor belts, bells, whistles, or a federally mandated desk jockey! No amount of coaching can prevent accidents, and people who lift 50lb boxes all day will eventually suffer back problems.
TCO certification (Score:1)
Unfortunately, when TCO was going to make cheap computers available for their members, the printers offered in the package were not TCO 99 marked, because those would have made the computers too expensive. Oops. Back to the drawing board.
I still think its a good idea though. We love computers, but we must consider the toll on people and especially the enviroment.
************************************************ ***
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Great! (Score:1)
--
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:3)
As an analog to this situation think about a coal miner in Nowhere, WV, where the job market is in the toilet. If the only jobs avail. are in coal mines, do you think it is right for a mining company to negelect basic safety measures simply because the employees are free to quit if they think they have an unacceptable likelihood of dying? Yes, you won't die from typing too much, but you can suffer crippling injuries that are not too expensive to prevent.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:3)
I think that these regulations are targetted at 2 sorts of workplaces - large ones where there is a known history of RSI-related problems (like the aforementioned poultry place) - these will have to make proactive changes to protect their employees - just like say a coal mine where people suffer from black lung disease would be required to provide clean air.
The second are small places where individuals come down with particular problems - for example if I come down with tendonitis (as I have for the past 10 years) because I'm a programmer then my employer will be required to take reasonable steps to protect me from health problems resulting from me performing my job - in my case a chair that comes to the right height and a trackball instead of a mouse seems to do the trick.
I think that one of the more general problems with RSIs is that they've only recently been recognised as something real - primarily because a bunch of white collar workers like me started coming down with them - before that induestry quietly burned through the chicken workers of the world without a big stink being raised
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
But don't forget that most hospitals don't have in-room internet connections yet, so I guess you won't be able to post to
(The first post was funny. The second was slightly funny. The third was tired. The fourth deserves punishment, even if it has been 'Hand-Crafted' to stay on-topic.)
RSI... (Score:1)
I'm sure there are cases where this is needed, but I bet the whiny bitches are the ones who are going to get the most use out of it.
Re:Great! (Score:4)
Either way, they win. Why do you think companies insist on using Windows?
Can't legislate "ergonomic"? (Score:1)
The existence of OSHA depends on the federally-regulated definition of "safe" which is just as difficult to define.
Furthermore, this just pushes the definition stage down a level. Now every case based on this law will have to decide "was the workstation ergonomic" without any guidance on what "ergonomic" means.
---
Re:Filling in ADA's gap (Score:2)
That is not particularly uncommon. Most of the changes that would be required are actually in the companies' own best interest, but the PHBs in charge are too clueless to figure it out. Much of this is because the cost of a better keyboard is obvious on the balance sheet while the productivity loss an employee suffers because typing is painful is invisible.
It is similar to the way study after study has shown that programmers working in offices with closable doors have two or more times the productivity. And yet 95%+ of us are still stuck in cubicles.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:2)
because I think it should be the responsibility of the employer to WANT to provide a good environment for their workers so that their workers dont all quit and go work somewhere better?
because I think that an employee has a responsibility to actively pursue a good situation for himself, instead of sitting back and expecting the federal government to regulate away all his troubles?
because I think that a situation where businesses are free to compete as they see fit is better than a situation where businesses hands are tied by a government that reacts to studies that it comissioned that arent even FINISHED?
if you're going to sit there on the other side of your little Anonymous Coward shield and call me stupid, you better at least be able to justify it. my opinions are the result of experience and reflection, and you respond to them with an infantile insult.
thanks for playing.
Woohoo! (Score:1)
OHSA and ergonomics (Score:2)
Ergonomics is an odd and 'fluid' science, which is still pretty young. People are too variable. There is no magic formula that relates desk, chair, keyboard, and monitor heights (and distances) to a person's size and shape. Two 180cm guys, both weighing 77kg, and having the same inseam length, may still have different ergonomic requirements, based on things as indirect as how they walk, and whether they cross country ski.
Also, consider that no environment, no matter how ergonomic, will be a good solution for someone sitting for ten hours without taking a break. In fact one of the current ergonomic theories is based on the idea that, "your best position is your next one." In other words, staying in one position will ultimately cause problems.
So the question is, who decides what is or isn't ergonomically correct? If you have an assembly line that changes in height from one end to the other, and someone is placed at what should be the "correct" place along it for their height, is the company liable for them developing back problems because their hips are sloped inwards? Is a company responsible for an employee who developed RSI, when records show that they didn't take their appointed coffee breaks?
None of which, of course, should take away frmo the point of the law--to eliminate universally _bad_ ergonomics from the workplace.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:2)
I'm not opposed to companies having good (or great) conditions for their employees. I work for a company that has awesome working conditions. but we're that way not because we're tryign to follow every law that comes down the pike regardign employee conditions, but because we dont anyone to quit because it's unpleasant or painful to work.
the answer to every problem is not "Pass more laws." maybe if the business sector was allowed to operate freely AND people were smart enough to voice their opinions by no longer allowing a company to use their labor to profit (ie, QUIT), then working conditions would get better.
Re:Can't legislate "ergonomic"? (Score:1)
Under the rules, a worker who has an ergonomic injury diagnosed by a doctor would be entitled to have the work environment fixed to relieve the cause -- by changing the height of an assembly line or computer keyboard, for example (abcnews). If a company can't fix the cause of the worker's injury, than the patient is granted benefits while he or she recovers away from the job. Basically this legislation relies on a doctor's diagnosis of an injury, not a nebulous definition of "safe working environment", and this is the only way it could work.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
Re:Why moderate up a troll? (Score:2)
1. you have a job
2. you get hurt on the job
3. if your employer is negligent, you prove it in a court and get a hefty cash award
You have now been injured and then compensated by your employer. You have 3 choices:
1. go back to work and hope you dont get hurt again
2. go back to work and whine about how conditions are shitty and more people like you are going to get hurt and maybe you'll even get hurt again and we should change policy around here and why is my mouse making my hand hurt and why are these lights so bright and if they dont reconfigure my workstation I'm going to sue again
3. QUIT, FIND A JOB WHERE YOU WONT INJURE YOURSELF ANYMORE.
(note, I capitalized the correct answer to help you figure out what's going on.)
explanation/answer key:
if you go back to work and dont complain, nothing will change.
if you go back to work and complain and generally be a nuisance; if you invoke these laws to improve the environment, then perhaps the environment will get better.
if you quit, the company will be FORCED to notice the reasons for you quitting and the fact that you are no longer there. they can rehire some new employee to replace you, but if things are that bad, he'll quit too. the employer will have to make some changes in the environment or he will not be able to retain any employees.
did you notice that the outcome is essentially the same in situations 2 and 3? basically, the only differences in these two situations is that in situation 3, the employee had to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS SITUATION and TAKE ACTION.
so, I repeat:
Why in the world would you want to continue a job as a typist when you have CTS? That's just plain stupid.
Re:Finally! (Score:1)
Sulfuric acid is better because it will tend to suck the hydrogen and oxygen out of organic coumpounds, leving carbon and a few other elements. MUAHAHAHAHAHAH...
Any CONCENTRATED acid should do the trick, though. (except carbonic
That's "If I Remember My Chemistry Classes Correctly"
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:2)
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
Re:OK to say "get healthy" and not pay a dime? (Score:2)
First, there a far more people out there that are _totally_ capable of cleaning up their bodies so as to be in good shape. Period. Quite a number of people, myself included, just don't take care of their body properly.
Second, there is a general level of health for the human body. Doctors know it, nutritionists know it, event the people with bodily problems know it. This is something that can be quantified and checked for. If the person is not maintaining that standard then they should - FOR THEIR OWN SAKE IF NOTHING ELSE!!!
Third, I said nothing about removing medical benefits. HOWEVER, if the person is not up to the basic standards of health then something has to be done. This, in reality, is the responsibility of the person in question. It's their body - they have to live with it every day - so they should be required to maintain it.
As for providing a statement of their general health being an invasion of privacy - didn't you have to get a physical and drug test before starting a job? I did. If the person has a TRUE medical condition and _can't_ get healthy then that person should not mind providing that information to the employer.
And finally, before you flame me on that last statement, the employer should not be able to dismiss/refuse to hire the person because of a medical condition. The employer should work with the employee in getting himself/herself up to snuff so that both parties can be productive and happy. If, and only if, the person has a true medical condition that can not otherwise be solved should the employer make a large amount of special arrangements.
Should the employer optimize the environment for his employees - yes absolutely.
Should he be made to alter every little thing to fit every type of person - no. It's impossible to do that.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:3)
Employers would have to correct injury-causing workplace conditions...
Sounds good to me. Perhaps you disagree - perhaps employers should NOT have to correct "injury-causing workplace conditions"? This has nothing to do with employees who are unfit and everything to do with keeping employees safe.
Why in the world would you want to continue a job as a typist when you have CTS?
Because you can't afford any time between jobs. Because you have bills you need to pay. Because you have kids to feed. If you'd ever been in this situation, you'd understand. If you never have, then consider yourself lucky. Not everyone can afford to find a new job. Not everyone has the requisite skills for finding a better job. And no employer should be permitted to cause injury to epmloyees through negligence.
This is not just about typists, you know. A friend of mine worked in tech support for a major OEM (think spots). She developed carpal tunnel syndrome. Although the IS department had a number of "ergonomic" keyboards and mice in stock, the management wouldn't authorize their use. I was told that if they let some people have them, then everyone would want them. She was in pain whenever she had to type. I should point out that this didn't happen until a year after she had started working there. It is not unreasonable to believe that her work has a contributing factor to her injury.
I have no problem with saying that if a potential employee can't do the job, for whatever reason, then an employer shouldn't have to change the job description to suit the employee. But if workplace conditions have been demonstrated to cause injury, then I am definitely in favor of requiring the employer to make changes.
why not self-regulation? (Score:2)
The company I'm consulting for has the following policy. "It's cheaper for us to get you comfortable equipment than it is to pay for your health problems, all you have to do is ask."
The regular chairs here are nice, but the guy across the hall had a car accident, requested another chair. The damned thing is tooo complicated for anyone to use. It's a web-type thing with 90 adjustments and controls. When it's properly configured, it's great. When it's not....
This is yet another instance where slime-ball lawyers smell a buck and will get on it.
If your company wont get you a chair because you need one, then maybe you should look for another company.
What *Really* Causes RSI? (Score:1)
Not to deny or disparage the very real physical pain many people experience, but I don't understand why other people have this problem and I don't.
I have been screwing with computers for over 20 years, starting with ASR-33 teletypes and moving onward. I slouch. I do not touch-type properly (I only use the first two fingers of each hand). My wrists are supported by the hard surface of the desk in front of the keyboard. I crack the joints in my wrists and fingers several times daily. I have been known to play Quake for five hours at a stretch (mouse + keyboard player). In all, I'm a fairly good example of bad ergonomic habits.
I have no pain, and never have.
I hereby offer my wrists for non-invasive study by any well-known medical reseach facility (Stanford's just down the block from me) to help learn why I don't have this problem, and how others can not have it anymore.
Schwab
Re:hasty waste of money (Score:3)
> if they simply exercised and tried to keep healthy. A thousand
> dollar chair won't solve their problems.
So, you're fortunate enough to not have RSI problems. That's great for you, and I really am honestly happy that you don't encounter the kind of pain that I live with every day.
Not everyone is as fortunate, however. I work at a job -- not programming; it's more data-entry and information processing -- where I need to spend nearly seven and a half hours every day sitting in front of my keyboard typing away. My employer, when designing the office, took *none* of the standard ergonomic guidelines into effect. The desks are ridiculously high, the keyboard trays that have been supplied break at the slightest hint of pressure, and the chairs are only mildly adjustable; the keyboards are ridiculously small, particularly for those of us with very large hands, and each individual workstation can only be customized so far. After *one* hour of sitting and typing, I was in so much pain that I couldn't even make a fist.
I went to the doctor back in February (I'd been diagnosed with carpal tunnel previously, and was doing just fine with it, based on sane and sensible guidelines for my home workstation) and got a specialist to order that my workstation at work be altered to provide a more ergonomic work environment. My company attempted to weasel out of things by stating that their workstations already were ergonomic, without providing any support for that statement and ignoring my assertation that the existing equipment was doing more harm than good. It is now November, and I will estimate that I lost nearly a month's productive time before finally having the surgery performed -- a step that might not have been necessary had I gotten the support I needed beforehand.
It seems to me that legislation such as this is a *good* thing. If we can prevent these problems before they reach the state that mine has gotten to, where I need a total of two and a half months off work for the surgery and the physical therapy, not only will it benefit the *worker* (no one should ever, *ever* have to physically destroy him or herself for a job) but it will also benefit the corporation (less employee absence, more productivity).
Sometimes, legislation is *necessary*. Corporations are unwilling to Do The Right Thing by themselves a lot of the time; it takes a fairly big stick to convince them.
As for people who have RSI problems being "whiners" -- I had reached the point where I was physically incapable of making a fist. Not just because of the pain, which is crippling, but because the muscles *refused to listen*. You cannot drive when you cannot grip the steering wheel. Among many other things. I have a remarkably high pain threshold, but living with debilitating pain
This reminds me of an old equal rights story (Score:1)
Regulation and hidden effects (Score:4)
I feel just the opposite, and here's why: by specifying "better" workplaces (certain fixed measurements / ratios or ranges of ratios / measurements for particular situations, say, or specifying the "correct" tilt of a keyboard)
the government wraps a tourniquet about the leg of new ideas. (To forge an awful metaphor.) They also considerably raise the cost of entry to start-ups.
There are a lot of ergonomically awful products in the world -- keyboards that feel awful, chairs that suck. Why do they sell? Because in the short term, they often offer an acceptable solution, at least in light of the cost of other available solutions. I'm told that Hermann Miller Aeron chairs are very comfy; I'm promised one soon. The reason that not everyone is presently sitting in an Aeron is pretty simple - look at the pricetag!
And as others have pointed out, no amount of tables, graphs and statistics can account for the subtle things which make some people comfortable with desk Y and keyboard Z, and others not.
There's less incentive to work on radically *more* comfortable products if there is an accepted "Good Enough to Avoid Prosecution" level
Government rule makers often do co-opt some good ideas (think the NHSTB invented the 3-point belt? Thank Volvo they didn't.), but there is a calcification which results when standards are legislated rather than allowed to bloom or die.
Some people counter this argument by saying that "We can't make compromises when it comes to safety!" Balderdash. I bet in 5 minutes you could think of a dozen examples where you've done exactly that, and with justification -- because a) perfect safety is an illusion and b) safety is just one of many factors acting on us. Have you ever gone 74 in a 70mph zone? Have you ever not worn a seatbelt on the way to the corner store? Have you ever biked without a helmet? Have you ever attended a concert without earplugs?
I don't like the term "safety Nazi" because I think it belittles the evil the Nazis perpetrated, but it would be accurate to call those who have been so labeled "safety fascists," because that is essentially is what fascism is all about: there is nominal private ownership of resources, but the disposition of those resources is in large part directed from above. "Sure, you own this small business. But unless you buy new (expensive) light fixtures, replace your old-style doorknobs with (more expensive) new-style ones, and install an elevator to the third floor for (potentially) diabled employees, afraid you can't run it without facing prosecution and possible fines. Oh, and by the way, you're guilty. Please direct all complaints to
timothy
Re:What *Really* Causes RSI? (Score:3)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:What *Really* Causes RSI? (Score:1)
Hope you lead a long and pain-free life. I really don't suffer that badly, and take steps to avoid injuring myself. However, if we can eliminate say 60% of the RSIs out there by design, then the consequences should (happily!) be more people like you.
Re:why not self-regulation? (Score:1)
> self-regulation would be the better answer.
Unfortunately, companies will often choose to save money in the short-term and ignore the long-term implications -- whether out of bureaucracy or stupidity, I'm not sure. It's been my experience that the larger the company, the less willing they are to take proper care of their employees. Take a look at history and the rise of the union movement for examples...
> If your company wont get you a chair because you need one,
> then maybe you should look for another company.
Excellent idea, but idealistic. It is not always practical to switch jobs, and I'm afraid that the attitude is more widespread than one might imagine. Believe me, if I *could* find another job, I would. I've been looking.
Besides, why should the worker suffer because the company is unwilling to Do The Right Thing? That's the sort of attitude that led to the sub-human working conditions of factories in the early half of the century. "If you don't like it, get another job". That is precisely what OSHA was founded to *prevent*.
Updates to OSH regs sorely needed! (Score:1)
To them I say "wait until it happens to you, or someone you care about!"
In my last job, I worked crazy hours in poor conditions, ergonimically. Was my employer willing to provide an ergonomic keyboard, a monitor stand, or even a wrist-rest? Hell no, they wouldn't even supply a mouse pad! Within a very short time, this took its toll in the form of ulnar neuritis/hyperextension. Fortunately, their health plan at the time covered specialist care, and I was able to get treatment (physical therapy) for this condition.
I ended up leaving this employer recently, for a number of reasons (this uncaring attitude among them) - a week before I left, they ditched this health plan (too many people were filing similar claims) for one that had much more limited coverage of such care. Like virtually none.
I can see some of you smugly nodding your heads. "Aha," you think to yourselves, "he's proved my point - no need to require more of employers, as this chap was able to find himself a better job!"
Bollocks. My new employer's health plan, like most plans out there, don't cover any condition for which I have been treated in the last six months - namely my neuritis. I have my ergonomic keyboard (that I brought from home), and some stretching exercises which help, but I can't get any further treatment for my condition - all I can do is hope it doesn't flare up again, or too badly.
It's a glaring omission from current regs that if I lose my arm in dangerous machinery in a workplace, my employer has some responsibility (unless I'm a fscking idiot, and it was my fault), but if I lose the use of my arm from banging away at a keyboard when my employer wouldn't provide a wristwrest, or a suitable desk, or whatever, they can tell me to pound sand with very little fear of retribution.
The opposition to requiring employers to consider ergonomics and RSI is similar to the same sort of crass opposition to workplace safety regulations in the early part of this century. "Oh, it'll cost too much - God forbid the CEO only makes 300 times the wage of the average drone instead of the national average of 419x. Guess they'll have to close the factory instead."
Fsck that.
-Isaac
Re:RSI... (Score:1)
If a little cash output to make the workplace a better environment for workers I'm all for it. I think that in a lot of cases it's not even a money problem but just that people don't think that ergo factors are important and they just don't think factor that into their decision.
Re:DEFAULT SLASHDOT MESSAGE (Score:1)
Anyhow, I'm glad I could help.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Why only talk of keyboards and mice? (Score:2)
Here's just a small example:
- http://live.av.com/scripts/editorial.dll?bfromind
= 940&eeid=990341&eetype=articl e&render=y&ck= [av.com]
Sure, it's about someone working as a phone sex operator, and masterbating too much, but still, they have a legitimate problem, too.Personally, I don't touch type, so because I move my hands how I feel they're comfortable, I don't tend to have so much problem with typing for long periods of time, although I'm not 100% accurate. (which I attribute to mental mistakes more than physical typing difficulties).
And writing with common stylii (whatever the plural of stylus is) hurts more than typing or using a mouse... especially for those of us who don't hold a pencil 'correctly' in the first place (lefties being the most common ones, and I learned to write from a lefty), but imagine taking 3 years of drafting classes, trying to write ANSI compliant letters, and holding your pencils completely ass-backwards...
Who pays? Employees. (Score:2)
Those of you who think you're going to use these regulations to sock it to your "evil" employer, think again. You're going to pay for the new chairs, the nice monitors, etc., not your employer. Employers consider more than salary or wage when calculating what it costs to employ someone. Things like new chairs, tables and ergonomically-designed keyboards cost money, and those costs are factored against the employee. The higher the cost related to furniture, better equipment, etc., the higher the cost of keeping your ass in the seat. Think about that next time you go to your boss to ask for a raise--he will, I guarantee it.
Increased regulation makes me nervous as hell (Score:4)
That said, I have a big problem with OSHA sticking their nose into this. The business of OSHA is to (if you feel they are a legitimate governmental authority - I have a philosophical opposition to their existence) prevent workers from getting maimed and killed. OSHA is for the construction sites, the meat-packing plants, and the assembly lines of the nation (places where workers are at significant risk of bodily harm), not the white-collar offices. Existing workers' compensation law should be more than sufficient to allow the free market to deal with RSI - if the employer does not make fairly inexpensive adjustments for the benefit of their employees, there will be more workers' comp claims and higher turnover, resulting in higher costs to the employer (insurance, legal, and training costs). It is to the economic advantage of the employer to provide a reasonable environment to their employees. If I'm productive at my task, my employer will make sure I'm properly equipped to do my job in reasonable comfort - if I'm not, they'll fire my butt. My company, as an example, is happy to provide trackballs, ergo keyboards, keyboard trays, and adjustable chairs to try to make the workplace as comfortable as we can for our employees. But we haven't worried about measurements to specific OSHA-inlicted guidelines or any of that crap - we do it because comfortable employees are happier and get more done as a result. It just makes sense.
The problem as I see it is that OSHA, like any governmental bureaucracy, has an institutional need to impose (without legislative mandate) more and more rules on the workplace in order to demonstrate their (OSHA's) effectiveness and justify their continued existence. Simply monitoring and enforcing a minimum of rules doesn't justify bigger budgets and pay raises for the people who work there and OSHA's constituencies on the Hill. This applies to virtually all the commissions and agencies (like the EPA, EEOC, and OSHA, to name the most egregious offenders) that exist outside the traditional Cabinet-level structure and most of the ones that are in it, too. It's just an ever-expanding mandate - will they regulate your home office - or Rob's, or Hemos' house once it's rebuilt as their next action "for your safety"?
This most recent Congress has been, by most conventional measures, a spectacularly inefficient one - nothing of any substance has been passed due to the partisan gridlock that's prevailed ever since the Clinton investigation kicked into high gear. And you know what? It's been successful as all hell. It appears that the nation does just fine without Congress passing laws - somehow we're just able to get over it, pick ourselves up, and continue building this economy to unheard-of heights. Coincidence? I doubt it. I'm a firm believer in the general philosophy of "that government governs best which governs least".
Hey - my cat wants to sit on my lap while I'm typing this - does this have OSHA implications?
- -Josh Turiel
wowst (Score:1)
Re:Why moderate up a troll? (Score:1)
1) The employer may notice, but they don't necessarily act on that information. In personal experience, some just don't care. However, if they get enough RSI claims, some policy adjustment is likely.
2) Some jobs that people may have trained years for require certain activities, such as typing or mousing (graphics/page layout). This time investment is not easily given up because a particular manager doesn't buy into RSI.
3) While employees should take responsibility for their own well-being, that is mention problems they have with a work environment, it is an employer's responsibility to act on reasonable employee requests to maintain health. I think this idea will certainly raise attention to how damaging RSI can be and how, comparatively, inexpensive it is to invest in compliance.
Of course, I've seen two very different ways of managing worker ergonomic needs.
1) A large computer manufacturer
I was working in a database/customer relations division. Within a week or two of hiring, everyone was given a 20 minute ergonomics evaluation at their workstation. Since workstations included a UNIX terminal, Windows NT box, phone, storage cabinets, etc, everyone was shown how to adjust their monitors/keyboards/mice for optimal comfort. Secondary devices, such as phones and rolodexes were off to the side, but in easy reach.
The benefit? a minimum of RSI complaints and when workers started to feel uncomfortable, they were reevaluated and adjustments to their cubes (with something like two feet of available height adjustment) were made. On occasion, people with back injuries were given stools and stand up workstations to allow them to reduce stress on various parts of their back.
End result: If there were problems, there was a mechanism in place to fix them. People stay healthy, the company looks good for being proactive.
2) Small newspaper
As an editor, I was on the keyboard for seven to eight hours per day. After a month, I noticed wrist soreness and purchased a gel filled wrist pad that helped neutralize how much motion I was making. There was a bit of resistance in expensing it, but they did. So, I took responsibility for what I could afford to fix out of pocket, if the employer would not approve my expensing of what I considered essential to the work function.
Of course, chairs weren't really adjustable and the desks were designed well before ergo became a concern. Hence, no one was really comfortable, at least 1 person out of the 8 in my department filled a worker's comp claim, over which my manager complained. I never found them very comfortable, but also could not afford to risk not being reimbursed for buying my own chair and workstation.
The end result: it seemed part of a larger company attitude to spend as little on employees as possible, regardless of what preventative effect might have been gained. Further, this employer doesn't provide for health benefits until you've been employed 6 months. They aren't exactly encouraging employees to stay and many don't. However, from what I've heard and from what I hear, the situation doesn't change.
While many employers are concerned about their employees well-being, those that ignore it in the sole pursuit of the highest possible profit margin should have the added risk of civil and criminal penalties, even if employees leave over RSI concerns, assuming the employer was notified and failed to act. Unlike the product market, employee departure (especially if limited strictly to RSI) takes a long time to correct faulty policy. In that time, additional and preventable damage may be done.
That said, I'd be in favor of allowing companies to claim ergonomic improvements as tax deductions, if they can't do so now.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
From which planet are you? Quitting and finding another job is only easy for a small group of people. Usually people that aren't working in environments that are potentially damaging for their healths. A well paid programmer might be sitting behind a computer all day, (s)he often sits at an expensive chair, and might even have an adjustable desk. But there are a lot of low income jobs that don't offer that luxery.
Why in the world would you want to continue a job as a coal miner when you have Black Lung?
It must be wonderful to be 14 years old, and still have this naive image of the world.
-- Abigail
Think For Yourself! Act For Yourself! (Score:1)
Re:Regulation and hidden effects (Score:1)
As for the other side, where gov. regulations actually hurt, I can think of two examples I have direct experience with. My wife is involved in the welfare system. Many of the reforms that have targeted welfare cheats by adding more and more rules actually hurt, because the judgement of the worker is taken away. Honest people who deserve help sometimes don't "bend the truth" around the rules and are disqualified, but dishonest people, who the worker often correctly spots as such, squeak by and the worker can do nothing except drag their feet to slow benefits down. The other example is mandatory minimum sentences and "three strikes and your out" laws, which similiarly takes away discrection on the part of prosecutors and judges to reserve years of scarce prison space to those they KNOW will commit more crimes if free. Thanks to our stupid "drug war", you'll spend serious jail time for having an ounce of weed, but very little for attacking someone with a knife!
The regs above need to remain flexible as to the "how".
Re:This reminds me of an old equal rights story (Score:1)
*gets dragged off for white coat fitting*
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What *Really* Causes RSI? (Score:1)
Maybe some people just aren't built for computer work? I dunno...
gutless (Score:1)
Random Thoughts (Score:1)
1) what defines "ergonomic" - what we consider ergonomic today will probably not be ergonomic in a few short years. Who defines what ergonomic is/isn't. This may seem trivial, but it isn't. If Joe Employee is sueing Corp X because he claims damages how do we know his keyboard/chair/etc is not ergonomic - can anyone say DES (Department of Ergonomic Standards?!?!?)
2) I really appreciate what OSHA has done to make the work evironment livable and safe. However, at what point (and this often happens with organizations) does OSHA go beyond resonable policy and begin trying to justify its budget. All social programs, if effective and useful, cause change and eventually are needed less. Is is possible that OSHA is simply trying to make a case for its current budget or even an increased budget (ie "see, we can't have cutbacks, look at how many people work w/o ergonomic equipment")
3) Is it possible that the makers of ergonomic furniture/hardware have lobbied for this??? (probably not, but just a thought)
The ironic thing is... (Score:1)
I wonder how far they'll take it. Some European countries, for example, have very strict laws regulating the amount of noise that a computer fan can make.
The problem with OSHA as it is currently constituted is that it doesn't balance costs with benefits. Everybody can agree that a regulation that costs $10 and saves $1 million in expenses/lost wages is good, while one that cost $1 million and saves $10 is pointless. The problem is gauging those in the middle.
While the benefits of enforcing ergonomic standards outweigh the costs? I doubt it, personally, but more importantly I have yet to see any evidence from OSHA that it will (remember, btw, that actions such as sitting at a keyboard and typing for 8 hours a day -- which I do at my job -- simply aren't "natural" -- human hand weren't adapted for keyboarding and using a keyboard is always going to be extremely risky).
Re:hasty waste of money (Score:1)
_joshua_
Re:Increased regulation makes me nervous as hell (Score:1)
Hats off to your company for being proactive and making the employees productive and happy. It is more than likely your company will not have to worry about the new regulations. OSHA only performs an inspection if someone reports a violation of the rules. If your workers are happy and RSI-free, you have nothing to worry about.
In economically depressed areas or industries, (like textile manufacturing) the market- forces "quit your job" approach doesn't work at all. If I have a choice between possibly (say, 20% chance) of crippling myself for life at my job or not being able to feed my family, most people would take the job, dangerous though it might be, every time. I would much rather have the government force companies to provide for my well-being before I am injured, rather than forcing them to pay workmen's comp after the fact.
I don't understand what all this whining is about costs. If market forces would indeed eventually force companies to spend money on improved working conditions to reduce workmen's comp, then OSHA is merely hurrying up the process a bit. What is wrong with that?
One only has to work at the downright evil working conditions during the height of the industrial revolution to see where market forces failed us. The rates of injury and death in factories and mines were astronomical. Workers then were more than free to sue, but obviously that didn't work too well.
I don't understand how you could be philosophically opposed to the very idea of OSHA. OSHA as an agency also does a LOT more than just specify handrail spacing, stair height, and a bunch of other admittedly nit-picky regulations. They are the force behind the "Right to Know" rules, which require employers that use toxic substances to provide employees with information about those substances. If you were injured by said chemicals, and did not know otherwise that the chemicals were harmful, how would you possibly know that your injuries were caused by them? (Especially if the chemicals were just mystery bottles of "stuff" making ID impossible.) OSHA also mandates lockout tags, forcing heavy machinery to be disabled while it is being worked on.
About your comment saying that OSHA was only for places where people are at risk of significant bodily harm: While not life-threatening, RSI can be (and often is) a permanently disabling injury that can completely disable your wrists and hands. Disablilty payments are small compensation for being unable to hold a toothbrush for the rest of your life.
One common way to avoid injuries... (Score:1)
Is to replace clumsy humans with robots that don't complain, need bathroom breaks, or rat their employers out to OSHA.
Anything which makes human hands marginally more expensive means some company(ies) will choose to automate a line, and X-dozen working people will lose their jobs. Then the unions will moan. Yet one more reason to replace people...
-cwk, who will agree not to sue his employer in exchange for a 10% raise. Otherwise, who knows...
monitors (Score:1)
Now I can just say that these monitors are ergonomic. In fact, I can now buy even better monitors (assuming we have the money). And if someone complains, we might have to get even better monitors. The next thing will be that we have to get LCD flat panel displays as CRT are too heavy to move around.
BTW, we got Viewsonic PS790's as we liked the overall quality, price, and short-neck design. Please, no flame wars about what monitor you like.
This is GOOD news!!! (Score:1)
I personally suffer from Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, due mostly to computer use. In addition, I have spoken with and consulted dozens of other computer users who have serious, debilitating back, neck, shoulder, and arm pain from incorrect sitting posture, mouse and typing technique, and workstation setup. Almost ALL of the users I support have some sort of discomfort, and without correct equipment and training, it only gets worse.
The answer for me has been taking Yoga, sitting up straight, getting the monitor level with my eyes, and NEVER using the mouse! That's right. I never touch it unless I absolutely have to.
But typical users don't know or understand why they suffer from their computer use or how to use it right. There are horror stories aplenty in the physical therapy clinics and unemployment lines. RSI injuries from poor computer ergonomics can cripple a person. Make no mistake; this issue is a TIDAL WAVE!
Those that complain about the poor companies and "why should they have to pay for someone else's problem" are the same cretins who invest in sweatshops. Ask them their opinion on child labor laws and you'll get a good idea of their ethical stance.
Hammer your supervisors! They would dispose of you like a sandwich wrapper if you get crippled and can't work for them anymore. Make them pay for training, trackballs, and decent monitors.
And see you in Yoga class!
-- Aaron, LAN Admin
-- An Oakland, CA law firm
Yet. (Score:1)
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:2)
There is one window, which only one of us can see out of. The room is ONE electrical circuit, housing twelve computers and monitors, a switch, two mini-refrigerators, a host of laptops, lights for the workbench, fans to keep us cool because we can't even open our window to get rid of excess heat.
Our circuit is so overloaded, that we can't have all the monitors turned on at the same time (we have several servers in the room) without tripping the breaker. The wiring is a fire marshal's nightmare, now add in the fact that there may be from two to four students also working in the room at the same time, and you have a situation in which fire could easily break out, in which I have difficulty walking around all the chairs, equipment, etc. to get to my desk when I'm calm and not on fire.
So why don't I complain? Why doesn't the University give us more space? Well, when I do, they tell me that we'll get more space in two years, when another building is done being renovated, and that we just have to suffer for now. Our desks are hand-me-downs that were being thrown out, they're not even remotely ergonomic. Our chairs are the cheapest of the cheap office furniture, my cheap-o $128 chair from Staples that I use at home is twice as comfortable as my work chair. I've requested a Kinesis keyboard multiple times, but have had to use an old Microsoft Natural that I dug out of a closet, because I'm told we can't afford it in the budget.
In short, I'd love for ergonomics to be law. Every couple weeks, when I get fed up, I get very close to making an anonymous call to the fire marshal to have him inspect our office. I really don't dislike my supervisors, but I can't work in this environment for another two years, but this would at least force them to make some immediate changes or be fined.
It wouldn't get me an ergonomic keyboard, but I don't feel I should have to buy work equipment to do my job adequately. Should I also pay for my desk and chair? What about my computer I use? The phone bill? The power I consume? I think not.
---
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
I say it's about time some regs were placed on the office. Hopefully the PHB's out there will realize that the conditions in some areas of the workplace have degenerated to those approching the Industrial Revolution. Go up to Rhode Island and see the old mills and then tell me that these sort of laws are not needed.
Re:Regulation and hidden effects (Score:2)
Re:hasty waste of money (Score:1)
What you're saying is that you think employers should be forced to pay for it, and that I should be forced to pay for administration of it. If you don't like it, either bring your own chair and keyboard, or get a better job. Your employer doesn't sound like much of great employer anyway, based on what you're saying.
By saying you think this legislation is necessary, you're saying that force should be applied to make your way happen. I also suffer RSI, but I brought my own chair and keyboard, and all was better. I would never dream of forcing other people to do things my way just because it would make my life easier. If you do, you're a bully, not a victim. You knew you had RSI when you took the job, and now you're being a complete jerk, apparently, because your employer didn't make the RSI didn't go away. And rather than bring your own equipment to prevent your own bodily pain, you'd rather get the government involved, or as so far, get your physician to "order" your employer around. Thanks for nothing. I'm glad you're not my coworker. You sound like a whiner that won't take responsibility for his own good. I agree that not all people with RSI are whiners. But you quite obviously are.
You claimed sane and sensible guidlines at home, but you'd rather suffer, have surgery, and make trouble for everyone else than to take care of yourself at work, too.
What does that make you?
Re:Increased regulation makes me nervous as hell (Score:2)
My concern is with the way the government chooses to meddle. Should Congress pass a law stating that chemicals must be labelled (to use one example from your comment), I have no problem with that. Congress consists of elected officials, who are accountable to their constituents. Without digressing into my personal opinion of Congress, I'll say that if the Congressperson's constituents do not approve of the law, they can make it known to said Congressperson who can vote for or against it. I assume here that Congresspersons wish to appeal to a majority of the people they represent, and will take that into account when deciding how to vote.
I'm going to exaggerate here deliberately for the sake of illustrating my point, but part of the question when considering regulations are an "opportunity cost" - if a regulation would cost $1 billion, and save 2 lives, that's a cost of $500 million per life saved. Is that worth it? Yes, if you're the immediate family of thse two people (or one of them yourself), but that cost implies that approximately $2,000 comes out of each and every one of our pockets to save one of those people. Is the cost to society as a whole worth it? Probably not. Is it worth, say, an extra $30 per year (maybe not directly in taxes, but in increased cost for goods) to save 2 people? Maybe. To save 100 people? Probably. 1000? Definitely. And so forth and so on. The actual numbers here aren't meant to say anything other than that there's a cost to every regulation, regardless of intent. Politicians are accountable for that - spend too much of my money on things I don't value and I will vote to remove you from office. If a plurality of votors agree, you're removed, to be replaced by someone we agree with. If I vote against you and lose, then that's fine - the people have a different priority and I'll live with that (unless I'm one of the two people not saved - oof!). In reality, I might well vote to spend the money to save those people. Or I might not. It depends.
Mind you, I understand well where you're coming from - at my old company I was responsible for the network and the people who operated the imagesetters and proofing equipment - we mixed our own developer and toner (we called going for fresh water to mix with "making a soup run"). We kept the MSDS sheets for everything, installed everything possible to keep the environment safe, and installed eye protection kits and wash stations. It was nasty stuff, but we had to do it - again, because we wanted to keep employees. Ironically, we weren't too good about things like wristrests or keyboard trays but hazmat - we had that nailed. My current company doesn't do any of that but, as I said, the goals are the same.
In OSHA, we have a group that has no accountability to anybody formulating rules based on their need to keep regulating to survive. If OSHA wants to inflict a rule (not necessarily this one, mind you) that has a destructive impact on the economy, they can go ahead and do so - nobody will vote them out of office. Once OSHA was created, they were given the authority to do what they saw fit - and Congress gets to stay out of it. Regulations are better addressed through laws passed by lawmakers, not rules passed by an agency. Remember "Know Your Customer"? Or the Clipper Chip? Things like that happen when there is no direct accountability to the voters/taxpayers. Congress should pass the regulations, and OSHA, if it existed in my world, would make sure those regulations were enforced. Your textile workers and industrial workers would still be protected all the same. That's the beauty of our system, flawed though it is.
I'm not willing (despite my obviously Libertarian leanings) to go out on a limb and say the invisible hand of the market can address every single ill - that's terribly impractical even if it's technically "the Right Thing". But our ills should be addressed by accountable politicians, not unelected bureaucrats.
- -Josh Turiel
Hmmm.... (Score:2)
Is it something a new keyboard could really fix, or a new desk or any new hardware? Give me examples because I am obviously unaware of them.
We live in the most sue happy period and the excessively large awards handed out have just fueled it to new heights. To a very removed observer this just looks like more of the same. The defective part isn't the one most often serviced; it is the squeaky (or in my terminology bitchy) wheel.
Re:hasty waste of money (Score:1)
> a complete jerk, apparently, because your employer didn't
> make the RSI didn't go away.
Yes, I knew that I had RSI when I took the job. And no, I'm not expecting that the employer should make the RSI go away; you *can't* make RSI go away once it's present.
I *brought* my own fscking keyboard to work. They wouldn't let me install it. Get it through your head -- employers are *not* on the employee's side in matters such as these. They are in it to make a buck, not to protect employee health. And far too many companies are wedded to their own way of doing things. And I ask you -- why must the employee fight to protect his or own health in a work environment, while the company can get away with inducing those damages unscathed?
I'm not espousing "my way" in the sense that I think that government should step in and micro-manage a workplace. However, there is *no reason* why workers should be given inadequate material with which to do their job and then have no recourse to getting that situation rectified without having to leave the job.
*How* does legislation that *protects* an employee consitiute 'bullying'? Why does a system in which employees are given *more* rights and *more* ways to get what they need obviously stir such anger and vitriol in you? Perhaps you would rather go back to the days when workers were abused for sixteen hours a day in sub-human working conditions, with dangerous chemicals and equipment, with no regulatory body to step in and say "No, you can't do that" -- the very conditions OSHA was created to prevent.
WRONG!!! (Score:1)
And speaking of cost/benefit analysis, I could hire a desperate immigrant to assemble dynamite in my backyard for $5/hour. If he makes $10,000 worth of dynamite before he blows himself up, and I've only paid him $1,000, I've made a profit!!! The COST of training him and providing safety equipment may well outweigh the BENEFIT, since I can just sweep up his remains and hire a new one.
Does this plan pass your ethical test? Why or why not? How is it different, except in severity, than ignoring and/or neglecting REAL and SEVERE ergonomic hazards for one's office employees, with the knowledge that existing legal protection and compensation are comparatively inexpensive?
That's the way it is NOW. Worker's Compensation insurance, though expensive for blue-collar workers, is cheap for office workers. Even a person who is totally crippled by RSI can't expect more than $50K for the loss of the use of their arms. In most cases, the employer's insurance would pay it. The cost of training, new equipment, and most of all, allowing sufficient break time would be much greater. That's why companies DON'T DO IT CURRENTLY!
And that's why we need the government to force them to.
-- SuperBusTerrific
Ergonomics is as important as other OSHA regs (Score:1)
I don't see why anyone would gripe about OSHA issuing standards for ergonomics. There are people who know a lot about this stuff, and bad ergonomics really can be crippling over a long period of repetitive motion. I speak from personal experience, here.
Does everyone arguing against this move think that OSHA should simply not exist? That the whole labor law idea is a silly throwback to days of socialist uprisings? Come on.
People are saying these regs may cost industry 4 billion dollars a year. That sounds bad, but that's not taking into account how much may be saved in medical costs, disability, and the destruction of careers.
Re:hasty waste of money (Score:1)
I *brought* my own fscking keyboard to work. They wouldn't let me install it.
That changes things. I apologize. Your employer sounds like a real joy to be with. Not.
*How* does legislation that *protects* an employee consitiute 'bullying'?
Because others (taxpayers) must now pay to administer this program, and it expands the reach of the government that much further. The fact is, government is the only organization (other than criminal organizations) that can force a particular set of behaviors on people. There is absolutely no reason to expand the government in things that don't concern national defense. And no, I am not a war-lover. I mean national defense.
Government programs inevitably wind up convoluted and cross-purpose to their original goals. I have had awful employers that essentially enslaved their employees, and my current employer is the most gracious kind company I could ever dream to work for (and no, they don't know who I am here, or my alias here). Government has no place forcing either of them to do anything. The entire concept of government comes to to force, and those who benefit from that or support it are now forcing their will upon others, because if the others don't comply, they will be dealt with by force... fines, more fines, loss of operating license, prison... and that is exactly how it happens.
Is this what you want? Your employer not allowing you to bring use your own keyboard is cruel. Forcing them to allow you to do so is just wrong. Sooner or later you will be the target of this force, if you're not already.
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
- A company that definitely puts it's own interests above mine (it's responsible to shareholders, not me)
- A government that claims it is responsible to me and in this case claims it's looking out for my interests (it's responsible to it's taxpayers, including me)
Of course nothing's perfect - the company's made up of people, some good, some bad so it's probably better to me than it could be - same with the govt. - so it probably doesn't succeed perfectly at what it does either.Luckily for us companies are allowed to buy politicians, but can't vote. And we can vote, but can't afford the politicians (well Bill can but not the rest of us). At some level it's a bit of an impass (though I tend to think buying politicians does seem to have somewhat of an advantage).
Re:Regulation and hidden effects (Score:1)
Sure, you own this small business...Oh, and by the way, you're guilty
The vast majority of government workplace regulations do not apply to companies under a certain size (depending on the specific regulations) so they almost never apply to "small companies" or startups.
I know it's fashionable to assume the government is out to kill industry and all profit (presumably because they want to destroy the economy?) but they usually enact legislation in a responsible way...
Re:Great! (Score:1)
--
Phone sex workers (Score:1)
Employers
would have to correct injury-causing
workplace conditions that require
repetitive motion, overexertion or
awkward posture under proposed
regulations the Labor Department
was announcing Monday.
With reference to a lawsuit that has been in the news recently, does this also apply to phone sex workers who may injure themselves by masturbating too much?
Re:Regulation and hidden effects (Score:1)
Go after Welfare, Standardized insurance, etc, etc, but give it break at some point. Yea, yea, Goverment is evil, and the World is coming to and end... yada, yada, yada.... OSHA ain't the enemy you thought it was. It's your friend, workerboy. Keep typing. You'll need a friend soon.
Ergonomics (Score:1)
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
Who says it has anything to do with physical fitness? Bad ergonomics *make* physically unfit, by encouraging all sorts of problems. In the computer industry it's rsi, carpal tunnel syndrome, back problems, etc. As to the comment regarding companies fighting tooth and nail for employees, that assumes demand for employees, which is why computer companies are currently one of the few industries that pay attention to ergonomic issues. What about people in mcjobs? They can be fired at will, they have no job security, "why did you leave your last job?" "they weren't concerned about ergonomics" "don't call us, we'll call you."
As to the question of typing, many many jobs today require typing. To say that anyone that wants to avoid injuries *that could be avoided if companies weren't too cheap to essentially trade off their employees' well being for quicker profits* is to suggest that anyone who wants to avoid injuries should limit themselves to working at Burger King (where OSHA regulations are already in place).
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
Re:why penalize the employer? (Score:1)
accomodate physically unfit employees
What's "physically fit", and who decides this ?
Ignoring the moral argument for a moment (that unfit or disabled people are just as "deserving" as the fit), then imagine what would happen to the software industry if guys had their code junked because they were too fat ! How many really excellent coders do you know who are (by any reasonable measure) grossly overweight ? Some of the best people around for many jobs are also some of the most unfit, and it's a foolish employer that discards good workers on an irrelevancy.
Typing one-handed (Score:1)
No, I'm not (Score:1)
For instance, who is to say if Worker A's back injury is because of bad ergonomics or because he spent too much time raking last weekend?
---
A possibility that bothers me... (Score:2)
Now what if, for example, I don't like ergo keyboards (which I don't)? In addition to loss of efficiency in adjusting to the new keyboard (would be a lot of time -- I'm not a particularly orthodox typist), I simply don't find them comfortable... not to mention a wristrest and the occasional position change pretty much solves my problems.
Nonetheless, to avoid potential costly lawsuits, my company could concievably require employees to use said ergonomic components. If they don't? tough... the liability falls on the employee. A regulation created to protect the employee becomes a liability and potential threat to his employment, should he not comply -- or at very least, gives the employer more grounds to dismiss employees on a whim, "those troublemakers, rabblerousers, who can't comply with policy".
Am I overreacting? Perhaps. Is it a possibility? Just watch.
voice recognition (Score:1)
Re:Increased regulation makes me nervous as hell (Score:1)
It is true that a price must be attacted to human life, but the cost in this case is not that great. Every billion that the regulation costs is approx. $5 per worker. (Assuming approx. 200 million jobs in the U.S.) If the ergo requirements end up costing $100 billion, that is only $500 per employee. I don't think this is going to have a catastrophic effect on American business. This is epecially true considering how many millions of workers have a significant liklihood of devloping RSI unless ergonomics are taken into account.
BTW, $500M/person / 300M US pop. != $2,000