It hadn't really occurred to me until I read this article, but cashiers at the little grocery store across from our apartment in Paris last Christmas did something almost unheard of in American grocery stores: They sat down.

The question of why American grocery store workers usually stand, rather than sit, was the subject of a Washington Post column today by Marc Fischer who tells the story of a customer, Deana Jordan Sullivan, who went out and bought stools for Safeway checkers to sit on.

Safeway officals said "Thanks, but no thanks."

"We do appreciate the customer's thoughtfulness and generosity," he says. "But sitting on a chair could potentially expose employees to injury. Part of their job requires them to lift heavy objects -- laundry detergent, frozen or fresh turkeys, cat or dog food. Their checkstands are designed to be conducive to standing."

Actually, although you wouldn't think the seating of supermarket cashiers would be an earth-splitting issue, the planet is indeed divided over this: In most European countries and in Australia, grocery checkout clerks routinely do their job perched on stools. In the United States, the tradition has been that they stand all day. And it turns out that this has more to do with image and notions of customer service than with worker health.

The British government's occupational health department issued guidelines in 2005 strongly recommending that supermarket cashiers be given sit-stand stools so clerks could sit when not lifting those heavy items. "A seat should be provided enabling operators to have a choice," the British study concluded.

A report by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that thousands of grocery store workers are injured each year by repetitive motions and awkward posture while scanning items and "standing for most of the shift." But Americans take a milder approach to solving the problem. OSHA recommends using anti-fatigue floor mats, which Safeway does provide.

The feds add only that grocery stores should "consider using checkstands designed with an adjustable sit-stand" stool.

Muckle says Safeway's checkstands are not designed to permit stools. Anyway, "culturally, I don't know of any American supermarket where checkers sit down," he says. "That is prevalent in Europe, but in our culture, if people saw that, a lot of people would wonder, 'Are these people really working?' "

Yes, traditional culture is always a good reason to keep subjecting workers to workplace health and safety problems.

Fischer notes, however, that the Safeway workers union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, aren't advocating for stools either.

Interestingly, the union that represents Safeway checkers is pretty much in accord with the company. "Safeway designs checkstands to be as ergonomically beneficial as possible," says union spokeswoman Jill Cashen. "Sitting may actually make the work more difficult."

The cashiers seemed perplexed, but not too upset about the prospect of sitting, however.

At her Safeway, Sullivan found the cashiers to be grateful but a bit wary when she delivered the stools. "They looked at me like I was a crazy white woman," she says, "and that's a reasonable reaction. It sounds like I'm obsessed with this, but I'm really not: I'm a busy working mom with two kids, but I just thought this was stupid. I didn't want to just whine about it, so I did something."

Sullivan, an executive at Discovery Networks, isn't done rocking the boat. She's rallying support from neighborhood online bulletin boards. And even though her stools remain in storage, she's found herself shopping at the Safeway more often: "Ironically, it's making me more loyal to the store and to the people who work there."

Cashiers at the store told me they weren't allowed to talk about the stools. But they smiled broadly at the mention of the seats and the woman who donated them. "Tell her to come in and see us," one clerk said.

Another added: "We'll be here -- standing right here."

Update: Hazards Magazine has much more on the hazards of standing.

Labels: Ergonomics, Grocery Workers, Safeway

Those of you who follow politics are celebrating the victory yesterday of Ciro Rodriguez over 7-term Republican Congressman Henry Bonilla in Texas. The election was held in one of the districts re-districted under the plan of former Congressman Tom DeLay. The election was held late because the US Supreme Court ruled that the 23rd District re-districting was in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Workplace health and safety advocates are particularly pleased with Bonilla's defeat. Bonilla sat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over OSHA’s budget, and he was one of the most virulent enemies of OSHA’s ergonomics standard back in the mid-1990’s, introducing a number of appropriations riders to stop OSHA from issuing the standard.

Bonilla finally overreached when he attempted to attach a rider to OSHA's FY 1997 appropriations bill.

That provision would have prevented OSHA not only from developing a rule, but even from collecting data on CTDs. But on a 216-205 vote, the House struck down the rider and labor groups and OSHA claimed a huge victory. OSHA was free to move forward with ergonomics.

In a further attempt to delay the standard, Bonilla sponsored a three-day National Academy of Sciences study of ergonomics. When that study came back supporting the evidence that musculoskeletal disorders were work-related, Bonilla introduced a bill for another, two-year NAS ergonomics study, along with legislation that would have prohibited OSHA from issuing the standard until after the study was released.

During a hearing on the proposed FY 1998 budget for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Bonilla questioned Centers for Disease Control head David Satcher on the scientific underpinnings for an ergonomics standard and submitted more than 100 questions on ergonomics to Satcher.

Bonilla, along with Congresswoman Anne Northup, also recently defeated, were the two main co-sponsors of the legislation that repealed the standard in 2001.

Bottom line. We're not sorry to see Bonilla head off into the sunset -- along with his buddy Tom DeLay.

Labels: Congress, Ergonomics

The Dallas Morning News ends a three part series about immigrants' lives in the town of Cactus, Texas with a story about hazardous work in the meatpacking industry. It's a familiar story: exposure to fast lines, sharp knives, ergonomic hazards and chemicals by immigrant -- mostly undocumented -- workers afraid to complain and unknowledgeable about their rights, all amidst the backdrop of consolidation of the industry into four giant corporations, relocation to rural areas, and a drop in unionization.

At the Cactus plant, inspectors said employees weren't familiar with information about health hazards on the site.

In the fall of 2003, for instance, workers in the "Slaughter and Blood Pit Area where the stun and stick operation takes place" complained about chlorine mists, OSHA reported.

The calcium hypochlorite solution led to bloody noses, vomiting, headaches and irritation to their eyes, nose and throat, the report said.

Employee interviews found that Swift "had not provided training" on the hazards from the solution, OSHA said.

Twenty-six former employees of the Swift plant are suing the company for wrongful termination, saying they were let go as a result of filing workers compensation claims after being injured on the job. The workers list injuries ranging from slipping on greasy floors to falling off ladders to being struck by a forklift.

Swift has denied the charges in the suit, which was filed in a Dallas County court.
Many workers simply accept the risks even in dangerous situations, critics say.
Some immigrant workers, whether legal or illegal, hesitate to file complaints. Workers often don't know their rights or fear getting tied up with immigration authorities.

"We don't have a choice but to put up with it. Or let them fire us. We have too many years invested," said the longtime worker.

The article also spends some time on OSHA's failure to enforce the law -- what laws there are -- and the agency's inability to accurately assess how big a problem there is -- particularly since the 2001 repeal of OSHA's ergonomics standard and changes in its recordkeeping rules.

The industry also maintains that total "recordable" injuries have declined 70 percent since 1990, a figure that critics say doesn't account for the full extent of problems inside plants.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which oversees worker safety at U.S. companies, does not collect injury figures for every plant.

Although manufacturing facilities must log worker injuries at the plants, they are only required to do so if the injuries can be proved to have occurred onsite.
OSHA inspectors can request the records during inspections; otherwise the log sheets aren't collected. The agency inspects about 75 of the more than 5,000 meatpacking plants each year.

"It's been a long time since OSHA's been here," said one longtime employee at the Cactus plant who spoke only on condition of anonymity. "When OSHA is here, everything moves nice and slow."


***

OSHA figures show a decline in meatpacking injuries and illnesses in 2002, the first year of new record-keeping that omitted a special category for repetitive-motion injuries.

The percentage of workers injured dropped to less than 12 percent, from 20 percent a year earlier.

"The reporting is really going underground," said Ms. Nowell of the union. "This is the biggest category of injury that's happening across the board in this country, and we're not recording it as such."

Industry experts aren't confident of major improvements in the near future.

Industry critics say the safety of workers needs as much attention as food safety. And pressure from consumers, much like a century ago, is the only way to force the industry and regulators to make faster improvements, said [Donald] Stull, the University of Kansas anthropology professor.

"There isn't the public outcry," he said. "The general public, as long as their food is cheap, as long as it's safe, as long as the workers aren't really that much like them, they can look the other way."

Labels: Ergonomics

Gotta hand it to Wal-Mart. They certainly know how to spin the press. They're happy all the time, they help people save money, they have "associates," not employees, they're the new environmental champions, and now they've apparently become a leader in ergonomics.

Of course, as usual, Wal-Mart's view of a good ergonomics program doesn't exactly match the experts' view of a good ergonomics program. According to the Bureau of National Affairs Occupational Safety and Health Reporter (paid subscription), Wal-Mart's program provides "lifting visual targets." They're called "Badge Backer" rules because they're posted on the back of each associate's identification badge. Pretty nifty.

The "Badge Backer" rules tell employees to:

• face the work (to eliminates twists);
• lead with their feet (also to eliminate twists);
• keep the shoulders square (to prevent side twists);
• keep the load close to the body (to reduce fatigue);
• "fly like a bird," (keep the elbows low and in);
• use a 90 degree bend (to keep the back vertical);
• do not hold (to reduce fatigue); and
• use a momentum swing (do not throw).

In other words, what they're promoting is "safe lifting techiques." Nothing wrong with those, unless they're all there is to the program, which apparently they are. The problem is that the best way to prevent back injuries is to lift less -- smaller packages, less frequent lifting, using engineering controls like mechanical lifts. "Safe lifting" doesn't reduce the weight that's being lifted, although it can help workers lift with less stress on the back -- unless the packages are difficult to grip, or you have to twist in order to get the box from one spot to another, or if you have to lift from too low or too high, or, or, or.

But Wal-Mart consultant Bill Mullen ensures us that if the associates follow all of these good ideas, "they can still go dancing after work." Or at least after their second job. Of course, during OSHA's ergonomics hearings during the Clinton administration, people suffering from serious musculoskeletal injures were more concerned with being able to pick up their children, vacuum the carpet and just living a normal life than "dancing after work."

Of course there are a few problems, according to Wal-Mart. Like if you use the nifty "momentum swing" with eggs, they're likely to scramble. And then there's the specially developed Wal-Mart "pull hook," which makes "pulling boxes more comfortable, eliminates awkward climbing, and makes the task easier." Except that there's still a problem with "catching and pulling freight at the same time," which I think means that you have to be careful not to pull boxes down on your head. The good news, however, is that each "pull hook" only costs one dollar.

And next year, Wal-Mart has in store ergonomic lifting videos and monitoring improvements in the use of "pull hooks."

Get ready to dance.

Labels: Ergonomics

This week's Inside OSHA (paid subscription) has a number of articles about what we might be looking forward to as a result of the elections. To summarize --

• Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who will chair the Senate labor committee, will reintroduce OSHA reform legislation that will increase penalties and provide coverage to many workers who are not currently covered by OSHA, like public employees. He can look forward to support from Rep. George Miller (D-CA) who will head the House Education and Workforce Committee. Miller, you will recall, was pushing a much stronger version of the MINER Act that was passed and signed by Bush last June following a series of mine disasters.


• On the other side of the coin, OSHA "deform" legislation," passed in the House by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), and pushed in the Senate by outgoing Labor chair Mike Enzi (R-WY) will gather dust.


• Congressman Roger Wicker's (R-MS) appropriations rider prohibiting OSHA from enforcing a requirement for fit-testing of respirators designed to protect health care workers from tuberculosis will be lifted. The American Hospital Association, which pushed the ban, will not be happy.
  


• Safe patient handling legislation to protect the backs of health care workers may gain headway. Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) introduced safety patient handling bill in the last Congress. At least nine states have all passed patient handling legislation.


• With Dems in charge of the budget (except for the fact that Bush has to sign it), we may be able to look forward to larger OSHA budgets to reverse an 8.6% drop in OSHA positions since Fiscal Year 2001, and more money for worker training grants.


• Michigan GovernorJennifer Granholm was re-elected. Granholm has been pushing through a state ergonomics standard despite fierce opposition from Republicans in the state legislature.


• Business assocations have been busy sending out alarms that the sky is falling, fearing that Democrats will try to push national ergonomics standards and force OSHA to scale back its volunatry programs. Not bad ideas, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


• Finally, let's not forget about oversite hearings.

WARNING!!

All of these sound like great ideas and you probably read them here first. In fact, unless you subscribe to Inside OSHA, the BNA Occupational Saety and Health Report, or other professional publications, you haven't read any of this anywhere else. That's because no one is talking about them except us. It's been a long 12 years, and there are a lot of interests out there who have been waiting a long time to get something done. Workplace safety is just one of those issues. And aside from the continuing problem in the White House and the fact that it takes 6O votes to pass most legislation in the Senate, there are a few other potential obstacles.

In order for any of these great ideas to happen, unions and Democratic politicians need to get behind them in a big way. And in order for that to happen, all of you reading this -- workers, union members, union staff, injured workers, families of injured and killed workers -- all of need to talk (write, phone, fax, e-mail) to your elected representatives, union officials, newspapers, television and anyone else who will listen.

Labels: Charlie Norwood, Ergonomics

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao is happy as a clam over a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report that the rate of injuries and illnesses have gone down for the third straight year from to 4.8 cases per 100 workers in 2004 to 4.6 cases per 100 workers in 2005.

According to Chao, all credit goes to

1) compliance assistance; 2) health and safety partnerships with labor, and; 3) targeted, aggressive enforcement against bad actors. (emphasis added)

Now I can't quite tell whether she's joking, or suffering from the same delusional disease affecting the Pentagon, but "health and safety partnerships with labor?" Puleeeze!

Oh, and Elaine, you don't get a reduction in national injury and illnesses number by going after a few "bad actors." You also need to go after all the other "normal actors" who cut a few corners here, rush a few jobs there, and ignore ergonomics and chemical hazards. Oh, and if you really want to address a signficant number of workplace injuries and illnesses, you might want to depend a bit less on the "compliance assistance," and issue a few new standards that address issues like ergonomics and workplace violence which make up for hundreds of thousands of injuries every year.

If the numbers are accurate, this is good news. But, of course, all of this assumes that we even believe these numbers -- and with cases of employers being caught cheating, with "behavioral" incentive programs that discourage employees from reporting injuries and illnesses, one could be forgiven for being a tad bit skeptical.

But most important, these are only numbers, statistics, millions of them. And as famed occupational physician Irving Selikoff once said, “statistics are human beings with the tears wiped away.”

What tears are we talking about? Here's one tragic example, and this one didn't even make it into Chao's statistics:

He lost his apartment two years ago, after losing his job. He lost his job after falling off scaffolding in an unacknowledged industrial accident. The company lawyer does not answer his phone calls. Now he has chronic pain, a hand like a claw and a bed in the homeless shelter.

My patient likes to talk about the apartment he used to have, and the honest satisfactions of a home. He liked taking his shower after work, watching his TV. He had a girlfriend who tidied the place from time to time. He took the bus to and from work and said that whenever someone was missing bus fare, he would reach into a pocket and supply it. It felt good, like buying everyone a round. He was not a drinker, but altruism was something he enjoyed.

He especially liked his apartment key. But no job, no key. At first, he slept in a condemned building; it gave comfort, and the illusion of a home: there were doors to walk through. After the building was demolished, he came to the mental health clinic. He had all the profound symptoms of depression one would expect. He understood that antidepressants take weeks to work, and dutifully accepted that fact. He was willing to be patient.

He got thrown out of the shelter, and built himself a nice lean-to in the woods, "using tree stumps and branches, and his one good arm."

He says he lies in it and can see the stars in the roofless sky. There is no heat or electricity, of course, and the house is not structurally safe, but he doesn’t mind. He looks up, and hours pass. In the dark, lying on the floor looking up, he begins to feel the absence of grief, of anger. He feels the blessing of no feelings at all.

The medication is still not working. It won’t work, when his need is for a key. He has begun to talk about train tracks and the uselessness of life. He says one day he may not return to the clinic. He won’t tell me where his house in the woods is, though for now he continues to visit it. It offers respite from the anxiety, rage and heartbreak he faces in the shelter.

Feeling nothing, he says thoughtfully, is almost like feeling peace.

4.6 per 100. I feel much better now.

Labels: Elaine Chao, Ergonomics, Recordkeeping, Workers Compensation, Workplace Violence

In November of 2003, the Washington state business community led by Building Industry Association of Washington sponsored and won a campaign to pass Initiative 841 which repealed the states progressive ergonomics standard. The campaign was based on blatant lies that convinced a majority of voters that ergonomic regulations would result in dead children due to the loss of insurance coverage caused by massive job loss that the regulations would allegedly inspire.

According to a recent decision by the Washington State Supreme Court, however, it turns out that although the ergonomics regulation is no longer in effect, back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and other musculoskeletal injuries caused by poor ergonomics in the workplace still exist. And, the Washington Department of Labor & Industries, which runs the state OSHA program, is allowed to use the general-duty clause of Washington's Industrial Safety and Health Act to protect workers as it had done prior to issuence of the ergonomics regulations in 2000.

The general-duty cluase allows OSHA to cite employers for unsafe working conditions even where no standard exists, if there is a "recognized hazard" that is causing (or likely to cause) serious injuries or death.

"Nothing in I-841 suggests that L&I is stripped of its general regulatory authority to address serious or deadly ergonomics-related workplace hazards" under state law, said Justice Tom Chambers, writing for the majority.

The high court threw out a Pierce County trial court's order quashing L&I's attempt to enforce a subpoena against SuperValu Holdings, a company that distributes groceries and products to independent grocery stores throughout the Northwest. The case was returned to the lower court.

Supervalu, which received an ergonomics citation in Missouri in 2003, is particuarly sensitive to OSHA's ergonomics activities in its stores. Part of this may be related to the fact that Supervalu's Corporate Director of Risk Control, James Koskan, was a member of Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao's National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics which was set up after the Bush administration and Republican Congress repealed the federal ergonomics standard. Supervalu eventually reached a settlement with OSHA involving a $1,000 fine and other items.

In the Washington case, Supervalu was apparently not in the mood to be cooperative with OSHA:

L&I received a complaint in December 2003 from an employee at SuperValu's Tacoma distribution center concerning an alleged injury from stepping on pallets.

L&I contacted the company and asked for a report on whether any hazards existed at the site. After a state officer inspected the warehouse, L&I requested additional material, and SuperValu objected.

In April 2004, L&I issued a subpoena for SuperValu to provide written information on its programs to prevent musculoskeletal disorders, injuries, or illness.

SuperValu argued that the voters' intent in I-841 was to bar L&I from performing inspections and issuing citations with regard to any musculoskeletal injury related to an ergonomics hazard.

So, six years later, we're back where we started from, at least in the state of Washington. In the other Washington (DC), we're back to almost zero. Federal OSHA has issued fewer than 20 general-duty citations during the entire Bush administration, and most of the fines amounted to mere pocket change. Is that any way to address the biggest health and safety hazard facing American worker?

Labels: Ergonomics

You think ergonomics is boring. Well, check this out:
Live, from Kalamazoo Michigan, Ergo Elvis, the troubador of pain, that hunk a hunka hurtin' tendon. Right here.

There are 3 songs in the video, performed in 2001 at a United Auto Workers Black Lake teaching facility:
1) The Work-a-rena
2) Ouch, I'm Tender (my favorite)
3) The Battle Hymn of the Ergonomic, aka, Ergonomics Forever.

Labels: Ergonomics

Sometimes I just don't know whether to laugh or cry.

First, the labor movement's attempt to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) allowing for card-check recognition of unions rather than the traditional bankrupt NLRB elections is gaining so much support in Congress that it's bringing the wackjobs out of the loonytoon closet.

We've already written, ad nauseum, about Richard Berman and his corporate-backed anti-union Center or Union "Facts" (sic). Now we have "former union activist" (which somehow adds credibility) Peter A. List striking fear into the hearts of vulnerable freedom-loving, terrorist-fearing Americans

"One of the biggest threats facing America today is the threat from today's labor movement and the Employee Free Choice Act, a euphemism for what should be more aptly called the Kill American Jobs Act," explains Mr. List. "If this destructive legislation is passed by Congress and signed into law, it will be the biggest political payoff in history to any special interest group and will have a devastating impact on small businesses and American jobs."

Ooo, sounds bad. Why, it seems only yesterday that the "biggest political payoff in history to any special interest group" were Bush's tax cuts, or was it the bankruptcy bill, or the repeal of the ergonomics standard? It's so hard to keep track of these things.

List's view of American history is also a bit skewed -- particularly for a "former union activist."

"After killing off entire industries in America," List explains, "it seems rather depraved that today's unions have become so pathetically desperate that they are willing to sacrifice the rest of America's workers whose jobs are vulnerable to globalization in order to unionize jobs that they deem can't be outsourced.'"

Now this is a rather curious statement, particularly in view of a New York Times article earlier this week that the median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. Meanwhile, productivity has been rising steadily. But, of course, everyone's not losing:

In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners — a group that includes many chief executives — received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago, according to Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, economists who analyzed the tax data.

And what's one major reason for this sad state of affairs, according to the Times? You guessed it, "the weakness of trade unions." In other words, a rising tide doesn't raise all boats unless someone is powerful and organized enough to make sure all boats get raised. (More on that here.)

You can check out his full press release if you have the stomach. One thing I'll give him is that what he lacks in reason, honesty and intelligence, he makes up for in hyperbole.

OK, moving right along to the next group of nutcases.

You may have heard that CBS is running an updated version of the Emmy- and Peabody Award-winning documentary "9/11" on Sunday, Sept. 10, in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the 2001 attacks. The documentary is an eyewitness account of the World Trade Center attack by firefighters and first-responders.

So what's the problem? Witnessing one of the greatest disasters in American history, some of the first responders filmed in the documentary regretfully lost their heads and used harsh language -- profanity that has rarely, if ever, been heard on network television. Although CBS has already aired it uncut twice before (with warnings), the Federal Communications Commission -- still obsessing over Janet Jackson's breast -- has since raised fines for on-air profanity to $325,000 per instance.

And as you might imagine, those right-wing religious guardians of our morals are having a shit-fit problem. Apparently fearing that children will be more traumatized by hearing the "F-word" or the "S-word" than they will by viewing people jumping out of buildings to their deaths and thousands dying beneath two collapsed skyscrapers, the American Family Association (defending "traditional American values") is calling for an "outpouring of complaints" to CBS and the FCC (emphasis in the original):

"9/11," which will be shown in prime-time, contains a tremendous amount of hardcore profanity. CBS has stated they have not, and will not, make any cuts in the amount and degree of profanity. CBS will ignore the law. The network is suing the FCC over the indecency law, saying they should be able to show whatever they desire whenever they desire. CBS wants no limits.

This is a test case for CBS to see how far they can go. If there is no out-pouring of complaints from the public, they will go further the next time.

CBS could very easily bleep out the profanity, but they refuse. The goal of CBS is to be able to show whatever they want at anytime. The network wants no restraints on their programming. If they are allowed to get away with this, they will simply air even more profanity in the future....

Or at least whenever terrorists knock down a couple of tall buildings.

I think Kathy Kirkland, director of the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics said it best:

This one is personal. I've been speaking daily with responders to WTC. What they saw was the profanity, not what they said. If you haven't seen the documentary under discussion, plan to watch but do so with a stiff drink. This isn't a scripted melodrama, this was real life and should be shown as such.

She's suggesting that we organize our own outpouring by writing to CBS and the FCC to support the bleepless airing of "9/11." You can find your local CBS affiliate here and you can e-mail the FCC here.

Do it. Otherwise the terrorists have won.

Labels: Ergonomics

I often joke about how there are a whole crew of high-priced attorneys at corporate law firms in DC who miss the good old days when OSHA actually did things like issue standards. No better opportunity to run up those billable hours than an OSHA standard that takes ten years to issue, and several more to run through the inevitable lawsuits.

But, of course, I was wrong to have worried. There's never any shortage of opportunities to screw workers.

You may have seen this unfortunate development in today's news:

A federal judge struck down a Maryland law yesterday that would have effectively forced the nation's largest employer, Wal-Mart Stores, to spend more money on health care for its employees here.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled that the "Wal-Mart Law," which won overwhelming support in the General Assembly this year, ran afoul of a 32-year-old federal statute intended to protect corporations from having to navigate a patchwork of benefits requirements from state to state.

The ruling could stymie plans by labor unions and health-care advocates to replicate Maryland's law in states across the country and turn the legislation into a model for shifting more of the health-care burden onto large corporations.

The lawsuit was brought by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, of which Wal-Mart is a member.

And representing the retail association was none other than Eugene Scalia, known to most as the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But Gene is best known to us health and safety types as one of the leading lawyers in the fight to kill OSHA's ergonomics standard. To reward his services, President Bush nominated Scalia to be Solicitor of Labor, the Labor Department's chief lawyer. Fortunately, there were enough Senators who didn't understand how a strident opponent of regulating Americas biggest health and safety problem would fit in as the Departments chief attorney, forcing President Bush to go around Senate confirmation with a one-year recess appointment. But after a year Gene either decided he'd never be confirmed or that the job wasn't as much fun (or as lucrative) as private practice, so he packed his briefcase and headed back to his previous lair at the lawfirm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

According to Wal-Mart Watch, Scalia is legal counsel to defend Wal-Mart against whistleblower claims, which must keep him busy -- and well paid.

At the Department of Labor, Scalia undermined whistleblower protections and supported the Bush Administration’s efforts to limit overtime pay.

Scalia’s actions at the Labor Department even concerned several of his fellow Republicans. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sharply criticized Scalia’s application of whistleblower protection provisions of federal law: “If this is the way the Labor Department intends to enforce the new law, then most corporate whistle-blowers won’t be protected.” Unsure of his chances of being confirmed by the full Senate, the Bush Administration gave up on Scalia when his recess appointment expired in 2003.

But we still fondly remember Gene as the slightly nutty guy who attended almost every single (billable) day of OSHA's multi-week ergonomics hearings in 2000 and persisted in showing every ergonomics expert who testified a photo of a desk and computer, and asking them to determine whether the photo showed any ergonomics hazards. The usual response, of course, was that you can't evaluate ergonomics problems from a photo. But that never stopped Gene from coming to every hearing with his show-and-tell props.

And it all makes sense as my former partner-in-crime notes: First make sure musculoskeletal disorders like back injuries or carpal tunnel syndrome aren't considered to be work-related (or compensable), then make sure workers don't have health insurance so that taxpayers end up picking up their health care expenses for ergonomics injuries. It all makes perfect sense -- if you're a corporate attorney like Gene Scalia, an apple who clearly hasn't fallen far from the tree.

Labels: Ergonomics

So let's talk about Workers Compensation. Workers comp laws came into being early in the 20th century in an attempt to resolve the problem of compensating workers for workplace accidents. The only avenue open for workers or their families at that time was to sue employers. Sometimes it worked out well for workers -- they got a lot of money; sometimes they got nothing. Companies weren't crazy about the system either -- particularly when they lost a big lawsuit.

Enter workers comp laws which were essentially a no-fault workplace insurance programs for workers. If a worker got hurt on the job, it didn't matter if it was allegedly the worker's fault because he or she was being careless or not following the rules. Everyone got compensated. In return, workers were not allowed to sue their employers. Almost 100 years later, the system is weighed down with enormous problems: inadequate compensation for workers, employers' fees aren't really high enough to present a disincentive to allowing unsafe conditions to exist; and the issue of workplace illness doesn't fit well into the no-fault context because it's sometimes too easy for employer's to argue that an illness was not work related.

But generally, the no fault aspect of workers comp has remained secure -- until recently in the State of Wyoming.

Here was the situation: Eleanor Perry, a certified nurse assistant (CNA) was recently hired at the Mountain Towers Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center (Mountain Towers) in Cheyenne, Wyoming. She was working the graveyard shift, one evening. The graveyard shift was chronically understaffed -- there were only three employees available to provide care for the approximately 50 residents on the floor where Perry worked.

One patient asked Perry to help her go to the bathroom. The patient had been designated a "2-person lift" patient -- meaning Perry was supposed to get help. One of the other CNA's on staff that night was busy and the other staff person refused because lifting wasn't part of her job description. The patient was in distress and didn't want to use a bed pan, so Perry decided to do it herself. At one point, the wheelchair that the patient was in slipped, and Perry injured her back trying to keep the patient from falling.

The nursing home fought Perry's workers comp complaint for a variety of different reasons -- basically anything they could think of:

(1) That Perry had the burden of proof as to each essential element necessary to sustain her claim for benefits; (2) that Perry didn’t timely report the injury to the employer; (3) that Perry did not timely report the injury to the Division; (4) that failure to report indicates that no injury occurred; (5) that Perry only worked for the employer for 20 days and was absent three times during that time period; (6) and (7) that Perry engaged in doctor shopping; (8) the Division found it inexplicable that Perry could get to work on 17 days, but could not get to her employer to report her injury (this was cleared up because Perry could not ambulate during some of this time on account of her injury, and because there was also a blizzard at the time that prevented Perry from getting to town to file a report); (9) that Perry had a preexisting condition; and (10) that Perry violated an employer’s rule by single-handedly performing a two person lift.

The only one that the Wyoming Supreme Court took seriously in its 3-2 ruling was the last: that Perry violated an employer’s rule by single-handedly performing a two person lift -- a point that was not raised by the employer when they first objected to Perry's claim. Perry had allegedly been trained when she started and was told that it was forbidden to try to lift a "2-person lift" patient without getting help. There was precedent in Wyoming law (Smith v. Husky Terminal Restaurant Inc. , 762 P.2d 1193 (Wyo. 1988)) stating that if someone violates a work rule, then they technically aren't working within their "scope of employment," and therefore workers comp doesn't apply.

In a dissent, Chief Justice Hill and Justice Burke argued that the Smith decision was outdated and that it was not clear that Perry had actually received adequate training.

Those are basically the facts of the case. But what are the lessons that we need to take from it:

• Workers comp systems seem to be going from bad to worse. If an employer can argue that a worker does not deserve compensation because a rule was broken, the entire system will break down. Check out employer's accident reports. More often than not, will list "worker error" as the cause of accident, even though a more thorough investigation into the root causes of most accidents are unsafe conditions and problems with the management safety system or "safety culture."


• Workers often don't follow rules, but it's generally not because they're screw-offs, it's because workplace conditions don't allow the official rules to be followed, and generally management tolerates it -- until someone gets hurt. In this case, according to Perry, the chronic understaffing meant that she was frequently forced to lift the "two person lift" patients herself.
  


• Why are they still lifting patients manually? A guide, Safe Lifting and Movement of Nursing Home Residents, recently published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health states that

  Research conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Veterans’ Health Administration (VHA), and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has shown that safe resident lifting programs that incorporate mechanical lifting equipment can protect workers from injury, reduce workers’ compensation costs, and improve the quality of care delivered to residents.....[and that ]investment in lifting equipment and training can be recovered through reduced workers’ compensation expenses and costs associated with lost and restricted work days.

  In addition, more and more states are passing laws "safe patient handling" laws that encourage the purchase and use of mechanical patient handling equipment, and the elimination of manual lifting. Sounds like the time is ripe for such a law to be passed in Wyoming.
  

Related Stories

• Safe Lifting Laws Make Progress, May 7, 2005
• Ergonomics Comes to Washington State Health Care Workers, March 8, 2006
• Texas Passes Safe Lifting Law For Hospitals, Nursing Homes, June 27, 2005

Labels: Ergonomics

A bit of amusing news from this week's Inside OSHA (paid subscription). Industry attorney Topper Thompson has been nominated for the open seat on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Thompson has a reputation for representing some of the worst of the worst, including the Avondale Shipyards in a decade long battle with the union that included some ugly workplace deaths and injuries.

Because Thompson would make the second business representative on the three member panel that decides appeals of OSHA citations, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) has put a hold on his nomination so that he and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), have the opportunity to ask a number of additional questions.

In response to one question, Thompson argued that OSHA should issue more standards and stop relying so much on the General Duty Clause, which OSHA can use when no standard applies. (The problem is that General Duty Clause citations are difficult to defend and are generally used only after an incident):

A second challenge [facing American workers today] is to create a more workable process to update safety and health standards in order to provide OSHA with a feasible alternative to excessive application of the General Duty Clause to address changes in our recognition of the nature of hazards. Long and drawn out litigation challenging new or revised standards has often frustrated efforts by the agency to update standards.

Well, that's surprisingly good news coming from the nominee of an administration that has issued only one major standard (under court order), repealed the ergonomics standard, and then broke its promise to use the General Duty Clause to cite employers whose workers suffer from musculoskeletal disorders. Over the past five years, the Bush administration has issued only 17 General Duty Citations related to ergonomics, the biggest cause of injuries and illnesses for American workers.

But hold the celebration, not so fast:

While Thompson says OSHA should update its standards instead of relying on General Duty Clause citations, when it comes to ergonomics he has a different viewpoint. He says that ergonomic injuries are real injuries but stops short of calling for a special ergonomics standard. “I believe the General Duty Clause can properly be applied to address a situation where an employer recognizes but fails to address a pattern of injuries by applying feasible engineering or administrative controls to reduce ergonomic risk factors,” Thompson wrote.

Oh well, now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Labels: Ergonomics

Anne Hudson, Director of the Work Injured Nurses' Group (WING USA) sends out regular updates of state legislative efforts to pass laws that "halt needless injuries to nursing staff, patients, and residents from hazardous manual patient lifting." In addition to recent laws passed in Texas and Washington state, Anne adds:

Massachusetts legislation for safe patient handling was introduced in 2004 and continues in the Massachusetts Legislature. California legislation for safe patient handling, vetoed twice by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 and 2005, has been introduced for the third time, in January and February 2006, into the California Senate and Assembly. Rhode Island and Florida each introduced safe patient handling legislation in February 2006 into both the House and the Senate. New Jersey introduced safe patient handling legislation in March 2006.

Importantly, the safe patient handling laws enacted by both Texas and Washington provide for healthcare workers to refuse to perform patient lifting or movement activities, without fear of reprisal, if they believe in good faith that the activity would expose the healthcare worker or patient to an unacceptable risk of injury. This protection is also included in legislation introduced by several other states.

Check out Anne's site as well: http://www.wingusa.org and get on her mailing list.

NEW NIOSH PUBLICATION

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has just issued a new publication, Safe Lifting and Movement of Nursing Home Residents, which seems much easier to understand and use than OSHA's nursing home guidelines. For one thing, the NIOSH publication actually describes the scope of the problem, something OSHA refused to do in its guidelines:

These conditions contributed to the 211,000 occupational injuries suffered by caregivers in 2003 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003). Because of the rapidly expanding elderly population in the U.S., employment for nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants is projected to increase by 25% between 2002 and 2012, adding an estimated 343,000 jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). Due to the ongoing demand for skilled care services, musculoskeletal injuries to the back, shoulder, and upper extremities of caregivers are expected to increase.

NIOSH also describes the current scientific literature on the causation of back and other musculoskeletal injuries, whereas OSHA offer only this statement:

More remains to be learned about the relationship between workplace activities and the development of MSDs.

Labels: Ergonomics

The AFL-CIO has issued its 15th annual Death On The Job report (.pdf), an impressive piece of work (particularly considering that they're operating on half the staff they had a year ago.)

The purpose is to report on the state of workers' safety and health. First the good news: Workplace safety has improved dramatically in the 35 years since OSHA was created.

Now, the bad news. According to the report:

Progress in protecting workers’ safety and health is slowing, and for some groups of workers jobs are becoming more dangerous....As the economy, the workforce and hazards are changing, we are falling further and further behind in our efforts to protect workers from new and existing problems.

Here are the "highlights", if you want to call them that.

Workplace Injuries, Illness and Death

• 5,703 5,764 workers were killed in the workplace due to traumatic injuries in 2004, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is an increase from the number of deaths in 2003, when 5,575 workplace deaths were reported. The rate of fatal injuries was 4.1 per 100,000 workers in 2004 compared to 4.0 per 100,000 workers in 2003, a 2 percent increase. The increase in the fatality rate in 2004 was the first increase in the national fatality rate since 1994.



• Fatalities among foreign-born and native born Hispanic workers increased in 2004. Fatalities among Hispanic workers increased by 11 percent over 2003, with 883 902 fatalities among this group of workers. The rate of fatal injuries to Hispanic or Latino workers increased from 4.5 per 100,000 workers in 2003 to 4.9 5.0 per 100,000 workers in 2004, a 9 11 percent increase. The fatality rate among Hispanic or Latino workers in 2004 was 19 percent higher than the fatal injury rate for all U.S. workers.



• 4.3 million injuries and illnesses were reported in private-sector workplaces in 2004, a slight decrease from 4.4 million in 2003. The manufacturing sector had the most injuries, accounting for 22 percent of the total, while health care and social assistance workers accounted for 16 percent of injuries and illnesses, followed by the retail trade at 15%.



• There were over 400,000 musculoskeletal disorder cases (back, shoulder, wrist pain and disability) in 2004, again accounting for nearly one-third of all injuries and illnesses involving days away from work. (Note that OSHA has estimated that for every MSD reported, there is another that was not reported.)



• Underreporting: The report also contains a lengthy discussion of how and why the BLS underestimates the number of workplace injuries and illnesses in the United States. We reported earlier this month about a Michigan State University study that showed that the BLS may miss two-thirds of all injuries and illnesses. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that the data doesn't count many categories of workers. Then, there are built-in incentives for employers to underreport, including workers comp systems that will charge more if there's an increase in injuries, and OSHA's system of targeting inspections at companies that report high rates. Finally, of course, there are employer programs of providing incentives to workers for not reporting injuries, or punishing workers that do.

The problem is not new, nor is it going away, despite the fact that the problem is well known:

Year after year, all of these factors known to contribute to significant underreporting are ignored as the statistics are rattled off and administration officials take credit for policies that drove the numbers down. Yet it is these same policymakers who are responsible for ensuring a clear and accurate picture of injury and illness in our nation’s workplaces.

We must not allow inaccurate data to drive safety and health efforts. Only with an accurate picture of the nature of occupational safety and health problems may employers and policymakers work to reduce the occupational safety and health hazards that cause workplace injury, illness and death. Until policymakers require an accurate picture, occupational injuries will continue and there will be no clear strategy to address workplace hazards.

Cost of Workplace Injuries And Death

The Liberty Mutual Insurance company estimates that workplace injuries cost U.S. employers $50.3 billion – nearly $1 billion per week – in direct costs alone (medical and lost wage payments). Liberty Mutual data indicate businesses pay between $150.9 billion and $301.1 billion annually in direct and indirect (overtime, training and lost productivity) costs on workers’ compensation losses.

OSHA Enforcement and Coverage

Staffing: OSHA continues to be seriously understaffed. In FY 2005, there are at most 2,117 federal and state OSHA inspectors responsible for enforcing the law at approximately eight million workplaces. At its current staffing and inspection levels, it would take federal OSHA 117 years to inspect each workplace under its jurisdiction just once. Things are slightly better in the 21 state-plan states that run their own programs. It would only take them a combined 65 years to inspect each worksite under state jurisdiction once. Fewer inspections were conducted in FY 2005 than in FY 2004.

Penalties remain low with serious violations of the OSH Act carrying an average penalty of only $883. Although the number of willful violations issued by federal OSHA increased from 446 in FY 2004 to 726 in FY 2005, 303 of these willful violations were against the BP Texas City Refinery where a March 2005 explosion killed 15 workers and injured 170.

In FY 2005, the Department of Labor referred ten enforcement cases to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Under the OSH Act, an employer may be subject to criminal prosecution in cases where a willful violation results in a worker’s death.

Regulatory (In)Action

This is a short section. OSHA issued only one major regulation last year, covering hexavalent chromium, and it was only done under court order. We've written a bit about this already (here, here and here), but in case you're still catching up, the standard was issued with permissible exposure limit (PEL) five times what was originally proposed by the agency; a level exposure which by OSHA’s own admission will leave workers at a significant risk of developing cancer. The final standard also failed to cover hexavalent chromium found in Portland cement, weakened worker access to exposure monitoring results, scaled back worker training requirements, and gave employers four years to implement engineering controls to protect workers.

Otherwise there's not much going on. OSHA still refuses to issue a standard requiring employers to pay for employees' gloves, boots and other personal protective equipment -- a standard that has been hanging around since the later days of the Clinton administration. OSHA says its working on five economically significant regulations (Crystalline Silica, Confined Spaces in Construction, Beryllium, Hearing Conservation for Construction Workers, and Electric Power Transmission and Distribution), but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Job Safety Budget

To sum up:

President George W. Bush’s proposed FY 2007 budget for worker safety and health programs reflects the administration’s policies toward worker protection—it includes priorities and policies that favor employers over workers and voluntary compliance over enforcement.

OSHA: Bush proposed $484 million for FY 2007. Adjusting for inflation, this is about the same as FY 2006, but in real dollar terms (adjusting for inflation), in represents a $14.5 million (3%) cut since FY 2001 when the Bush administration took office. As might be expected, more money is going to voluntary effort for employers and compliance assistance, while standard setting and state enforcement programs have taken major hits, and every year Bush tries to eliminate the $10.3 million Susan Harwood Training Grant Program.

MSHA: The Bush administration is proposing $287 million for FY 2007, a 1.4% increase over 2006, adjusting for inflation, but representing a $13.6 million (9%) cut, since FY 2001 after adjusting for inflation.

NIOSH: Bush proposed a $250 million budget for NOISH, cutting NIOSH's funding by $4.5 million over FY 2006.

Challenges

Hispanic and Foreign Born Workers: Immigrant workers face an epidemic of workplace injury and death and are at far greater risk of being killed or injured on the job than native born workers. Although the share of foreign-born employment has increased by 22 percent between 1996 and 2000, the share of fatal occupational injuries for this population increased by 43 percent. ,” Hispanic men have the greatest overall relative risk of fatal occupational injury of any gender or race/ethnicity group. 22 percent higher than the relative risk for all men.

Ergonomics: Ergonomic injuries still are the biggest job-safety hazard faced by workers, accounting for one-third of all injuries and illnesses. Yet despite Administration promises of a "comprehensive plan" for ergonomics following their 2001 repeal of OSHA's ergonomics standard, only three guidelines have been issued, and the agency has issued on 17 General Duty Clause citations over the past five years.

Pandemic Flu: Despite legitimate fears that the avian flu may develop into a pandemic that could make 30% of the entire population of the United States sick and kill 1.9 million persons, the federal government is failing to plan effectively how to protect the millions of health care workers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, home health care workers and other responders will be needed to care for those who are ill from the virus.

The Pandemic Influenza Plan, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, dangerously recommends the use of surgical masks instead of NIOSH certified respirators, and HHS is also pushing the idea to reuse diposable respirators. Surgical masks will not protect workers against the flu, plus they are illegal under OSHA's respiratory protection standard.

Gulf Coast Hurricane Response Hazards: OSHA’s presence in the Gulf has largely been providing information and it has yet to enforce any of its health and safety standards and carry out its core responsibilities in the areas most heavily destroyed. This lack of enforcement will put workers at increased risk of injury and illness.

Work Organization: Workers in the United States now work more hours than workers in most of Western Europe and Japan. Evidence is growing that long hours of work cause more injuries and illnesses such as heart attacks, increased blood pressure, unhealthy weight gain, increased alcohol use and smoking.

The ways in which work is performed and is being restructured are also emerging as a potential safety and health hazard for workers. Machine-paced work, inadequate work-rest cycles, time pressures and repetitive work are associated with musculoskeletal disorders, increases in blood pressure and risks of cardiovascular mortality. The nurse shortage is resulting in long hours of work and high patient-to-nurse hospital staffing ratios which have been linked to increases in needle injuries and near misses, nurse burnout and elevated surgical patient mortality. In response, nine states have passed legislation placing limits on the amount of mandatory overtime nurses or health care workers can be forced to work (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia).

And finally,

What Needs To Be Done?

Very simply, workers need more job safety and health protection. The Bush administration’s lack of regulation and increased attention to employer assistance and voluntary compliance comes at the expense of worker safety and health. The OSH Act needs to be strengthened to make it easier to issue safety and health standards and to make the penalties for violating the law tougher. Workers need to be given a real voice in the workplace and real rights to participate in safety and health as part of a comprehensive safety program to identify and correct hazards. Coverage should be extended to the millions of workers who fall outside the Act’s protection.

Immediate action is needed to strengthen mine safety and health requirements to protect miners in the event of an emergency, to prohibit dangerous practices like the use of belt air for coal mine ventilation and to increase penalties for serious and repeated violations.

A standard still is needed to protect workers from ergonomic hazards and crippling repetitive strain injuries and back injuries, which continue to represent the most significant job-safety problem in the nation. OSHA needs to keep up with new hazards that face workers as workplaces and the nature of work change. Hazardous conditions in the service sector and in retail trade need greater attention. OSHA and MSHA need additional funding to develop and enforce standards and to expand worker safety and health training. Similarly, additional funds are needed for NIOSH to support enhanced research on safety and health problems.

Labels: AFL-CIO, Ergonomics, OSHA, Recordkeeping

Ah, Heavenly Beds. Super thick mattresses, feather-filled duvets, incredibly soft sheets, decorative bed skirts, goose-down pillows -- five per bed!

"This has proven to be a very positive thing with the hotel consumer," said Joseph A. McInerney, president of the American Hotel and Lodging Association. "People have said they've gotten the best sleep they've ever had."

The beds may be heavenly, but as Steve Greenhouse reports in the New York Times, angels don't make them up every day; flesh and blood hotel workers do. And not only is everything heavier, but even with more pillows, sheets, bathrobes, etc, etc, hotel workers are still expected to make up the same number of rooms every day.

"It's gotten harder," said Dolores Reyes, a 55-year-old housekeeper responsible for 16 rooms a day at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Honolulu. "I've been trying to get my body used to it, but instead I'm feeling more pain. I've had to go to the doctor about my shoulders. That's what's killing me right now."

***

Reyes complained that some days she must make 25 double beds, a task that entails taking off, and putting on, 100 pillowcases. And then there are vacuuming, dusting, washing mirrors, scrubbing bathroom tiles, cleaning hair dryers, and stocking shampoo and soap.

But unlike hotel customers, hotel workers aren't taking it lying down:

The hotel workers' union, Unite Here, says injuries and the increased workload will be a major issue in negotiations this spring with Hilton, Starwood and other hotel chains. The union is threatening its biggest strike ever, one that might involve hundreds of hotels in New York, Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Los Angeles and Toronto.

"Our union has been increasingly pushed by our members in housekeeping to take a close look at this problem," said John W. Wilhelm, president of Unite Here's hospitality division. "The amenity arms race among the major hotel companies has dramatically increased the workload and the injury rate."

The work is taking its toll on the bodies of hotel workers.

Indeed, a union study based on statistics provided by the hotels has found that since 2002, when the amenities race began in earnest, the injury rate for housekeepers has climbed to 71 percent more than for all hotel workers, compared with 47 percent more beforehand.

Another study, by ergonomics professors at Ohio State University, concluded that housekeepers had so strenuous a job that they had a higher risk of back disorders than autoworkers who assemble car doors.

Still other research, by Orr Consulting, a firm dealing in ergonomics, found that the strain of making 12 or more king-size beds a day — many with 115-pound mattresses, 14-pound duvets and three sheets instead of two — exceeded federal occupational safety guidelines on lifting. And in a recent Unite Here survey of 622 housekeepers in Boston, Los Angeles and Toronto, 91 percent said they had work-related pain, 67 percent had gone to doctors because of that pain and 66 percent took medication for it.

American Hotel and Lodging Association President McInerney protests that "As hoteliers," he said, "we really respect what our workers do every day, because they take care of our guests. We don't want to do anything that endangers them."

Yeah, well you can't eat respect and it doesn't make beds.

Housekeepers, who earn $17,300 a year on average, invariably stoop over to lift mattresses, some of which are only 14 inches off the floor. They frequently twist their backs as they tuck in the sheets, often three of them rather than the two of yesteryear. Since it can take 10 to 12 minutes a bed, a housekeeper who makes 25 beds a day frequently spends four to five hours on the task, lifting mattresses 150 to 200 times.

"Almost every day I take Motrin 800," said Jackie Branson, 50, a housekeeper at the Chicago Hilton and Towers. "It's for my back and my shoulders, mostly."

After a day in which Ms. Branson has cleaned 14 rooms in the elite Towers section, she feels "whipped, beat, especially at the end of a bad day."

"Every time you turn around," she said, "there's something new that has been added."

Try that for a day or two, McInerney.

More Information

• Hotel Workers Get Ready To Rumble, February 13, 2006
• Injured Hotel Housekeepers Losing Pillow Fights, January 1, 2006
• Hotel Workers Suffer From Workplace Hazards, August 24, 2003

UNITE-HERE's "Hotel Workers Rising" website is here.

Labels: Ergonomics

The current national surveillance system for work-related injuries and illnesses may miss two-thirds of the total number of occupational injuries and illnesses, according to a study led by Michigan State University, East Lansing Professor Kenneth D.Rosenman and team in an article in the April Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

"Based on the results of our analysis we estimate that the number of work-related injuries and illnesses in Michigan is three times greater than the official estimate derived from the BLS annual survey," Dr. Rosenman and colleagues report. Whereas BLS statistics suggest that work-related injuries affect 1 in 15 Michigan workers per year, the new results suggest that the true rate is closer to 1 in 5.

These are fairly shocking numbers. It is well known that workplace injuries,