The head of OSHA says after 40 years, the agency needs a fundamental transformation in the way it addresses workplace hazards, and its relationship to employers and workers. David Michaels says it’s time for OSHA to “take a different road.”

The statement comes in a document distributed to OSHA employees, OSHA at 40: New Challenges and New Directions.

Michaels says OSHA will focus on nine key areas. You can read those in Michaels’ letter (PDF).

Instead of restating those here, we looked through the document to find the top 10 ways these new directions for OSHA will affect U.S. businesses:

1. More inspections. OSHA has received a larger budget and has hired more inspectors. And the hiring of new inspectors isn’t over. Also, the agency is shifting personnel away from its cooperative programs and toward enforcement.
2. Larger fines. Even though Congress hasn’t passed legislation to increase the maximums for OSHA fines, the agency believes it can raise fines itself by changing the way it calculates them. Example: Now companies face a more expensive repeat fine if the same or similar violation is found within a three-year period. OSHA is looking into extending that to five years.
3. Regulation by shaming. OSHA hopes public condemnation of business activities that result in serious injury or death will act as a deterrent. The agency will issue more hard-hitting press releases that explain clearly why an employer faced a large fine.
4. Inspectors will interview employees. In every inspection, OSHA compliance officers will talk to workers privately and confidentially to find out if companies are recording injuries as required.
5. More checks on employee training. OSHA says its inspectors will check whether required training is conducted in a language that workers can understand.
6. Injury and Illness Prevention Programs required. OSHA says American workplaces need to undergo a paradigm shift, with employers going beyond simply meeting OSHA standards. OSHA wants companies to implement risk-based workplace prevention programs that uncover hazards before they lead to an injury or death.
7. Closer looks at safety incentive programs. OSHA says some employers, particularly those in high-hazard industries, have implemented programs, inadvertently or by design, that discourage injury reporting. Example: Everyone will get a steak dinner or a bonus if we have no recordable injuries this year. OSHA inspectors will look into whether such programs have caused injuries to go unrecorded.
8. New regulations will be developed more quickly. OSHA is looking into several ways to speed up development of new standards, which, the way things stand now, is a lengthy process. On the agency’s to-do list is the exploration of alternatives to creating new regulations hazard-by-hazard. In the meantime, OSHA wants to increase collaboration with other worker protection agencies, such as the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, and EPA.
9. Electronic workplace records to be required. OSHA wants to complete its transition to electronic data collection. That will force companies to follow certain OSHA standards to report workplace injuries and illnesses electronically.
10. State OSHA programs will be strengthened. Currently, 22 states have their own OSHAs for private and public employees, and another five have safety agencies for public employees only. OSHA says it wants to ensure penalties assessed by state OSHAs are as stringent as those issued by the federal agency.

Where do you think OSHA should focus its efforts? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Last week, when Indiana joined roughly a dozen other states in explicitly allowing employees to bring guns to their places of employment (provided they have permits and keep them locked in their cars), one huge Indiana employer reacted swiftly.

ArcellorMittal, a multinational steel giant, thumbed its nose at the new law. It told employees at its two Indiana plants they were to leave their guns at home. Period. Its rationale: Federal law trumps state law.

The company didn’t say which law it was referring to, but the Indiana Manufacturers Association, which fought the law for years, told the South Bend Tribune the issues are property rights and workplace safety laws:

“Property owners are guaranteed in the Constitution the right to control their own property,” said Ed Roberts, legal counsel for the organization. “And they’re required by the state to do what they can to keep employees safe.”

There are exceptions to the new law — including schools, prisons and child care facilities — but Bloomberg Businessweek says banks and airports aren’t among them. Those perceived oversights also have opponents up in arms.

More legal challenges are bound to come — from those who want the law repealed, and possibly from ArcellorMittal employees who are now hearing one thing from the state and another from their employer.

What’s your take? Feel free to comment below.

A newly added two-hour component focuses on workers’ rights. Among the topics it covers in detail:

• how to file complaints about your employer
• your right to refuse any work you think is too dangerous, and
• assurances that if you do either of the above, you’ll be protected by whistleblower provisions.

The workers’ rights component is now a required part of every 10- and 30-hour class.

“For too long, workers have avoided making claims of unsafe work conditions out of fear of losing their jobs,” OSHA head David Michaels said in a release. “We are confident that this new training will embolden workers to speak up when they find work practices that endanger their lives and the lives of their co-workers.”

Is OSHA opening a can of worms by trying to “embolden” workers, or is this needed to address chronic under-reporting of injuries. Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

But the question is: Will more regulation prevent more fatalities?

The New York Times sought commentary from various experts on the Upper Big Branch story.

The real lesson of this tragedy may be that the best way to make mines safer is to make politics cleaner, writes Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal: the Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future.

Goodell says one reason mine safety reforms have failed is the political power of the coal industry. Politically connected coal operators make the case that reforms would be too onerous, too expensive and too difficult to implement, the author writes.

“In West Virginia, you mess with Don (Blankenship, head of the company that owns Upper Big Branch mine) at your peril,” according to Goodell.

On the other hand, a professor of Economics at the University of Arizona doubts more regulation will prevent more fatalities.

Price Fishback writes in the Times that several economic studies of workplace safety regulations show that accident rates fall very little after new regulations are passed.

Fishback says new laws establish practices that leading companies have already adopted. So the new requirements only improve safety for a small number of workers.

Bad publicity, stock price declines and higher workers’ compensation insurance premiums are bigger financial incentives for mines to work harder to prevent injuries and fatalities, according to Fishback.

What do you think? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy took effect April 5.

The old rule was based on outdated versions of antidepressants that could cause drowsiness and other side effects.

Some pilots had kept their use of the medications a secret because of the previous rule. They were concerned they’d lose their certification to fly.

Under the new policy, pilots who take Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa or Lexapro will be allowed to fly if they’ve been successfully treated for a year without side effects that could pose a safety hazard in the cockpit.

The FAA is also granting amnesty for some pilots taking those four medications, known as SSRIs. The agency won’t take civil enforcement action against pilots who disclose their diagnosis of depression and treatment within six months.

The Army, Civil Aviation Authority of Australia and Transport Canada already allow some pilots to fly who are using antidepressants.

Does your company ask employees in safety-sensitive jobs to disclose certain types of medications they’re taking? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Under Connecticut’s workers’ comp law, a police officer can receive benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after facing serious injury or deadly force from another person.

But Stamford Police Officer Frank Chiafari, who suffers from PTSD after the incident, can’t get comp because he was forced to shoot and kill an animal, not a person.

Chiafari responded to the scene where the chimp, Travis, had attacked Charla Nash, ripping her face and hands to pieces.

The officer had opened his squad car door to try to help Nash. The chimp jumped into the car.

In testimony before a state legislative committee, Chiafari described the chimp as “a monster with fangs and blood all over it.” After it jumped in his car, Chiafari said, “He was saying, ‘You’re next.’”

The officer shot and killed the chimp. The City of Stamford denied his workers’ comp claim five days after he filed it.

The city later came to an agreement with the police association to cover Chiafari’s $6,400 out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Chiafari was testifying before the state Labor and Public Employees Committee in support of a bill that would amend workers’ comp law to make officers eligible for benefits related to police shootings of an animal threatening serious injury or death.

The bill has been drafted so that it wouldn’t include instances involving rabid raccoons or when an officer has to shoot a deer that’s been seriously injured in a car crash.

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities opposes the bill, saying it could create an enormous liability for cities and towns. A statement from the Conference says the present law is reasonable and shouldn’t be changed because of one high-profile case.

Should the law be changed? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

(This isn’t the first workers’ comp case spawned by the chimp attack. See our earlier article here.)

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has filed a petition with Cal/OSHA calling for the condom requirement.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) reports that actors in the X-rated flicks are ten times more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease than members of the public.

The LACDPH has stated that as many as 25 industry-related cases of HIV have been reported since 2004.

AHF accuses the porn industry of inaction to comply with current Cal/OSHA regulations.

In August, AHF filed 16 worker-safety complaints with Cal/OSHA over the lack of condom use in adult film production and submitted nearly 60 adult DVDs filmed in California as proof.

However, the adult film industry is already doing an excellent job of protecting its performers, writes Alexandre Padilla, a professor of economics at Metropolitan State College in Denver, in Forbes magazine.

Padilla writes that, since the industry’s HIV testing policy was implemented in 1998, there has been only one major outbreak. He also claims that all but four performers who tested HIV-positive contracted the disease outside the industry; therefore the threat doesn’t come from the workplace.

The Forbes article also notes another potential problem. The film-makers would have to hire actors as employees to comply with Cal/OSHA regulations. However, California anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment, so HIV tests for those in the films would become illegal.

Padilla also predicts that a condom policy would create a black market for condom-less porn and drive the businesses out of California.

What should Cal-OSHA do? Write your comments in the box below.

Update: On Dec. 22, a judge denied the request calling for mandatory use of condoms on adult film sets. The judge ruled local health officials have broad discretion in how they oversee public health. The groups that filed the petition plan to appeal.

In a court settlement with Public Citizen, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has agreed to reissue the rules. Public Citizen and other groups had filed a lawsuit contesting the regulations.

Under FMCSA’s Nov. 19, 2008 Final Rule on Hours of Service for Drivers, driving hours expanded from 10 to 11  hours within a 14-hour window. Drivers could also restart their weekly on-duty limits after having at least 34 consecutive hours off duty.

Public Citizen and other groups claimed that commercial drivers would be less safe if they were allowed to drive more hours per week.

FMCSA has agreed to propose a new rule no later than July 2010. The agency has also agreed to publish a final rule by July 2011.

The court settlement is online here (PDF).

Police in Port Panama City say the explosion happened in two dust collectors. An investigation will determine what triggered it.

Authorities say it started in an area where a coating is put on pipes.

The facility will be shut down for several days while OSHA investigates.

After going from three shifts to one and briefly shutting down in December, Monday — the day of the blast — was the first time that all three shifts were up and running again.

Federal statistics show, in a 25-year period, 281 combustible dust explosions and fires killed 119 workers and injured 718.

This week, our SafetyNewsAlert.com Quick Poll was on combustible dust. We asked: Do you think OSHA needs a new standard on combustible dust?

• 51% said no, OSHA should use its existing regulations, and
• 49% said yes, current regulations aren’t enough.

A total of 430 readers voted. Check our home page for a new poll later this week.

And the rulemaking process is moving along.

OSHA has submitted the proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

That news comes in the wake of the Chemical Safety Board’s recent release of its investigation into the explosion and fire that killed 14 and injured 36 at the Imperial Sugar plant in Wentworth, GA.

In a 25-year period, 281 combustible dust explosions and fires killed 119 workers and injured 718.

A number of OSHA standards address aspects of combustible dust control, including those on housekeeping, emergency action plans, ventilation, spray finishing, permit required confined spaces and electric power generation.

Do you think a separate OSHA standard on combustible dust is necessary? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below, and take our Quick Poll on our home page.

In its final report on the explosion, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) said ongoing releases of sugar from poorly designed and maintained dust collection equipment, conveyors, and sugar handling equipment led to the blast.

Inadequate housekeeping allowed highly combustible sugar dust to build up throughout the plant’s packing buildings.

A conveyor had been enclosed, creating a confined, unventilated space where sugar dust could accumulate to an explosive concentration. It’s likely the dust was ignited by an overheated bearing.

The initial explosion caused a cascade of secondary dust explosions in adjacent packing buildings.

On top of these problems, the CSB said Imperial hadn’t conducted evacuation drills for its employees and that the explosions and fires disabled most of the emergency lighting, making it difficult for workers to escape.

A 2006 CSB study identified 281 combustible dust fires and explosions between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 718, and extensively damaged industrial facilities. In April, OSHA started development of a combustible dust standard. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has recommended practices for preventing dust fires and explosions.

Specifically, OSHA is updating the references in its PPE regulations for general industry, shipyards, and longshoring and marine terminals. The regulations will now reflect more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards that incorporate advances in PPE.

The incorporated American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards are over a decade old, and in some cases, two decades old.

These updated regulations involve eye, face, head and foot protection.

OSHA is using a direct final rule to update these standards, and says there are more updates to come. These updates take effect Oct. 9, 2009.

The specifics are in the 9/9/09 edition of the Federal Register.

The ACLU has filed, on behalf of the United Farm Workers Union, a lawsuit accusing the state of not being able to protect its 650,000 agricultural employees from heat injury and death.

The lawsuit also alleges that California hasn’t done enough to establish common-sense regulations that would provide water, shade and rest to farm workers who experience 100° conditions.

The ACLU and union also faults California for not having enough inspectors to enforce the heat stress regulations it has.

California was the first state to establish heat stress regulations in 2005. Washington is the only other state to do so.

However, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has failed twice so far this year to upgrade those standards.

Cal-OSHA wanted emergency amendments requiring employers to provide shade for at least 25% of their workers to rest in if temperatures exceed 85°.

When it met this summer, the board voted 3-3 on the proposed amendments. One member was absent. Governor Schwarzenegger supports the changes and criticized the board for not acting.

Cal-OSHA says it’s conducted 167 outdoor workplace inspections and identified over 200 violations between July 11 and 27. In all of 2009, it’s issued $415,398 in citations.

The lawsuit notes that California has 35,000 farms and only 187 inspectors, who also have to enforce safety and health regulations other than the ones about heat stress.

Should states have regulations regarding heat stress and outdoor workers? Or should OSHA just cite companies when they don’t provide enough water, shade and rest using the General Duty Clause? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The provision has been on-again, off-again since 2008.

Recently, a federal court ruled that transportation safety was a compelling reason to mandate observation when employees who previously failed or refused to take a drug test are retested.

The rule requires observers to check people producing urine samples for prosthetic or other cheating devices. This provision takes effect Aug. 31, 2009.

The court took into account the recent development of a wide array of available cheating devices (see our previous article here). It also said the rule didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The judges on the court stated unanimously that employees who had failed or refused a previous drug test had diminished expectation of privacy.

Transportation Department (DOT) data show that the violation rate for return-to-duty and follow-up testing is two to four times higher than that of random testing.

DOT’s rule negates any collective bargaining agreements that prohibit or limit the use of direct observation collections for return-to-work and follow-up testing.

(Click here for the Federal Register notice on the new regulation.)

Do you support DOT’s decision to require observed collections in these circumstances? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The amendments would clarify when and how to provide shade, water and training for workers.

The changes would also set triggers of 85 and 95 degrees for steps to be taken by employers.

Cal/OSHA shut down eight employers in two weeks earlier this year, saying the heat protection they were providing for employees wasn’t adequate.

The agency says its findings show employers need more guidance on protecting workers from heat exposure.

The changes appear to be delayed for now. When Cal-OSHA’s standards board met on June 18, it refused to adopt the emergency amendments after labor and health advocates spoke out against some of the changes.

The amendments would allow grapevines in vineyards to be used as suitable shade. Also, shade could be as far as a five-minute walk away.

Click here for more on California’s heat-illness standard.

In Nevada, construction workers will have to complete a 10-hour OSHA safety course within 15 days of being hired. Supervisors will be required to take a 30-hour OSHA course. The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2010.

Employers must fire any worker who fails to provide proof of completing the required course. Companies can be fined for employing workers who don’t have the training.

The new law was prompted by 12 construction deaths at projects along the Las Vegas strip during a 19-month period between 2006 and 2008.

State Assembly Majority Leader John Oceguera (D) helped draft the new law. He told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Hopefully this will be a step in the right direction to have everyone recognize safety is the most important factor.”

The bill passed the Assembly 39 to 3 and the Senate 20 to 0.

Do you think safety training requirements like this one will help prevent worker fatalities? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

No one should really be surprised that OSHA under the Obama administration is stepping up enforcement.

But for anyone who had any doubts, Barab is making it pretty plain.

In a recent speech to the Maritime Advisory Committee, Barab noted the funding increase OSHA has already received to boost enforcement.

He capped off the budgetary summary by saying, “I want to be absolutely clear: OSHA is back in the business of standards and enforcement.”

Barab also noted that the funding increases aren’t over. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposes another $50 million increase for the agency.

OSHA plans to use part of that increase to hire 200 more employees: 130 more inspectors, 25 more investigators assigned specifically to whistleblower cases and 20 more staff who will help develop safety and health standards.

A transcript of Barab’s speech is here.

OSHA is establishing a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel to review a proposed rule on occupational exposure to food flavorings that contain diacetyl.

The SBREFA process allows small businesses to review the proposal and comment before it’s enacted.

Workers in microwave popcorn and candy plants have come down with a sometimes fatal lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, after working with diacetyl.

OSHA has also started the process of drafting a rule regarding combustible dust in the workplace.

The agency expects to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to evaluate possible regulations.

Since 1980, more than 130 workers have been killed and more than 780 injured in combustible dust explosions, including 14 deaths at an Imperial Sugar Co. plant in Georgia on Feb. 7, 2008.

You can find more information about diacetyl here, and more about combustible dust here.

The agency is redirecting funding from its Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) to free up more resources for enforcement in the tight economy.

OSHA doesn’t have to receive tons more federal funding to ramp up inspections. All it has to do is shift money away from the “helpful” programs established during the Bush administration and toward enforcement.

In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, acting OSHA administrator Jordan Barab said, “We need to better utilize the resources that we already have. In order to direct more of OSHA’s existing resources into enforcement and to provide time to address concerns in an upcoming GAO Report on the efficacy of OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program, I have informed the field staff that we will suspend the previous administration’s practice of establishing goals for new Voluntary Protection Program sites and Alliances.”

What else is OSHA planning to do to beef up enforcement?

OSHA’s acting administrator Jordan Barab plans to work with the Justice Department on increasing prosecution of employers that repeatedly violate safety laws. Watch for more prison sentences for owners and managers who repeatedly flaunt safety regulations.

Barab also plans to replace the failed Enhanced Enforcement Program (EEP) with a new Severe Violators Inspection Program. The EEP was recently criticized in an inspector general’s report which said it failed to adequately identify and inspect major companies with repeat violations.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are pushing legislation to increase the amounts of OSHA fines and prison sentences for owners and managers in workplace fatality cases.

The guidelines were published in a Q&A on heat-illness prevention on Cal-OSHA’s Web site:

• Where unlimited drinking water is not immediately available from a plumbed system, the employer must provide enough water for every employee to be able to drink one quart of water, or four 8-ounce cups, per hour.
• If an employer chooses not to provide the full-shift quantity of drinking water at the start of a work shift, the standard requires effective procedures for drinking-water replenishment to allow each employee to drink one quart per hour.
• Water must always be readily accessible. Employer should build their water placement strategies around a sound understanding of the fact that the more an employee has to interrupt work to drink, the greater will be the likelihood the employee will not be drinking enough water to protect fully against heat illness. An employer may choose to augment maintaining a compliant readily accessible water supply by also providing a beverage container (preferably insulated to keep the water cool) to be carried and used by the employee while working.
• When temperatures exceed 90 degrees F, having ice on hand to cool the water is recommended.
• Having shade present is considered a requirement of the standard when the outdoor dry-bulb temperature high for the area closest to the location at which employees are to work is forecast, as of 5 p.m. the previous day, to be over 85 degrees F, according to the National Weather Service. Shade must be up at the beginning of the shift and present throughout.
• Regardless of what the predicted high is, employers are expected to know if the actual temperature is exceeding 90 degrees F at their worksite. If the temperature enters this range, shade must be present regardless of the predicted high.
• Cal-OSHA consider the amount of shade to be sufficient is enough to accommodate 25% of the employees on a shift so that they can sit comfortably in the shade without touching each other. However, if more than 25% of a shift’s workers require shade at the same time, the employer must provide it immediately.
• Shade must be located less than a 1/4-mile or five-minute walk away, whichever is shorter.

For the complete set of guidelines, click here.

Imagine this: One of your employees is on pain medication that could compromise his safety and productivity, as well as that of co-workers. But, because of state law, you have to accommodate the employee. Not only that, but federal law says the pain medication is illegal.

What medication are we talking about? Marijuana.

That’s the case in Oregon, and a business lobbying group is pushing a bill to exempt employers from having to accommodate medical marijuana patients.

House Bill 2497 would allow businesses to terminate employees who test positive for marijuana, even if they are legally authorized to use it for pain management.

Employers would also be notified when a worker applies for a “marijuana card,” under the measure.

Associated Oregon Industries (AOI) sees medical cannabis as a liability for employers.

AOI’s vice-president for government affairs, J.L. Wilson, told The World that many employers have horror stories about employing medical marijuana users and impairment on the job.

Wilson notes that marijuana remains federally illegal, but in Oregon, employers are forced to accommodate those who have been approved to use it for pain.

Wayne Haythorn with Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse says the bill is designed to stir up fear and punish people who need marijuana for pain.

In what situations do doctors approve pot use for pain?

One example: Jude Isaacson had back surgery in 2000 and developed a spinal infection. She was using a wheelchair.

“Cannabis has brought me back,” she said. “I can focus now.”

Dr. Michelle Petrofes who treats six medical marijuana patients says pot isn’t her first line of treatment by any means. She said patients have to have tried every other medication first for pain before she will consider marijuana.

Pain management expert Dr. Daniel Rusu says most patients who request cannabis for pain management don’t qualify for it.

He also believes this battle over marijuana will continue.

How can employers balance compassion for workers in severe pain with their employee drug policies? What do you think is the right course of action? And readers from Oregon, let’s hear from you, especially. You can leave comments in the box below.

The three have introduced a bill that would require OSHA to issue a rule regarding the explosion hazard.

The bill is similar to one that passed the U.S. House last year but wasn’t acted upon in the Senate.

OSHA would be required to issue an interim rule within 90 days and a final rule within 18 months after the bill is signed into law. It would also force OSHA to add combustible dust to its Hazard Communication standard.

Introduction of the bill comes about one year after the explosion at the Imperial Sugar plant in Port Wentworth, GA, that killed 14 employees and resulted in OSHA fines of more than $8 million.

The bill would have wide-ranging effect because of the types of dust that would be regulated:

• organic (sugar, candy, paper, soap and dried blood)
• plastics and rubber
• sulfur
• wood
• furniture
• textiles
• pesticides
• pharmaceuticals
• fibers
• dyes, and
• coal, metals and fossil fuels.

To read the entire bill, click here and enter HR 849.

Employers in another state may soon be facing mandatory rules to reduce the number of employees’ ergonomic injuries.

Michigan is in line to join California as the only states to require employers to have ergonomic programs.

Michigan’s rule would require that all employees be given ergonomic awareness training that covers:

• occupational risk factors
• signs and symptoms that indicate an ergonomic hazard may be present
• a process for reporting that an ergonomic hazard may be present, and
• a process for assessing and responding to ergonomic occupational risk.

Companies would have to document that training was performed.

Employers would also have to establish a process for assessing and responding to ergonomic occupational risk factors that includes:

• employee involvement
• assessment of ergonomic risks, and
• elimination, reduction or control of ergonomic hazards where economically and technically feasible.

The proposal continues to undergo state review, and a public hearing will have to be held. However, members of two key state commissions unanimously approved the measure in January.

The rule would take effect six months after it’s enacted.

From 2 states to 50?

While Michigan is working on its own rule, President Obama has said he favors restoring a federal ergonomics standard that would require employers to educate employees about musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), keep records on these types of injuries and determine their risks for MSDs.

Eliminating or reducing ergonomic injuries can save businesses significant costs. About $1 of every $3 spent on workers’ comp are spent on MSDs. Overall, U.S. employers absorb $20 billion in costs associated with ergonomic injuries.

Do you have an ergonomics program at your workplace? What do you think about state or federal rules to require employers to have ergonomic programs? Let us know about your program and opinions in the Comments Box below.

That’s because the administration is following a tradition started by Ronald Reagan in 1981: It has ordered all work halted on federal regulations left unfinished by the Bush White House until it can be reviewed by Obama’s team.

The White House will perform a legal and policy review of each pending regulation.

Among proposed rules in the OSHA pipeline:

• exposure to crystalline silica
• exposure to beryllium
• a review of the methylene chloride standard
• review of the bloodborne pathogen standard
• proposed confined spaces in construction standard
• revision of the electrical power transmission and distribution standard, and
• proposed revision of the cranes and derricks standard.

For more information on the order to halt work on federal regulations, click here.