Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

OSHA Announces Final Ergonomics Program Standard 93

Posted by CmdrTaco from the will-you-be-my-posture-pal? dept.
Desdinova77 writes "OSHA has announced rules for proper ergonomics to prevent RSI type injuries On their site (I had trouble gtting to this site but it is the 'official' link on the OSHA site. There is also a story about it on Yahoo " Is this going to have an affect on any of your offices? I doubt my broken couch meets the specs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSHA Announces Final Ergonomics Program Standard More

OSHA Announces Final Ergonomics Program Standard

Comments Filter:
  • People will continue to be affected by "Repetitive Stress Injuries". Get a copy of Pain Free at Your PC [amazon.com] to find out why RSI's strike some people & leave others unaffected. Muscles work in pairs, and if you're just exercising one of two muscles, of course there's going to be some pain when other muscles have to cover for the one that's atrophied away. Ergonomic solutions can only make things worse, placing less of a demand on more muscles, forcing them to atrophy away... (I should know - I have a very expensive Datahand keyboard sitting unused next to me on my desk. It didn't help. Right now i'm typing on a Keytronic Wireless keyboard, with only a small amount of trouble.) Correct your posture - it'll do wonders for your ability to type.

  • Re:I didn't make noise and I got burned... at 16. (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:22AM (#621986)
    That reminds me of one of my first jobs when I was about high-school age.

    I was working for a temp agency who basically stuck me in job after job where my purpose was to sit at whatever flat surface they had in whatever crammed but available spot in their building that they could spare, punching in 10-key as fast as possible, duplicating data from hard-copy files for 9 hours a day until the job was over and I could be assigned to yet another company at yet another crammed but available flat-spot where they could squeeze a monitor and keyboard and stack of hard-copy.

    I finally quit one day and told them that if I was going to destroy my hands, wrists and forearms, it was going to be for something a little more brain-grabbing and interesting than punching in social security numbers.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • The force required to strike the keys on a manual typewriter forces adjustments to the way you hold your hands, which effectively minimize RSI, which is why carpal tunnel and other keyboard-related RSI is relatively new. Maybe the computer-makers in Brazil (the movie, not the country) had the right idea, though those screens can't be good for your eyes.
  • In general I don't like government regulation. But people do need to be protected.

    If a company runs it's business in such a way that the employees are injured or die simply by performing their jobs, something is wrong. Probably criminally wrong. I'm not sure how to go about reconciling these two views. I'm fairly sure that I don't like OSHA's approach, however.

    I used to work for a company that made PCBs. These were military boards and needed to be sprayed with a conformal coating. The chemicals in the conformal coating did NOT require masks according to OSHA regulations. But still, it was a spray can full of sticky stuff, and the ventilation, while also OSHA approved, wasn't the best. So the company decided, on it's own, that it would be nice if the workers had a mask to protect them from the stuff.

    So far everything sounds nice. The company is going beyond OSHA requirements to keep it's workers safe and healthy.

    So where's the problem? Well, OSHA didn't say that that particular chemical being applied in that particular facility required a mask. But if the company was going to require masks, there were some OSHA regulations concerning that. I forget all of the details, but the company would have been required to provide masks for ALL employees, not just those that wanted them. (there were two guys that often did the spraying, but about 20 that worked in the same area and could conceivably be required to spray the coating at some time.) The company would have had to provide individual storage for each mask, and there wasn't that much room. The company would have had to perform safety inspections of the masks, and fill out the appropriate OSHA paperwork to document the safety inspections for the masks. (Not a whole lot, only a few hours every quarter or so, perhaps a couple of day's payroll in a year.) And to top it off, the company had just given itself another liability if there did happen to be a problem with a mask or the paperwork.

    In short, it cost so much to provide masks to the two people that they just said "If you want one, buy it yourself."

  • Absolutely. OSHA is to keep people like factory workers from, say, falling in vats of dangerous chemicals, or getting sucked into giant machines. As a former manufacturing manager in large textitle plants, I can assure everyone that these ARE still real problems in the US. Whether or not the fat-ass coder in the next cube's back hurts from his chair or from eating too much junk food is not a serious problem. A little bit of soreness from typing is not a problem, no matter what the loudest bitchers and whiners say. IT people are used to being coddled, and it's disgusting to have a government agency side with them.

  • OSHA will not conduct inspections of employees' home offices.

    OSHA will not hold employers liable for employees' home offices, and does not expect employers to inspect the home offices of their employees.

    Thanks for the Pointer. I am still concerned that some eedjot in HR at my place-o-work will decide that it is simpler to stop telecommuting. Already, one is supposed to have a dedicated room cannot used for other purposes during business hours. I understand the distress at possible slackers, but it would be simpler if they laid out expectations about productivity during business hours.

    Likewise, RSI is not just an employee issue. It is also an employer issue. Compliance may not end up being as costly as expected, and could ave in employee retention.

  • No one needs to work in a dangerous factory, when there are 50 other jobs available to that person.

    That's not true. In many regions, there aren't that many jobs, or one company holds a monopoly in a particular industry in the region you live in. You can't just tell people, "Sorry, you'll need to uproot your family and move to another state if you want to work in a safe environment." That's absurd.

    Sooner or later, we'll have another recession. And when we do, it may be impossible for some people to find other jobs.

    Look at developers! We pick our employers based on many factors. Imagine a startup having to comply with these rediculous ergonomic laws!

    What's wrong with that? If a startup can't afford to purchase proper chairs and desks, then they have bigger problems.

    BTW, you misspelled "ridiculous".
    --

  • Sorry, but miners dying from black lung doesn't quite equate with a coder's fingers hurting.

  • government intervention is not required to prevent employer abuse of employees

    It's really this (small) part of your comment I'd like to reply to.

    Yes, government regulation didn't stop child labour - a lot of complex things acted together to do that. But I disagree that it wouldn't come back if the regs were removed, at least in all countries - cf the row over who makes Nike shoes. Wouldn't it have been better if we could have skipped the (dangerous, unpleasant, life-threatening) things people had to do to get the government regs in place?

    Possibly a little OT, but have you ever read The Road To Wigan Pier (Orwell)?

  • I agree that there are some good applications for the Ergonomic principles. What I do not agree with is any entity is able to give a broad "all encompasing" standard that applies to all industries. Lets look at it.. A company would have to have an ergonomics program if: An employee had to kneel or squat for more than 2 hours TOTAL per day (Plummers, Electricians, Baseball catchers????), Repeating the same motions every "few" seconds or repeating a cycle of motions... Look... I work in an industry that is absolutely HUGE (Trucking Industry). I have over 7 years experience with OSHA and their inspectors (conceit comes to mind). The cost to re-engineer all of our facilities to be adjustable would put us out of business. And that is not something you want to do to a company that ships 6% of the GNP. Ooopss.. Did I give away too much information about where I work? Here's the checklist for a SEAT for you techies out there: 1.Backrest provides support for lower back (a good one) 2.Seat width and depth accomodate specific employee (not too big/small). 3. Seat front does not press against the back of employee's knees and lower legs (not too long) 4. Seat has cushioning and is rounded/ has "waterfall" front. Armrests support both forearms while employee performs tasks and do not interfere with movement. Sheesh.... Do you see where I'm coming from here? Name an industry and it will be affected by this standard. Dry Cleaners? Yup. Veterinary Hospitals? Yup. Archery Club? Yup. However, Agriculture, Construction, Maritime and Railroads are not affected. Hmmmm....
  • Have to reply to this, too. Sorry : Studies done my NIOSH including companies like Coke, Delta and a few others, noted that there was no difference in the injury rates from those employees who used back braces and those who didn't. The only people who got injured more where those employees who were part of the group wearing the braces and then decided they did not want to wear them six months into the study. Sorry, I can't remember the link to the study.
  • I'm planning on making an upgrade from my brown un-padded folding chair, the one that when I get really antsy on I use a pillow to pad, to a padded folding chair. "Big Lots" has nice keyboards for only $8 although they'll make your hands fall off in a couple years, they're only 8 bucks!
  • Yes, they do, because you'll be applying for workers' comp if you do get RSI.

    If you completely remove yourself from the workers' comp system, you might have an argument...

    --

  • As a victim of RSI, I am glad OSHA is finally coming out with some standards. But, even so, most people commenting here don't understand the problem.

    The new OSHA standards fail on one point: they mandate the employer attempt certain recommended 'quick fixes.' But those general recommendations won't fix the problem for many. For example, I can't use a mouse without immediate and intense pain--I am certain it causes tendinitis for many users. Yet the standard does not address using other input appliances instead.

    Another problem with the standards is that it tries to set uniform conditions for the wide variety of human configurations. But one big problem causing RSI is that the human is made to adapt to the machine pace, and some human variety in doing physical tasks, to rest muscle groups and use others, is ignored.

    I believe there are no 'quick fixes' for RSI. Ergonomics might delay the onset of RSI for many. But forced mechanical work at computer pace will certainly cause RSI for many. Those who believe 'it will never happen to me, because I use a Microsoft Natural Keyboard,' or whatever, are deluding themselves.

    Although I support OSHA setting this standard, there is one valid point by some business groups. It would be better to make the standard scientific, and mandate good recording of injuries and solutions. Then we can determine the best way to prevent and treat these problems. But setting a standard now in concrete won't solve much, only delay a solution. The provision to hide from the patient the health care provider's assessment of the injury is just plain stupid--maybe it is a sop to some business and insurance interests, but it is surely unethical in medical care.

    For those young people who are just starting working intensely with computers, I would seriously urge you to learn a backup profession, in case you are injured and unable to work with computers fulltime.

  • The problem is that OSHA can't just wave a magic wand and make employers protect their workers. They have limited agents, and at a reasonable cost they can force only a small percentage of employers to comply with the law. You can sue employers after the fact, but often this will simply encourage employers to hire more lawyers rather than improve conditions.

    If employers don't care about safety and employees don't care enough to switch jobs, then OSHA is mostly an annoyance. They can make employers fill out paperwork. They can force the provision of specific equipment or prohibit specific tasks, but ultimately OSHA doesn't have the time, information, or resources to force employers to be safe.

    At the same time, the costs are enourmous. Because OSHA is not omniscient and doesn't have the resources to be everywhere all the time, they force a great deal of compliance costs on employers. From the perspective of most employers, OSHA is an impediment to doing their jobs. You have to fill out forms, buy new equipment to comply with regulations, go through complex procedures every time there is an injury or safety problem, etc. The employer might already be running a safe shop, but still be forced to jump through OSHA's hoops. Or he might be running an unsafe shop, and is simply cleaning up those areas that OSHA absolutely demads while ignoring far greater safety hazards that are not covered by OSHA regulations.

    OSHA doesn't necessarily make workplaces safer. It simply makes people fill out paperwork claiming that they are safer. But in the process, you give free reign to lawyers, ambitious bureaucrats, and cynical employees who work the system to their own advantage. Forcing employers to buy new keyboards or slow down the pace of work has dubious value from a safety standpoint, but I can guaruntee you that it will open up a flood of lawsuits, waste lots of managers' time, and reduce productivity accross the board.

    Keep this in mind too: If safety measures are cheap and painless, most employers will adopt them voluntarily. They don't cost much and they help retain employees. If they are expensive, then if you impose them by force of law, employers will just take that as a cost of hiring someone and offer them correspondingly less money. In neither case do employees benefit. It might appear that they benefit-- they get new safety features appearantly for free-- but the costs are either going to come out of their next raise, or out of future jobs not created for other workes.

    So I don't believe that a world without OSHA would be substantially less safe than the world we have now, and even if it would, those who don't like it do have choices.

    Lasty, I take the position that non-compliance will cost more, in the long run.

    Then why do we need OSHA at all? Employers will discover this for themselves and implement these safety standards voluntarily. At most we would then need an informational campaign informing employers of this fact.
  • Wouldn't it have been better if we could have skipped the (dangerous, unpleasant, life-threatening) things people had to do to get the government regs in place?

    It would have been nice if we could have skipped the whole industrial revolution and gone straight from agriculture to e-commerce. It would be nice if everyone had a 30-hour per week desk job and made six figures. It would be nice if no one had to work at all.

    But in the real world, people are poor. And poor people sometimes choose to take what seems to us desperate measures to get ahead. If you outlaw child labor in those countries, you take away a source of income for desperately poor families. In many cases that means that the children you care so much about are going to starve, or at least have to skip even more meals than they already do. Is that what you want? How does it benefit those kids to tell them they can't work if their familiies are depending on that income to survive?

    It's easy for us to sit in our comfy suburban houses and poo-poo those poor people who are forcing their kids to work. But those people are not all heartless monsters. They care about their kids every bit as much as we care about ours. And it probably breaks their hearts to see their kids working long hours.

    But the solution is not to force those families even farther into poverty. The solution is to figure out why there are still desperately poor countries and help parents raise their standards of living so they don't have to rely on their kids' labor. Once that happens, child labor will disappear by itself. Until that happens, banning it will only lead to children working in black-market sweatshops that are even worse than the ones they are in now.
  • Well, have you ever worked a crappy job? Have you ever been an unskilled worker in a high-unemployment area? There are a great many people who can't just get up and move to a new job.

    Not immediately. Not all at once. But ultimately companies that treat their employees well have a competitive advantage over those that don't. It might be that 90% of employees stay, but the other 10% is enough to punish them economically.

    I'm not saying this will magically wipe out abuses over night. I am saying, however, that nothing the government does is going to work any better. If there are significant ecnoomic advantages to abusing workers, employers will find a way to do it OSHA or no.

    Keep in mind also that there's no free lunch. Justified or not, an employer counts OSHA compliance costs as part of the cost of hiring an employee. If those go up, he's going to offer correspondingly less when he hires new people, and the rest of the industry will do the same. So ultimately workers pay for it either way.

    It's nice to imagine that employers will just swallow the higher costs and go their merry way, but as you said, some employers are bastards. And if they have to spend money to improve conditions, they're going to pass those costs on to their employees.

    And because every other employer is being forced to do the same, the same will be true of them, meaning you're basically just forcing employees to pay for their own better conditions. But they could do that already. You're not really benefitting them.

    There are no free lunches. In the long run, all costs to businesses get passed on to either consumers or workers. Companies' top priorities are to make a profit. I don't want to repeal OSHA because I believe employers will treat their employees right out of the goodness of their hearts. I want to eliminate OSHA because it doesn't improve things for workers even if employers are all evil bastards.
  • Most of the posts here are anti-OSHA. You guys must be out of your minds! I am 27 years old and I already have a nice dose of RSI. It's like smoking I guess, I typed hours on end for years with no effect then BAM my hands started hurting like crazy. I'm sure most of you (who are in the work world and are engineers) have seen people with the wrist gauntlets and the like - those people have started paying attention to RSI to late.

    I really don't understand this at all. Your attitude is the reason that the average tech work place is SHITTY. Your company will buy you a beeper and cell phone to keep you on a leash 24/7 but they don't give a rat's ass about how keyboards and mice and screen glare will destroy your eyes and hands. Many of the great engineers I know have crippling RSI by the time they're in their late 20's. Your working these crazy hours without overtime pay because the government destroyed the FLSA laws *specifically for computer engineers* in the 90's.

    Most engineers are either fresh off the boat and are at the company's (and countries) mercy, or had over-bearing mommies and have all these kinds of libertarian/anarchist ideas. These things do not work themselves out, government has a role to watch out that these companies don't grab you, burn you out for a few years and dispose of you. If the libertarian ideas I hear bear out, the 1% of the country with 50% of the wealth would shrink to 1% having 99+% of the wealth and everyone gets fucked. Privatizing roads? GIve me a break.

  • Re:Just what the US needs, more laws (Score:5)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:30AM (#622003)
    I hate unnecessary government regulation as much as anyone. I think that OSHA attacks issues that are very important and should be addressed by companies, but I think that it should be less of a 'government regulation' and more of a "if you don't take care of your employers, we're going to stick it to you" from the insurance company. At least that keeps the government further from it and provides incentive for the employer to take care of their employees (who are, after all, hurting themselves all for the benefit of their employer).

    Anyone who is old enough to remember the days prior to OSHA will probably admit that it is better than not having OSHA, though. There was a day when a handful of deaths were expected in a lot of jobs. People who built some of our biggest dams swung from cranes a couple hundred feet over the earth without any tethers and operated dangerous machinery without any protection at all. What are a few lives compared to meeting a deadline?! A company can always hire more people -- but you can only meet a deadline once.

    OSHA seems to help in some way to strike a balance wherein someone finally tells employers that they can't neglect their employes simply because addressing the problems directly gained from their daily job will cost a few bucks.

    Don't misunderstand me though -- I'm not an OSHA fan, either. I'm just saying that some sort of regulation is obviously needed, because before OSHA, we didn't have ergo-anything and if you couldn't perform your job anymore because you were hurting from your job, you better hope you have a lot of sick-days saved, because as far as your boss was concerned, you were slacking off if you weren't punching the clock.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • As far as I know, it's actually real, I've seen a couple of colleagues being unable to lift their arms above their shoulders after a couple hours typing, and that condition lasted longer everytime, until it remained. If your girlfriend's boss ain't taking her seriously take her to a doctor, a real one and throw his statement at her boss. If that doesn't help you might wanna try throwing keyboards instead...

  • Re:Just what the US needs, more laws (Score:3)

    by fhwang ( 90412 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:35AM (#622005) Homepage
    Actually, the U.S.'s predominance in the computer field is in large part due to government assistance. For one thing, the U.S. armed forces has been one of the most significant organizations in terms of investing in technology research -- remember that ENIAC was originally designed to help the Defense Dept. calculate mortar trajectory tables for World War II.

    And the Internet itself was originally built on a number of networks created and maintained by either the military, or publically funded academic & research organizations. Remember Compuserve? Remember the days of the pre-internet AOL? That's all the network that the private sector could create on its own. The public sector invested in the networks first, and after they did the hard work, private companies jumped in to fill the void in the commercial market.

    Without public investment, we'd all have shitty e-mail addresses like 95820.4829@compuserve.com. If we had e-mail at all.

  • I once saw a keyboard for sale at a local computer show that 'broke apart' and angled up to accomplish just that. It was a very cool device, and you could adjust the angle to suit your needs. Shame it was $130. But at one point in time *someone* thought it'd be a good idea to market. Digger

  • Actually, the U.S.'s predominance in the computer field is in large part due to government assistance

    Rediculous. Who did the government goto for those contracts: private companies! The US's dominane in the computer field is based on the fact that our enormous economy demanded a faster, better way to do things.

  • If you make a living at a computer, $130 is cheap for feeling healthy instead of achey, or worse, in severe pain like some people. Of course, the "natural" keyboards are "good enough" and prevent most of the pain from typing.
  • The reason typewriter typists didn't get CTS is because they had to have their wrists elevated (ie, not resting on the desk) in order to get the power to strike the keys hard enough to make a mark on the paper. Nowadays, almost no power is required to make our keys click. We can generate that amount of power with wrists resting on the desk, because it's easier on our arms. The constant pressure on the inside of the wrist is what collapses the carpal tunnel, compressing the nerve inside, and leading to pain.

    I wonder how many people actually type now with their wrists elevated off of the desk. Any who do and still experience wrist pain, please let me know. Those who experience wrist pain and have their wrists resting on the desk, try elevating them. It's hard on the arms, but once those muscles build, you should be much better off.

    As a side note, I type with my wrists down, but never for long stints. I do find that it is more comfortable to type with my elbows resting on the arms of my chair, keyboard at the edge of the desk, so that I can't rest my wrists on the desk.
  • Hey moderators, it's not flamebait, it's a joke! (You do have to think about it.)
  • Who needs OSHA? Shouldn't the full employment economy take care of these workplace issues. No one needs to work in a dangerous factory, when there are 50 other jobs available to that person. Look at developers! We pick our employers based on many factors. Imagine a startup having to comply with these rediculous ergonomic laws!
  • What I find interesting is that while everyone here on Slashdot hates Microsoft software, they all LOVE Microsoft hardware.

    As a user of a Microsoft Natural Keyboard at work and home and a user of the "J-shape" MS Mouse at work and a Microsoft First Mouse Optical at home, they are excellent devices with very good feel to the devices.

    The MS Natural keyboard does take a bit getting used to, but once you're used to this keyboard going back to a normal keyboard is very uncomfortable because a normal keyboard feels very "cramped" in comparison.

    I remember some months ago someone posted an article on a great keyboard for Linux, but frankly, it still has the feel of a standard keyboard, which means the same old RSI problems that plague normal keyboards.
  • So what we need are those old HP keyboard? You know, those boards with the big springs and no "click". Oh, and by the way, my wrists don't touch the desk either, so you're not the only one:-)
  • Probably. I've seen the same thing happen at a few different companies I've interviewed at. Replacing desks, chairs, buying those stupid little pads you put in front of keyboards to rest your wrists on.

    I have to wonder, if complying with OSHA costs your business X dollars, can you claim that as a tax write-off? Because from what I've seen, the OSHA standards seem to hurt small businesses a lot more then it hurts the big boys...

    Kierthos
  • RSI is real. I suffer from it, and it's not a lot of fun. For therapy I get deep tissue massage on my arms and massage therapy on my upper body, most of which I have to pay for myself. I wish that we had any ergonomic rules when I started ruining my body.

    Possibly worse than the actual condition, however, is how RSI sufferers are treated. It seems to be a common practice to say that complainers are lazy and trying to get out of work, and are overweight and get no exercise, etc. etc. Anything to pass the blame.

    In fact, RSI sufferers tend to be over achievers. They are the ones that will literally work their hands to the bone for their employers, until the pain is just too much.. or worse, the muscles just become completely useless.

    A good book I recommend for your friend if she can get it is called "It's Not Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Computer Professionals Guide to RSI".

    Good luck.
  • or those of you willing to take off your slashdot blinders for a second, consider the repetitive strain injuries of assembly line workers, the workers in meat processing plants, sweatshops, and packaging operations where people repeat the same motions over and over and over again, reaching twisting bending, etc...

    Agh, flashbacks! My dad worked at a beef processing plant (otherwise known as a slaughterhouse) for several years. RSI hell! People go home from those places unable to unclench their hand for hours or with cramps in the one arm thats just gone up and down for 4 hours straight. Assuming you manage not to miss the meat and crush your hand bones (my dad had a chain mail glove and a kevlar glove as souveniers of his time there) the nerve damage gets you eventually. I'm not even going to go into fun stuff like freezer work.

    Another area this will help with is medical labs. Techs running the same tests over and over again.

    Considering a friend of mine almost died from a cat bite partly because her employers didn't have a first aid kit on hand, I'm pretty pro-OSHA. /.ers tend to identify with the employers (but how will my stock options be effected) but these guidelines are going to help a lot of people.

    Funny final note on meat plants. Sinclair wrote The Jungle orriginally to reveal the poor working conditions that meat packers worked under. His goal was to improve the life of laborers. But the public response was focused on what the book said about the quality of their food and reform of working conditions didn't come until years later. OSHA is neccassary because the average person isn't going to worry about what another human being had to go through to bring them a product. They only care about the intersection of price and quality.

    Kahuna Burger

  • But OSHA does improve conditions for workers. And yes, some of the costs will be passed along to the workers/consumers. However, the employer can only pass on so much to the worker - pay cuts only go so far before you hit minimum wage. And in most cases they can't make the employees pay directly out of pocket. (I know that in some cases they can, but in those situations the employee can then turn around and write it off at tax time) Most employers accept the fact that paying more per worker for health and safety means less in workers comp and lawsuits filed by injured workers. Unemployment might rise in areas high in worker-unfriendly industry, though, as those companies cut back on jobs due to increased cost per employee. But if the widget industry is worker-unfriendly, they'll find that they have to improve working conditions if they want to keep widget production at the same level. And most of this stuff is cheap and easy - look at the OSHA regs, it's pretty tame. The fact remains that if the company is required to provide minimum health and safety standards, the quality of life increases for those workers (look at coal mines circa 1800 next to coal mines now, in any terms). You are right, if the employer thinks that there is an economic advantage to screwing the worker, they will try it. But look at what the penalties can be. With most health and safety regulations, the penalties are high enough that the risk and penalty of getting caught in the act make compliance more attractive than screwing the workers. Fire codes, for example. Most businesses have the fire exits marked, unblocked, etc, and it's not because they all are concerned about fire safety. Health and safety regs really do make a difference - after an OSHA inspection, my own employer was really quick about cleaning up some of the serious health hazards they were exposing employees to (unlit exterior stairs, unmarked asbestos, exposed wiring in steam tunnels and wiring closets, etc). OSHA really does help.

    itachi

  • How I love them.

    Though not as much as the BeeGee's...



    OSHA: Open Source Head Atrophy

    The End.

  • At the dawn of the industrial revolution, some factories in England were working children 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Somehow I don't think a "please stop" ended this practice.

    But neither was government regulation the primary cause. Even if child labor laws were repealed today, few if any children would be required to work significant hours. The reason is twofold. First, most families are much better off than they were back then. In many cases the alternative was work 16 hour days or starve. That's no longer true.

    Secondy, children just don't make very good workers. When the jobs available were simple assembly-line piecework, children could be made useful. Today most of those jobs are performed by machines.

    So perhaps child labor laws caused children to stop working sooner than they otherwise would have, but government intervention is not required to prevent employer abuse of employees. Ultimately, there's one reason and only one reason employers treat their employees well-- because they know they'll leave if they don't.

    OSHA's regulations will do little more than politicize the employer-employee relationship. If an employee really cares about ergonomics he can buy ergonomically correct equipment himself or agree to take lower pay in exchange for better conditions. If an employee really doesn't care about it, he's not going to use it even if employers do pay for it. Ultimately, it should be up to the employee to decide if ergonomic measures are worth the cost.

    If I want to choose to destroy my body, that's my right. It's not like I don't have a choice of jobs, and the same is true of most people who sit in front of computers for a living. Most of them are not menial laborers, and they can find better conditions if they want to. It's absurd to pretend that employees are helpless victims being forced into jobs that give them debilitating injuries. You choose your job, and if you don't like one, you're free to take another.

    On the other hand, OSHA's regulations offer infinite potential for mischief. One disgruntled employee could, for example, fake a RSI and force a whole office to undergo OSHA-mandated redisigns of their workplaces. Or over-zealous bureaucrats can force workers to adopt dubious safety measures even the employees themselves want. This is the government we're talking about, and governments are crawling with lawyers. The moment you give them the power to dictate working conditions, they will use that power in unexpected and harmful ways.

    The above combined with the compliance costs of these regulations make them clearly not worth adopting. I for one am hoping that President Bush cancels them on taking office.
  • Hey -- I know it's bloody hard to stop working and say "I can't do this -- my wrists hurt too much" but STOP and rest until you don't hurt AT ALL. You could cause yourself permanant injury, and avoiding that is worth a little embarrassment. Don't wait until you can't type.

    I waited until I was in so much pain all day I was almost in tears, and then insisted to my boss that I get the mouse (actually, trackball in my case -- I can type for hours with no problem, but using a conventional mouse puts me in agony) I wanted. Yesterday, when I turned in my receipt for reimbursement he got all snotty about "pretty snazzy mouse". Asshole.

    But I'd rather deal with his being a jerk than be in pain all the time.

    DON'T RISK YOUR HEALTH.

  • A bit off topic, but hell... That's how government regualtion ends up working, good causes get screwed on occasion. A few years ago, my father worked at a foundry in Northwest PA. As a shell casting foundry, they went through thousands of tons of sand every month making their castings. In order to have the sand hauled away and reinjected with the proper chemicals, the sand had to be thoroughly sterilized in an enormous furnace (it was literally 100% pure when finished), and a hauling service had to be hired to transport it. At the time, Erie, PA was rapidly losing shoreline (and maybe still is). So the company came up with what seemed like a great move: they's give the sand to the city of Erie if the city would haul it away. Great for the beaches, great PR (and fewer expenses) for the company, a win-win situation. Until the EPA stepped in. Sand, you see, is a carcinogen, a hazardous material. Despite the fact that people roll around in it on the weekends, only hazardous material specialists can handle it once its off the beach. Doesn't matter that this sand is as pure as it gets, its still a carcinogen (and a pure one at that). [Sigh], that's when I started to hate government...

  • Sound vs. Unsound Science (Score:3)

    by vergil ( 153818 ) <vergilb&gmail,com> on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @12:00PM (#622022) Journal
    Seems like many members of the Slashdot community (known for their ferocious libertarian streaks [hackedtobits.com]) reflexively exhale with resentment at the mention of government regulation.

    For the most part, I agree. Government regulation, in my mind, is characterized by bureacratic ineptitude, and is typically intrusive, unnecessary and burdensome.

    However, let's put generalities by the wayside and discuss the case at hand based on it's inherent (de)merits. We're not talking about the latest incarnation of the Clipper Chip.

    According to the aforementioned article:

    Business groups, who have said the rule is based on unsound science, plan to mount a legal challenge.

    Sound vs. "unsound" science. Sound familiar? This is a specious hallmark of corporate-funded public relations. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, oil companies, auto manufacturers and other mass polluters denied the existence of global climate change, which was scapegoated as "unsound" science.

    Perhaps the business groups have a point that ergonomic reforms may come at a prohibitive cost (then again, business coalitions mumble the same disingenuous mantra when calls go up for any type of change from the status quo -- environmental, social et al).

    I'm really interested in seeing exactly how requiring manual laborers to use lumbar-support belts constitutes unsound science.

    Sincerely,
    Vergil

  • I don't see a noun form of affect in my Webster's. (Specifically, "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary, Revised Edition.") Granted, it's not quite as comprehensive as, say, the Oxford English Dictionary [oed.com], but it does do a pretty good job of covering the portion of the language people actually still use. ;-)

    --Joe
    --
    Program Intellivision! [schells.com]
  • "I'm really interested in seeing exactly how requiring manual laborers to use lumbar-support belts constitutes unsound science."

    Are you now? As it happens, there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates the efficacy of lumbar supports. There is in fact no generaly agreed upon model that explains the mechanism of back injury, never mind carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, frozen shoulders, and a host of other musculoskeletal ailments.

    Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that prolonged use of support belts allows the abdominal and other postural muscles to weaken, which them increases the likelyhood of an injury when the worker is NOT wearing the belt. At home, when he is not covered by workmen's comp for example.

    The OSHA regulations are a bunch of politically chosen hogwash based on largely disproved theory from the 1950's.

    How do I know? I'm a physical therapist. I get paid to know. I also know that if you put 10 therapists in a room with a back injury patient, you will get at least 5 different treatment plans, based on 5 different theories of back injury. The patients usually get better faster than if we left them alone, but not because we understand the spine.

    Basically what you have here is a mandate from the federal government for YOU and your company to pay ME $80 to $150 PER HOUR to ensure that your workplace is in compliance with regulations. It will have NO EFFECT on the rates of workplace injury.

    PTs, OTs and funiture manufacturers are going to make a shit load of money. Then spend it on inflation and taxes to pay for all the new government office furniture.

    The Phantom Therapist
  • So the solution is for OSHA to come in an potentially bankrupt half the start-ups in the country?

    Be serious. OSHA has been trying to regulate this stuff for ever. The current regulations as published will do NOTHING for your RSI situation. This is not about keeping engineers healthy.

    This IS about the unchecked expansion of government into the private sector. This means you cannot have an office of more than about 10 people without an OSHA certification. Think about it: a federal government licence to run an OFFICE? You want a blood sample to go with that Comrade?

    The Phantom Therapist
  • Those laws were not created by OSHA. Companies will take steps on their own to protect themselves from lawsuits, they don't need OSHA telling them how to do it. Anyone else remember last year when OSHA declared that injuries suffered by telecommuters while working at home were the company's responability? Luckily there was enough public outcry that they withdrew the measure (claiming "that's not what we meant"). I really, really, really distrust organizations that are empowered to issue declarations with the strength of laws without having to run for re-election. I think not having an anti-delegation clause in the Constitution was a major oversight by the founding fathers.

  • I still think there's a basic contradiction here, though. If you're right that:

    Unemployment might rise in areas high in worker-unfriendly industry, though, as those companies cut back on jobs due to increased cost per employee. But if the widget industry is worker-unfriendly, they'll find that they have to improve working conditions if they want to keep widget production at the same level.

    and look at the OSHA regs, it's pretty tame.

    Then why is OSHA needed at all? Won't a bit of employee pressure accomplish the same things that OSHA does without all the paperwork and lawyering?

    Secondly, you have to take into account not just the people who get better conditions but also the people who lose their jobs outright. You said:

    pay cuts only go so far before you hit minimum wage.

    What happens when they hit minimum wage? Do you think they just shrug and pay extra? Not a chance. If the marginal productivity of an employers workforce falls below minimum wage, he'll stop hiring workers. You might not see it immediately, because he has to keep his factory going, but in the long run driving the marginal value of workers' labor below the minimum wage will increase unemployment.

    The bottom line is that some employers are going to be evil OSHA regs or not. And the evil ones are going to be the ones who will work the hardest to get around OSHA regs for the majority of employers that aren't evil, OSHA is more of a headache than anything else. They'd probably adopt many safety measures voluntarily if asked, and filling out OSHA forms to prove that they've complied is a general waste of everyone's time.

    You can't have it both ways. If OSHA regs are cheap and painless, most employers will adopt them voluntarily. If they are difficult and expensive, then it might not be in the best interests of workers to force employers to implement them.

    One final point. Comparing coal mines in 1800 to anything today is a straw man. A hell of a lot of things have changed between then and now. Today you couldn't get workers to work in those conditions even if they were legal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with government regs. It's just a result of progress. When you can work for $7/hour at McDonald's why risk your life in the mines? Conditions in mines (And everywhere else) were improving long before OSHA came on the scene.
  • PROOF???? You sound like the insurance company I have to deal with...

    I've had a combination of tendinitis and carpal tunnel for over a year and a half now.... And I can tell you that it IS real, it IS serious, and it will fsck up your life if you don't realize it in time.

  • Real cause of RSI (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Filtering internet porn would eliminate most of the RSI injuries in OUR office.
  • I don't have a problem with OSHA regulating companies' regulations and rules, but they can't complain about what individual employees do as themselves! That's unfair regulation of my individual actions, and OSHA doesn't seem to get that (especially with the recent flap about SOHO standards!).

    OSHA has no right to regulate whether I want to get RSI or not. Unfortunately, they treat individuals as official representatives of their company, thus regulating them. This is dead wrong.

  • RSI isn't always a bad thing! (Score:3)

    by Grim Metamoderator ( 178266 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @08:51AM (#622031)
    From the kind of code some programmers write, they deserve to have their wrists hurt. One guy I know has been out of work for three years because of RSI, and if you'd ever seen his code, you'd be thankful.

    --
  • Perhaps this is why my moms (rather large) company is replacing chairs. She said some of them were practically brand new, but were selling them to employees for $5 ea. I wonder if they were trying to comply with OSHA.... The money they made was being donated to local charities.
  • I was hoping, when I was reading that submission, that Desdinova77 was having trouble getting to the site due to wrist problems. Imagine my chagrin!
  • I dont know how many of you out there have worked in an office scenario, ie 8 hours in front of a computer. At home or school It was more like lots of 20min-2hour bursts. But there is no f'n way I can keep correct ergonomic position up for that long, and to top it off I dont care how ergonomically correct you are, typing on a regular keyboard is going to mess up your hands, people just werent meant to have their hands facing downward for that long during the day.

    I think they need to keep coming out with completely new ergonomic devices like that keyboard where its split and the left side stands straight up and the right side stands sraight up and you type with your palms facing each other.
  • The only time I ever had wrist problems from computer use was just after an "ergonomics expert" "corrected" my workstation setup. I put it back the way it had been previously, and the pain went away. So I think I'll just leave it the way it is, whether OSHA likes it or not.
  • In talking about *nix Neal Stephenson wrote "this is a system invented by people to whom repetitive stress disorder is what black lung is to miners." So yes I think it will make some changes and I think this is something we should care about. But they have to be sure to ask us what works and what does not as long as we the "miners" have some input this could be a good thing

  • Just what the US needs, more laws (Score:4)

    by Hairy_Potter ( 219096 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @08:49AM (#622037) Homepage
    How wonderful, more government intervention.

    Listen, there is a reason that the United States, with less government internvention, is a computing powerhouse while countries with stricter government rules (I'm talking Sweden and France and probably other European countries) are lagging in productivity parametrics with respect to the IT industry. United States IT companies are used to working with fewer government constraints, they can respond quicker to industry pressures and are more nimble, thus more successful and productive.

    I don't have too much of an issue with OSHA offering guidelines, so that the smarter IT people can by ergonomic equipmenton thier own (I know I will, since my typing skills are my livelihood), but we shouldn't handicap busineeses that can't afford this.

    If we do, we may slide down that same slippery slope to Socialism that Europe has descended, and some other country will eat out cheese. Believe me,the coders in India are very smart and very hungry,and would love to be the top IT hot dog on the bock.

  • In my observations... (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @08:53AM (#622038)
    My observations have been that employers don't extend themselves for ergonomic concerns but will usually offer to work with an employee who makes some noise. Unfortunately, most of us won't make noise because we don't want to seem like plaintiv nuisances.

    Most of the people I know sit in whatever two dollar chair they're given at a desk that was never adjusted specifically for them and type on your standard straight-edge qwerty keyboard with standard everything. In other words, they go home aching.

    I mean, to a lot of us it is hard to admit that our wrists are hurting. Most of us type in one way or another for a living -- it isn't like we're digging ditches stocking shelves. So we often keep quiet. I usually do, but it sucks when you can't sleep because your wrists are throbbing and you can't grip a coffee mug until you've relaxed for a day or so.

    I wonder how this effects users who tellecommute. How can my employer dictate or be held responsible for my work environment at home? Granted, my eight foot banquet table and cheap OfficeMax chair might not be the best health-wise, but I'm not about to go out and spend hundreds of dollars to egonomize my home office.

    Besides, a lot of us are overweight, get no excersize, have failing eyesight and live on pizza and soda. How are we going to get an employer to take us seriously when we then complain because our poor little wrists are achey-wakey?

    I'm sure I'll regret the attitude of "I'm embarassed to make noise about it to my employer" that I have -- probably someday when I have arthritis and can't grip a pencil or a cup... but oh well.
    ---
    seumas.com

  • How much proof is there that RSI and Carpal tunnel are actually real? You see, chaps, here in Britain these laments have a reputation as being those of malingerers and the like. I have a personal interest in this, because one of my girlfriends has RSI, but her boss doesn't take it seriously.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

  • AFAIK, (and IANAL just so I meet my quota of acronyms) this really effects telecommuters. I recall some stories (sorry, no URLs, I think they were TV or radio) a while back about employers being responsible for working conditions period. Even for employees that work out of their homes.

    Yet another reason for companies to fear telecommuting. In addition to the "Well if I can't see them how do I know that they're working." sentiment is the "If I allow them to telecommute, it could cost us lots of money" reality.

  • The 'pilot program' for OSHA's ergonomic program. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a safety and health official. The original 'guidelines' were so onerous and overbearing that the cost to comply would bankrupt any company smaller than IBM. The rules were simply not based on any reality *I* know of. Many 'experts' in the ergonomic field were consulted, but apparently that was just for show. If you knew just who made the OSHA regulations and how they were made, you'd move to another country (as I did) the people in charge have *no clue* as to how things work in the real world (kind of like Congress come to think of it.) I hope for the sake of the firms that try to comply, that the rules have been fixed.... Digger
  • Of course, what most business types are worried about is shelling out the bucks for a Geek Throne [slashdot.org] as mentioned on Slashdot recently. Not that I blame them. These things can get pricey.

  • Is this going to have an affect on any of your offices?

    The proposed OSHA standard has already greatly affected the place where I work. In the past year:

    All employees have been required to attend an ergonomics course.

    All offices have been evaluated and personalized according to ergonomic guidelines.

    All employees are required to complete an online ergonomic self-evaluation every year.

    I was very resistant to these changes when they were first introduced. Who the hell are they to tell me how I have to lay out my office?

    I now have a $600 ergo chair, $500 negative tilt keyboard and mouse tray, and all my worksurfaces (that's what us cube dwellers call a desk) have been adjusted to my leg and arm lengths.

    How can my company afford all of this? It must cost millions! The answer is: they can't afford to not do it. Most folks here earn about $100K per year, and if only one develops a career threatening case of RSI, the lawsuit to cover lost future income will dwarf the amount spent on all the ergo stuff.

    It is a simple matter of accounting. In this case, money spent on ergo is considered an insurance policy against any future RSI lawsuit.

    -Sommelier

    BTW, after all my complaining a year ago, it turns out I love my new ergo office. I can work for hours in relative comfort. I can't remember ever being this pain free at work.

  • This "expert" was a moron for even suggesting a change. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. While I suggest some basic things to my users, I don't force them to change if they're not experiencing any problems. But you'd be surprised how many times people notice a difference just by making a little adjustment. The big one is having one's monitor too high; bringing it down can release stress in the neck and shoulders that you never knew you had.

    Oh yeah, my point? Not all ergonomic experts know what they're talking about, but some do.
  • "I think they need to keep coming out with completely new ergonomic devices like that keyboard where its split and the left side stands straight up and the right side stands sraight up and you type with your palms facing each other."

    It called the Comfort Keyboard:
    http://comfortkeyboard.com

    I'm thinking of buying one (almost did last night) but I'm really wondering what people who've used it think? From checking out Deja, it seems medical transcriptionists lust after it and they do a LOT of typing. They aren't cheap ($270 at officeorganix.com - in black!), but I don't care about that if it's a high quality product that works. If you have one, let us know what you think of it please!

    LEXX

  • Re:Just what the US needs, more laws (Score:3)

    by gammoth ( 172021 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:45AM (#622046)
    1. There are several reasons why the US is so successful in IT. A relatively free market is but one of them.
    2. RSI can be a terribly dibilitating condition. Many members of the workforce don't have the economic clout to successfully lobby their employer to properly manage the work environment.
    3. If you proposed to a CEO that they could have some incredible salary package, but only on the condition that in fifteen years they would be unable to lift a their grandchildren or swing a golf club, I guarantee you no CEO would accept. Funny that crappy salary packages and RSI are good enough for staff.
    4. Slippery slope arguments are annoying! (And not persuasive.)

    At the dawn of the industrial revolution, some factories in England were working children 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. Somehow I don't think a "please stop" ended this practice.

  • You seemed to have wrist problems last night you selfish bastard.
  • You think the OSHA guidelines are for people like you and me that sit in rooms and can code for 12 hours at a time? No, the companies that hire us are companies that throw in such things like great desks, chairs, and keyboards to lure us to their companies -- it's part of the hiring market. They're also made up of people that understand that it's important in such a company. My friend works for a company where ergonomic equipment can be expensed. The OSHA regulations are for the MASSES, NOT nececssarily people in the IT industry. It's for all the people in the county that sit there and slave away at spreadsheets, reports, and presentations. Think about your average secretary -- that's who it's for.
  • Hey, that's an interesting idea. Anyone make a manual (aka mechanical) computer keyboard? Something that takes a few pounds/sq. inch to type on?
  • What I find interesting is that while everyone here on Slashdot hates Microsoft software, they all LOVE Microsoft hardware.

    Why is that so interesting? The company makes good hardware and shitty software. It's like the coffee shop down the street from my office- it makes good coffee but bad espresso, so I buy coffee there and get my espresso elsewhere. I'll recommend Microsoft's hardware, but I get my software elsewhere.

    As an aside- the Microsoft keyboard is nice and all, but it's nothing compared to my Interfaces by Cramer keyboard. Treat yourself to a real keyboard and resist the urge to give even more money to Microsoft!

  • Maybe having hurt his wrists will work as a temporary solution, but if he writes really bad code then please take my advise and start hurting his head before he gets hold of a voice recognition program. Bad coders are worse than no coders...
  • I work for this company which pretty much exists based on the passing of this legislation. We are hoping it will make the ergonomics industry more visible to the public. Its amazing how many people equate ergonomics with "Reaganomics" instead of repetitive stress injuries.
  • "I don't have too much of an issue with OSHA offering guidelines, so that the smarter IT people can by ergonomic equipmenton thier own (I know I will, since my typing skills are my livelihood), but we shouldn't handicap busineeses that can't afford this. " The only point is that OSHA's standards are not guidelines. I just happen to be in that line of work (i.e. OSHA compliance/Health and Safety) and I am looking at the standard now. A company would have to have an extremely expensive program in place even if ONE employee lifted ONE thing that weighed more than 75 pounds at and ONE TIME. As a side note, kinda funny, The use of any vibrating tools (as jig saws, ginders) for more than 2 hours a day will require the same standard. Guess I need to call my X....
  • There is definitely a noun "affect"... it refers to the conciously perceived congnitive aspects of an emotional response. Granted it doesn't make any sense in the original sentence, but it's not a grammatical error.

  • You've made some interesting points and I feel compelled to reply.

    The point about child labor was to demonstrate that business has a history of doing the wrong thing. It matters not that conditions have changed such that child labor is no longer profitable or a necessity for families. (The only reason children were available to work was because the rural economy was undergoing change. Factory owners took advantage of and probably encouraged this.) They could hire children cheaper than adults, and did so, despite the ugliness.

    This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. Whether business sometimes needs to be coerced into taking safety measures. I say the market is insufficient.

    Employers demonstrate time and time again that they are willing to compromise worker safety for profit. For professionals, it is true that employers will favour them with good working environments. But this is not universal.

    Many people don't have a choice of jobs, or the choice is equivalent to the proverbial choice between a "rock and a hard place." This is true of people who use computers! Not everyone who sits in front of a computer all day is a IT professional. Many if not most are laborers. When AT&T phones you to offer their latest package, are you talking to a programmer? No, it's some unskilled laborer sitting at a monitor.

    But many of your points, and those of many other /.'ers, assume OSHA and ergonomics refer soley to desks and computers. Simply untrue. They apply to assembly line, etc.

    Like you point out, there are many societal and economic forces at play. Workplace safety now includes ergonomics precisely because of our shift away from industry to information. Should we ignore ergonomic issues? I say no, we should be proactive and prevent workplace injuries.

    Lasty, I take the position that non-compliance will cost more, in the long run.

  • I'm so glad Uncle Sam has an endless supply of cash so that he can hire an army of bureaucrats (who are otherwise unemployable) to look after my best interests. After all, the average US citizen can't think for himself or herself, so it's easy to justify wasting a ton of resources on regulatory overhead.

    Now, back to reality Uncle Sam. The majority of people are much smarter than your minions give credit for. Publishing guidelines could be viewed as acceptable use of our tax money. Enforcement through OSHA is not acceptable. If for no other reason than the Constitution does not give OSHA the right to make laws.

  • I don't think it's contradictory. The first quoted bit above was assuming some OSHA regulations. If the OSHA regs require the widget industry to improve working conditions or shut down, they're going to improve working conditions. What you'll find is that the marginal cost of widget production rises, and production will fall somewhat, meaning that there will be some job cuts in the widget industry. It will hurt consumers, too - prices will rise. So yes, OSHA regs have a downside. If they are written carefully, it wont be much of a downside. Ideally, every OSHA reg would be cheap and painless, but in certain industries, safety is expensive. Look at computer parts. The long term health problems that result from some of the chemicals used are really frightening, and the environmental systems that are used in those facilities are really pricey. Would you argue that a worker should have the right to choose to expose themselves to long term damage that will alter make them an expensive burden on the health care system? Especially if the long term health care costs far outweigh the costs of the OSHA protections? I think that, like seatbelt laws, it makes sense in a long term opportunity cost sort of way. The onther solution is to figure out a way whereby people can voluntarily write themselves out of society - "I'll work here with no safety precautions because I don't mind taking the risks, and then society will have no obligation to help me no matter how ill I get due to chemical exposure" sort of thing. But I sort of have a moral issue with that last bit. It's economic slavery.

    Re: employee pressure making these changes, it might work in some cases, the regulations are, imho, for the cases where employee pressure wont work. My understanding is that OSHA doesn't take a look at a business unless they are aware of or suspect violations. Given that, OSHA is harmless and good. If I'm wrong, then OSHA could in fact be wasteful and bad in some cases.

    Re the coal mines, I'll halfway give in on that. A lot has changed with regards to medicine and biology and mining technology, etc. But you can get people to work in those conditions - sweatshops still exist, and clothing fibers can cause serious lung damage as well as coal dust. Different lung damage, but serious lung damage. Take a look at how many sweatshop stories you see in the news. If 3/4 of them are lies, and the other 1/4 are exaggerated, that's still a lot of sweatshop work going on. It's harder to get people to work in those conditions, but it still happens, mostly in developing nations which don't have OSHA style regulations but instead rely on industry self-regulation. Even in the U.S. it happens - migrant workers in agriculture still deal with terrible health issues from pesticides for significantly less than $7/hour, and much harder work that what you might see at the local McDonald's. Not to mention the "company store" con, where they can end up owing their employer money at the end of the day...

    itachi
  • Way off base. Hypothetically, if my boss refuses to fix the office ergonomics to prevent/help treat/whatever my work-induced RSI, then I can either quit or use the OSHA regs to fix the situation. If OSHA didn't have this set of regs, then my only option would be quit and find a new job. It's harder to find a new job if you go into the interview telling them a list of conditions they'll have to meet before you'll take the job. By the logic you're using, we should allow child labor (hey, it's the kids choice to work in a coal mine, if they lose a few limbs, it was their own fault. Besides, they knew that it was dangerous work...). The regs are not for the company, they're for the worker, they simply place the burden on the company.

    itachi
  • Ultimately, there's one reason and only one reason employers treat their employees well-- because they know they'll leave if they don't.

    Well, have you ever worked a crappy job? Have you ever been an unskilled worker in a high-unemployment area? There are a great many people who can't just get up and move to a new job. Take migrant workers, for example. If you don't take the job, someone else will. For the same pay and conditions that you are turning your nose up at. And so you take the job and damage your back, your wrists, your arms, expose yourself to the pesticides, etc.

    These OSHA regulations are essential, because there are evil bastards out there, and they will hire people to do jobs that are dangerous. Look at how many stories you can find about managers locking the fire doors to prevent employees from taking smoke breaks. Or exposing workers to seriously hazardous chemicals without warning them of the precautions to take during usage and handling. These OSHA regulations are not just for you, but for the package handler at FedEx, the person bagging groceries down at the corner store, the mailman, and so forth. These people are covered by the OSHA regs just as much as any computer worker, but they don't have the same job flexibility and mobility.

    Finally, if Bush takes office, it will be a sign that it is time to leave the country. Compassionate fascism isn't my idea of a good time.

    itachi

  • All you need for ergonomics is an MS Natural Keyboard and a decent mouse (their soap-shaped wheel mouse would suffice. I tried an MS Natural the month it came out and haven't gone back to a rectangular keyboard since.

  • This won't affect techies the most (Score:3)

    by fhwang ( 90412 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @08:59AM (#622061) Homepage
    While engineers and other techies (i.e. the bulk of Slashdot's readership) are at risk for RSI, they also have enough clout in the marketplace to ask for, and get, decent equipment to work on. The people who are genuinely at risk are those who do highly repetitive, low-paying computer- and machine-based work such as data entry, shipping, stocking, etc., etc.. They're engaged in activities that put them at extremely high risk for RSI -- more so, I'd wager, than many techies, since engineering work has many breaks where you take your hands off the keyboard and stop to think. And let's not forget that the people in those kinds of low-skills jobs have almost no clout in the marketplace, and cannot demand ergonomically okay equipment.

    So before all the anti-regulation complaints start, please stop and think about it from the point of view of someone who's working one of those jobs. Not only are you doing a menial task for low money and little chance for advancement (much less human engagement), without OSHA you'd face the possibility of losing the use of your hands sometime in the next few years. You'd probably be grateful for the government intervention, too.

  • I dont care how ergonomically correct you are, typing on a regular keyboard is going to mess up your hands, people just werent meant to have their hands facing downward for that long during the day.

    On an interesting note, my grandmother said that she worked at an insurance firm in the 1930s, typing eight hours a day, every day, non-stop (except to get something else to type). She never had any sort of hand or wrist problems, despite that both were under much more stress due to the purely mechanical nature of the typewriters.

    She then mentioned that when she tried to type on conventional modern keyboards, it was intensely uncomfortable because she had to spread her fingers too far apart - she was used to having her fingers almost pressed together.

    Is there a connection? It seems to me that it could be decided pretty decisively by polling laptop users.

  • Re:Proof? (Score:3)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:04AM (#622063)
    I've spent half of my life heavily involved in sports -- wrestling, judo, swimming, boxing, soccer, etc. I've spent most of my childhood doing heavy work around the house and helping build houses with my grandfather (a carpenter).

    Let me just say that out of all the injuries I've ever had, including when I was hit by a car a couple years ago and thrown fifty feet through the air into the asphalt, the pain in your forearms and wrists after spending 12 or 18 hours at the keyboard every day for several days or weeks in a row surpasses them all.

    I've resorted, at times, to taking those wraps intended for sprained ankles that you buy at the pharmacy, and wrapping them around my wrist and hand and placing my wrist on a folded hand-towel in front of my mouse pad.

    Employers might occasionally deny that repetative tasks in a job can cause pain or permenant damage -- but most employers are not in the medical field, have no medical degree and are not involved in the medical and scientific research that has proven that there are extreme stresses on the human body from repetative motions. Take a plastic stick and bend it to and fro repeatedly and it's going to snap. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that repetative lifting or typing or any of a number of other things can cause problems.


    ---
    seumas.com

  • These new standards effect industrial workplaces more than your little cubicles and your little chairs and your little keyboards and your little wrist rests.

    For those of you willing to take off your slashdot blinders for a second, consider the repetitive strain injuries of assembly line workers, the workers in meat processing plants, sweatshops, and packaging operations where people repeat the same motions over and over and over again, reaching twisting bending, etc...

    your little cubicle farm will not notice much of a difference. hey you! sit up straight!

    I work for a company that manufactures automatic packaging equipment, and I for one think this standard is long overdue. There are HUGE business opportunities for creating ergonomic products that help make workplaces safer.

    -freq

  • And where did the money come from to pay the contracts?

  • FWIW, I did a search at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [ama-assn.org] on 'repetitive strain injury' and it came back with 3418 documents. It may not exactly be proof, but it indicates something the AMA seems to take seriously.
  • The employer IS responsible for your workplace at home: http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/Directive_data/CPL_ 2-0_125.html [osha-slc.gov]. That's why a lot of employers are starting to stepping back on telecommuting.
  • OSHA doesn't really care -- it's the company that you work for that's gonna get its ass sued if you come down with an injury. If the guy was incompetent, that's one thing, but at least your company has itself covered and intends on doing the Right thing.
  • Compare the costs of 1 person who develops RSI with the costs of ergonomic equipment for an entire division. In this case, Uncle Sam is both looking out for its citizens who don't always have the power to control what equipment they work on, and helping companies too short-sighted (or just inexperienced) to realize what a problem RSI can be.

    I don't have a link right now, but I have seen more than one study that shows, economically, it is better for a (large, at least) company to invest in ergonomics than to deal with RSI-laden workers.

    Ergonomics don't have to be expensive, either. I personally need a low table, an adjustable chair, and a microsoft elite keyboard. Total cost: same as any other workstation.

    It's things like OSHA that make me glad we have such a great government, despite what Bush may say about it.

  • Is this going to have an affect on any of your offices?

    ObGrammar: It might affect my office, and it may have an effect on my workplace, but I have no idea what an affect is or means.

    --Joe (Feeling a little edgy today.)
    --
    Program Intellivision! [schells.com]
  • my folding table w/$5 generic keyboard with a $15 folding chair w/a PADDED seat... This is an upgrade from the $5 folding chair that I had when I last posted about something like this that had only some sort of hard webbing as support... It broke for some reason...

    I wonder why I don't suffer from too much pain? Hmm.
  • Provide chairs that: Can be adjusted to different heights, making it possible for employees of all sizes to rest their feet comfortably on the floor. From the Options in Ergonomics [osha-slc.gov] Information release.

    When I do that, I cannot reach the keyboard. Those who are more than one standard deviation from normal size still need to cope with normal equipment. Many of us already have viable workarounds that are not mentioned in the rules. Someone could get bureaucratic and decide that I have to give up my child-sized keyboard, footrest, and teeny mouse.

    Asking my employer to get a special $1200 adjustable desk strikes me as an undue burden when I can spend $25 for a reasonable footrest.

    I telecommute for part of my workweek. I am most concerned about the regulations regarding contractors and work-at-home employeees. One of our boxen has a good chair (adjustable, back support, etc.) but the other does not. Does this mean my employer has an obligation to make sure my home equipment is up to snuff?

    This could have a chilling effect on telecommuting, and work by indys working from home offices.

  • I have tried those. Since I have the hand size of an average ten-year-old, it was physically painful.

    The most important thing to recognize about ergonomics is that one-size-fits-all will actively harm many. Adjustability and flexibility need to be watchwords, but are difficult to implement when employee tenure is > 1.5 yrs.

  • I got CTS when I was 16 and working at a design company. This was back in 1994 at epic software, which is probably still hiring... exploiting... high school kids to this day..

    Shell Oil screamed at my boss because he screwed up an order; the boss screamed at me to type four pages of detailed technical information as fast as possible for Shell. Before that day, I had never even heard of CTS. After that day, I went home hurting.. and the soreness and eventual numbness never went away (and remains to this day).

    My mistake was that I was a kid and didn't know better. I did as I was told and didn't think about it. Ergonomics were terrible in those days (this was circa 1994 - 1995); OSHA is trying to get people up to date.

    Most of the new furniture available to businesses is compliant with standards to prevent RSI.

    It's just when employers have old-ass equipment and furniture that they have used and used and used that really presents a problem. Computer desks from 10 years ago are not the same as those today.

    In my case, my employer had me working and typing on a long "bingo" table and a folding chair.

    Most employers will listen to requests for ergo stuff now, but, back when I got CTS, my employer said, "We'll just have to take you out back and shoot you" (referring to how horses with broken legs are often dealt with)

    SOHO standards are coming about because people are employing others to do work in their home office and making them sit on consumer furniture that is not meant to be worked on. Can you imagine doing a consulting job where you spent 8 - 12 hours coding on someone's small kitchen stool, keyboard in lap? It has happened.

    Before you diss OSHA, don't forget that there are plenty of stupid people out there that aren't as wise to ergonomics as you are. It is these people that they want to crack down on because their employees are getting injured.


    --
  • This measure has been pushed through by the Clinton whitehouse before he leaves office. I have to wonder if the real point is to bring the Nader democrats back into the fold. This smells of political footwork to me, and that is dangerous. This makes me worry because often these sorts of measure are not thought out for side effects before they are implimented.

    My other worry is how much this is going to cost me. Companies do not pay for this stuff we do. They are going to pass the costs onto us. I have heard estimates that this is going to cost companies in the US 90 BILLION Dollars a year when implimented.

    When your goverment does somethnig to help you, run screaming , they have a bad habit of saying that the operation was a success but the patient died on the table.....

    Papa Legba

  • OSHA has no right to regulate whether I want to get RSI or not. Unfortunately, they treat individuals as official representatives of their company, thus regulating them. This is dead wrong.

    If RSI only impacted you, then I would agree with your statement. However, if developing RSI impacts the company, either through lost employee productivity, increased health costs or both, then the company not only has the right, but the obligation to do something about it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close