|
PROVIDING FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC - REVISITING THE ERGONOMIC WORKPLACE BY RANI LUEDER, PRESIDENT, HUMANICS ERGOSYSTEMS, INC., IBD PERSPECTIVE, SPRING 1994 We are thrown into this new world, kicking and screaming. Reported rates of work-related Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CDT) increased ten-fold. In only a decade. At last count, 62% of all recorded occupational illnesses were of this type; this represents 14 to 18 million cases of CTD per year. In the United States, worker’s compensation claims have skyrocketed, both in absolute numbers and in cost per claim. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is developing stringent ergonomic standards that many companies maintain they can not afford. A recent report put out by the Department of Labor concludes that people suffering from "ergonomic disorders" are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). New implications of the ADA for accommodating injured workers will continue to unfold as court precedents are established. Insurance companies are becoming more demanding. Productivity has suffered, often dramatically, and much of today’s workforce is demoralized, fearful, and in pain. Although employers are often somewhat protected by the worker’s compensations system, a broadening network of parties, including manufacturers, dealers, retailers, interior designers, and architects, faces the prospect of being sued. Many specialists contend that problems will continue to deteriorate until the problem is confronted head-on. We spend more time fixated in front of the computer, with more deadline crunches, more stress, often in a less supportive environment. Organizational changes frequently ignore human needs. Such considerations magnify the demands of the work environment. Further, our work force is growing older. With the aging of the "baby boom" population, many more of us become susceptible to a host of physical and vision discomforts. We need more light to see, but are more susceptible to glare; we become subject to back problems and other disorders. The impact of these issues are compounded in today’s computerized workplace. Yet few organizations recognize the full extent of the problem within their organization. Organizations are typically shocked to learn of how many of their workers experience symptoms of CTD. In virtually every large company, many employees do not report that they are experiencing chronic medical problems, often caused in whole or part by their work. The associated reductions of productivity are often pronounced, but invisible. An ergonomist may be brought into a project for many reasons
An ergonomic environment requires a team effort and needs to reflect an on-going process that will continue after the ergonomist has left. A large-scale evaluation for a large corporation would ideally include team members with responsibilities regarding the company’s management, safety, facilities, purchasing, human resources, health services, and include representatives for end users. However, to avoid the "committee effect" members might also be broken into sub-groups with five to ten members that each report from the larger group. Fears arise from many fronts. Unions and computer users are concerned that a work place evaluation may be used to downsize the work force. Supervisors, pressured to increase group productivity, are afraid that problems will reflect negatively on them. Facilities managers, pushed from above to reduce costs, and from below to increase services, are concerned about being subjected to outside intervention from someone who doesn’t understand the organizational context in which they must function. Safety, facing a continually growing roster of issues it must address (earthquakes, hurricanes, toxic waste, sick building syndrome, etc.) is threatened at the prospect of yet another problem. Management is afraid that information provided from an evaluation may be used against them in an OSHA audit. They also are nervous that training employees in the nature of computer injuries will increase the number of complaints. These concerns are valid, and need to be addressed early on to ensure that the evaluation will be effective , and benefit all concerned. Limitations exist in every project (e.g., budget, time lines, union regulations, productivity objectives, etc.) and must be clarified from the outset. An ergonomics analysis can address specific (local) or corporate-wide issues. Frequently, management expects an immediate solution from a consultant. However, when the reasons for the injury are not known this may effectively "throw good money after bad." It is typically much more cost-effective for the client to conduct an ergonomics workplace assessment to evaluate the many factors that may contribute to problems before taking steps to prevent them. The complexity of analysis ultimately depends on the size and scope of your needs. Stages in an in-depth evaluation might include the following:
As each company is unique, so is the nature of the ergonomic evaluation. However , in every case this analysis and subsequent application of the recommendations should be considered as only a first step. With time, new considerations will continue to arise, and companies that benefit the most will develop a long-term commitment to monitoring and incorporat8ing ergonomic principles to the workplace. |
|
Click here to request a product sample Copyright
© Safe-T-First 2000. All rights reserved. |