Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on November 29, 2005, to prohibit the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) or other state agencies from imposing rules and regulations regarding workplace “ergonomics.” This agency has been convening a “workgroup” for many months to draft such rules

The vote was 56 in favor, 45 opposed and 7 not voting

(House Roll Call 1 at House Journal 2)

Click here to view bill details.

Without these rules, work is just killing people one body part at a time. It also raises health care costs in the long run. Making work safer increases and maintain productivity. Right now, Michigan is a bad place to work and live because of so-called "business friendly" souless creature like you.

House bill No. 5447, introduced by Representative Rick Jones, is nothing more than partisan politics designed to prohibit the development of a workable ergonomics rule. To make a rule that prohibits making another rule is simply a waste of our legislatures’ time and the tax payers’ money. While I may not know what might constitute an acceptable ergonomics rule to all parties, there is most certainly a compromise that exists that will reduce the incidence of cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs) while making businesses more efficient and productive in the process. To prohibit the promulgation of any ergonomics rule, regardless of content, is tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand and denying that repetitive motion injuries occur and cannot be eliminated. I have worked in the field of ergonomics in the automotive industry for over 16 years and I can testify that ergonomic programs do indeed work to reduce CTDs, improve both productivity and quality as well as save money. In one facility employing over 1000 people, I have watched incident rates drop from 7 per 100 workers to 0.8 per 100 workers over the past seven years. Lost workday incidents have dropped from 1.3 per 100 workers to 0.1 per 100 workers over the same period. The key is to educate business owners on the benefits of an ergonomics process so that ergonomics becomes institutionalized as part of their business plan. Unfortunately, this will not happen voluntarily. I think that most of us agree that the majority of businesses would not implement effective safety programs if they were not mandated by OSHA and MIOSHA. We need only look at the recent Sago mine tragedy as an example where profit was placed before safety. To think that businesses would consider voluntarily implementing an ergonomics program any more than they would an effective safety program is naïve at best. In my 16 year career in ergonomics, I have seen my employer evolve from a highly reactive state, mandated by OSHA and labor agreements; to a highly proactive state where design-in ergonomics has more effectively reduced injury/illness rates and associated costs. The interesting thing to note is that my employer learned from the mandated reactive process that it is far cheaper to design equipment and processes right in the first place, rather than trying to fix them after that fact. They also learned that a well designed process leads to a better quality product and a more efficient assembly process. I urge our legislators to vote “no” on house bill 5447. Let the MIOSHA Ergonomics Standard Advisory Committee work to develop a rule that will help Michigan businesses become more competitive and provide Michigan workers with a safer workplace.

Considering greater that 60% of all work related injuries and illnesses are ergonomic related problems and the majority of these injuries and illnesses can be eliminated or reduced by applying proper ergonomics at little or no cost to the employer, Ergonomic training, job analysis and job improvements need to be mandated. Businesses will NOT do it on their own...

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted 'no' on House Bill 5447 (H-1) because I believe that this bill will, contrary to its proponents claims, result in higher business costs due to more workplace injuries. Currently, testimony from the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA) indicates that 50% of all worker compensation claims are from strains, sprains and repetitive motion injuries. Many of Michigan's premier employers recognize this fact, indeed General Motors, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler all have their own ergonomic standards. It has been conservatively estimated by OSHA that ergonomic injuries are costing our nation's economy more than $50 billion annually. It seems to me that workers and businesses would benefit from a well thought out ergonomic standard that would prevent expensive crippling repetitive motion injuries. I also note that the Ergonomic Advisory Committee was created by MIOSHA under the Engler Administration to look at ergonomics issues within the state. This committee was composed of individuals representing management and labor as well as representatives from the Department of Consumer and Industry Services. The legislature should allow the committee to continue its work in promulgating workplace rules under the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act. Because of these concerns, I voted 'no' on House Bill 5447."

Senator Basham, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No.5447 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Basham's statement is as follows: I, too, oppose this legislation for a lot of reasons. In most businesses, as the previous speaker spoke, they would support this type of legislation and proof that for every $1 invested in ergonomics there is a $2 return, at least. In the state of California, they invested substantially in ergonomics and got a substantial return in savings. We all know the costs of health care and worker's comp are skyrocketing. This is one of those tools that corporations could use, all businesses could use. To lower those costs, we do not want our employees to do repetitive jobs, whether that's at a bank or at an assembly line, to have to be off work for surgeries like carpal tunnel syndrome and others. So this is a win-win. If this bill does not pass, it allows the committee to continue to see where and let them develop the best practice for ergonomics in this great state. Again, there are some businesses out there that would like to have no restrictions on anything and no guards on motors or no standards at all. Quite frankly, they think they would survive, but if you treat your employees properly and you take care of those issues when it comes to doing repetitive motions, a happy employee actually saves the companies' money. For many, many reasons, this piece of legislation is bad legislation. Again, it's tampering with the study committee to promulgate rules. I would encourage members to not support this legislation.

Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: To me, this bill is a premature strike at standards that the advisory committee hasn't even had the chance to even fully formulate yet. So far, the committee has proposed open-ended and flexible standards which would require only a minimal level of training and a process for assessing and responding to risk factors. The majority of members on the advisory committee, interestingly enough, are all from the business community. To name a few, we have the Michigan Health and Hospital Association; the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Tower Automotive; Dow Chemical Company, and so on. These are businesses who would not promulgate job-killing or onerous standards for themselves, and they certainly are not going to do them for the state of Michigan. By conservative estimates alone, on the economic burden as measured by compensation costs, lost wages, and lost productivity, we are talking about between $45 billion and $54 billion annually. It is important that we let the committee finish their work so that we can begin to address the skyrocketing costs to Michigan businesses. I know that Michigan is struggling with the high cost of health care. Here is a very direct way that we can reduce some of these costs. To me, there is nothing in conflict with protecting the health and safety of our workers and telling businesses that Michigan is a great and a fair place to do business. With that, I ask my colleagues to vote "no" on this bill. Stand up for Michigan workers and do the right thing.