The workplace ergonomics regulation adopted under the Clinton administration has been rescinded through congressional action. Did Congress do the right thing?
Congress voted in March to repeal an ergonomics regulation adopted by the Clinton administration late last year. The regulation was intended to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
The American Dental Association, along with major business groups, had urged Congress to repeal the rules developed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA. The Association voiced its concern that the regulation was too intrusive and costly for dental practices and other small businesses.
In response to JADA’s April Question of the Month, 91 percent of respondents supported repeal of the regulation. Said one reader, "There are too many regulations already hampering small businesses. Let people be responsible, not government!"
Several respondents were skeptical of the government’s cost estimates for the regulation.
Added another, "Government does not need to regulate everything. Too much regulation especially hurts small-business owners." Observed a third reader, "We have too many government regulations. Any work-related repetitive problems have always been resolved by determining the etiology and making changes accordingly."
Some readers doubted that repetitive strain injuries were a serious problem in dentistry. Said one, "I have no personal experience that the ergonomics issue is a problem for our profession, nor have my colleagues related such concerns to me." Another reader said, "We have seen none of these repetitive strain injuries during my 25 years of owning my practice (17 employees). This problem is greatly exaggerated." A third remarked, "OSHA should concentrate on truly dangerous workplaces."
Several respondents were skeptical of the government’s cost estimates for the regulation. One reader said, "Government estimates have never been accurate!" Another said, "Worker protection ideally is a laudable aim, but it will both cost more and save less than Congress projected. We as a profession should build a track record of sensitivity to worker safety issues." Observed a third reader, "Patients, third-party payers and government would not be willing to pay the fees dentists would have to charge to survive the new OSHA regulations."
Seven percent of respondents said the regulation should not have been rescinded. "This is a classic example of concern over short-term costs, while ignoring the long-term benefits to the dental team’s health and well-being," said one reader. Said another, "As health care professionals, dentists should support the prevention of injury as a priority."
Two percent of respondents said they did not know if Congress did the right thing in repealing the ergonomics regulation.
The Bush administration in April unveiled principles for a new regulatory plan to reduce work-related repetitive-stress injuries. Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao proposed a "new approach based on cooperation and prevention, rather than the antiquated adversarial approach of the past." Ms. Chao said the new regulatory effort would be based on these principles: preventing injuries before they occur; the best available science and research; cooperation between OSHA and employers; avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach; recognition of the regulatory costs for small businesses; and short, simple and common-sense instruction.
She urged lawmakers not to set an artificial deadline for new regulations.
The ADA recognizes the importance of workplace safety and will continue to develop programs that help ensure the continued safety of dentists and their staffs. Last August, the ADA sponsored the "Dental Ergonomics Summit 2000," which brought together experts in the fields of ergonomics, dentistry and medicine and will provide the basis for additional educational materials.
More information on ergonomics can be found in the Government & Advocacy area of ADA.org at "www.ada.org/prof/govt/dentistryworks/ergonomics.html".
