For anyone who possesses a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of industrial ergonomics, it is clear that the standard was an embarrassment of methodology and objectives. While it can be argued that any ergonomics standard would benefit workers, this benefit must be taken in the overall context of meaningful business objectives. It is my experience that no amount of standards or regulations will improve the ergonomic performance of the workplace unless corporations see a measurable business benefit. Some corporations recognize superior ergonomics in the workplace as a corporate mission. Others do not. The most advanced and commercially successful corporations are beginning to understand the benefits of superior ergonomic workplaces. Objective measures that directly impact the bottom line are reduced workplace injury costs, reduced employee training, reduced turnover and down time, increased worker longevity on the job, improved product quality and production efficiency. These factors all hit the bottom line with tremendous force. However, creating effective solutions that produce such benefits is complex and difficult, but no more so than other worthwhile corporate development efforts.

On the other hand, the OSHA standard gave the impression that "state-of-the-art" ergonomics could be achieved by simple application of a standardized checklist and review process. This simplification dramatically underplays the true complexities of ergonomic workplace evaluation and design. It completely ignores the more complex issue of the relationship between ergonomics, job structure, and financial compensation. For example, piece rate production and compensation practices must be considered when analyzing overall worker health and productivity. Even the best ergonomic workplace solutions can lead to worker injuries if the pace of work exceeds human limitations. These are interesting and exceedingly complex issues. Leading corporations do not need to be forced to employ ergonomic standards in the creation of their workplaces. They know that it is simply good business.

It appears that the OSHA ergonomics act was basically another example of the de-skilling of ergonomics and human factors engineering as viable scientific disciplines. This trend has been taking place for several years as "quasi-professional" ergonomic certification services have sprung up that offer crash courses in ergonomics to anyone with a basic understanding of engineering principles. These courses are heavy on checklist-based process methods and very light on anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics. The net effect has been the development of a large number of "ergonomic experts" who have little detailed understanding of the core methods and issues surrounding ergonomics in the workplace. The most disturbing impact of this de-skilling of ergonomics and human factors engineering is the decline in scientifically reliable research studies that clearly show the impact that ergonomics can have on worker health and productivity. "Lack of scientifically valid research" on the benefits of ergonomics was THE major factor used to repeal the OSHA act. A more rigorous and scientific approach focused on the benefits of ergonomics is the only way we will ever see a new ergonomics law, and this is probably for the good of all.

Charles L. Mauro
July 25, 2001

Email the editor with any questions or comments.