At Labor Department, ergonomics stays on back burner

The Bush administration's Labor Department, facing more heavy lifting in a year than it probably ever thought possible, has repeatedly left one weighty issue behind: ergonomics.

The latest delay came late last week, when a pair of Senate committees postponed planned hearings at the request of the administration. Now, observers are wondering if the administration ever will find time for the divisive issue.

Congress' repeal last March of the Clinton administration's ergonomics rule--the first time Congress had used its authority to repeal a regulation--prompted incoming Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to promise to reassess the evidence, and to return to Congress last September with a comprehensive plan.

Democrats, who were not in control of the Senate at the time of last March's action, fumed and promised to take aggressive action to force the department to issue a new regulation. Organized labor echoed those sentiments.

The Senate changed hands in June, but the new Democratic leadership remained relatively quiet on the subject of ergonomics for a few months. Early September came and went with no word from Chao.

Then came the Sept. 11 attacks, and the Labor Department-- among others--had to swing into action. Labor Department officials worked on emergency relief grants to aid victims' families and those put out of work by the events. Chao said she would get back to Congress on ergonomics by the end of 2001.

But the Enron collapse late in the year brought more work for the department, investigating possible pension fraud. And Chao was named to a team of key Bush administration officials to investigate what had gone wrong at the company.

But now that a decent interval has passed, what has happened to ergonomics?

"It's so political, and I think the longer they put it off, the more difficult it's going to be," said Jill Pomeroy, associate director of employment policy of the National Association of Manufacturers. NAM had joined other employers in pushing for the repeal of the Clinton rule, saying it was too far-reaching.

"It seems to me before Sept. 11 that they really were on track, but they've suffered a setback," she said.

Republican congressional sources said the administration's ergonomics policy might not be unveiled until after the Hill's Easter recess. They cite the politics surrounding the energy policy debate and the controversy over the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering to an appellate court position as indications that it is not the right time to deal with ergonomics.

Two key Senate panels--the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Labor- HHS Appropriations Subcommittee--have postponed ergonomics hearings in response to administration requests for more time. The HELP panel's hearing had been planned for Thursday.

If the committees wait until the policy is announced before calling Chao to Capitol Hill, "at least it would be interactive," a Republican source said.

Democrats also would prefer to have a policy in hand before the hearings. But labor groups are growing tired of waiting.

"The bottom line is they [the administration] don't want to do anything," said Peg Seminario, director of the AFL-CIO's department of occupational safety and health. "They think people are just going to go away, but we're not."

Every day, about 5,000 people suffer an ergonomic injury, Seminario said.

The labor federation, which does not expect Chao's policy to take the form of a new regulation, is working with Sen. John Breaux, D-La., and others on legislation that might require the department to issue a new ergonomics regulation within two years. But Breaux said he was waiting for the administration to make the first move.

"We'll have to wait and see," Breaux said last week.

Breaux and labor groups disagreed over language in a bill he drafted last year. It would have prevented the administration from interfering with workers' compensation.

If the department issues a guidance document or a directive, labor union officials say it would be inadequate, and they might consider litigation.

But business groups argue that a guidance document would be adequate--because the department has the authority to pursue ergonomics cases through a general duty clause already in the law.

"If there's a recognition of a serious hazard and a way to abate it, the employer must address it," said one business lobbyist who follows the issue.

Whatever the administration unveils, it will be sure to draw criticism from Capitol Hill.

"It's been a year since they made a promise that they were going to work on something. They're just trying to see if they can get by, doing nothing," complained House Education and the Workforce ranking member George Miller, D-Calif.