Washington, D.C.—When President Bush signed the repeal of an OSHA standard on ergonomics and repetitive stress injuries, he effectively voided rules that opponents say would have cost industry billions of dollars.

The National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors applauded the decision, saying that not only were the regulations prohibitively expensive, they were vague, oppressive and not based on clear medical conclusions.

"This is a victory for the entire wholesale distribution industry," said NAW President Dirk Van Dongen.

According to government officials, labor unions and distributor organizations, the repeal was not the end of a search for common ground on the stress- and lifting-injuries question. The legislation voiding the rules was signed March 20.

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said that she will "pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics ... that addresses the concerns levied against the current standards."

Repetitive stress injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome, have become rampant in offices where computer users type on keyboards all day. According to the National Women's Health Information Center, carpal tunnel syndrome occurs when tendons in the wrist become inflamed after being aggravated. A tunnel of bones (the carpals) and ligaments in the wrist narrows, pinching nerves that reach the fingers and the muscle at the base of the thumb. Repetitive flexing and extension of the wrist may cause a thickening of the protective sheaths that surround each of the tendons to narrow the tunnel. The injury happens most often due to highly repetitive, forceful movements of the wrists.

Lifting and assembly operations in warehouses are apt to cause repetitive stress injuries, also. Back injuries from lifting over and over are becoming more serious, according to doctors and labor unions on the side of a stringent ergonomic standard.

Safety distributors, general line distributors and safety organizations all seem to agree on one thing: musculo-skeletal injuries of all types are serious and their prevention needs to be addressed in a fair and competent manner. The question remains, therefore, about exactly what standard can be accepted, and what remedies regulations should allow.

According to Ron Reese, NAW's senior director for government relations, there probably will be another bill addressing musculo-skeletal and repetitive-stress injuries in the future. And NAW is not necessarily against a compromise.

"As it relates to common sense, [the previous bill] did not make sense and was not backed by medical science. OSHA would not wait for results of a one-year study that would have shed much more light on what is needed in an ergonomic bill. They acted irresponsibly," Reese said.

Reese does not see an outcry for OSHA to change the way it approaches real or perceived dangers in the workplace. But, he adds, the regulations' introduction and speedy passage through Congress was purely political, forced through at the end of the last administration because, "they had to formulate the rules before the new administration could take over."

The NAW complaint was not so much that regulations were proposed, but that the end result did not protect workers.

"There would have to be overwhelming evidence from a clear study of these injuries for even compromised rules to be accepted," Reese said.

Meanwhile, labor unions are voicing their determination to get an ergonomics bill of some kind passed.

A segment of distribution potentially caught in a quandary in the ergonomic-rules battle is the safety distributor. They stand to gain long- and short-term sales from ergonomic equipment. As employers, they would also fall under any guidelines that become law.

Richard Harper, president of the Safety Marketing Group, an organization of 54 distributors and 42 manufacturers of safety products, said that ergonomics is a double-edged sword for safety specialists. On one hand, each company is a viable business not in favor of over-regulation. His group agrees that the ergonomics bill that was rescinded went much too far, and was much too vague, to have been viable.

On the other hand, his group is in a unique position to sell more ergonomic products to many customers if mandated by legislation. That, however, is far from the most important issue, Harper said.

"There needs to be, will be, a compromise on ergonomic safety for workers that makes sense. Rather than stifling legislation, we would prefer to have manufacturers see the problems their workers face and address those without mandates. They should know that worker's compensation issues and other factors make it a far better proposition to get the right equipment before people have injuries," he said.

In the meantime, arguments continue about how widespread and severe musculo-skeletal and repetitive-stress injuries are.

Distributors specializing in safety, like Safety Equipment Co. in Tampa, Fla., and Safety Source Northeast in Sturbridge, Mass., agree the legislation was not the right solution.

"It appears the [OSHA] standard was overbearing. It included up to a 90-day leave of absence for workers and other measures that went way beyond the usefulness of solving ergonomic problems," said Robert Kingman, president of Safety Source Northeast.

"The controversy behind the ergonomics [legislation] will continue," said Richard Crannell of SEC. "Repetitive motion injuries are complicated and could be difficult to prevent. It's hard to change jobs for people with some of those injuries, but job safety has evolved to include the front office."

Those two managers understand that there needs to be some progress in rules and regulations for ergonomic problems. How the country can get there, however, remains to be seen.