"What killed the standard were special-interest lobbying groups. The National Manufacturer's Association, for example, was quite organized and had lobbied against the standard for some time. Unfortunately, labor representatives did not counteract t he lobby groups. They simply weren’t prepared for the fight.

"The standard was designed to be reactive, meaning companies were required to do very little so long as there were no reports of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Basically, the companies were to inform their employees about musculoskeletal disorders and then provide the workers with a mechanism to report injuries if they occurred.

"Keeping in mind the potential effect on smaller companies, the standard was designed to minimize costs. The training and reporting mechanism could have been fulfilled by a human resources department or, for bigger companies, the presence of a saf ety or health officer. If a pattern of injuries or disorders emerged on a site, then the company would have to create an ergonomics committee to ensure that something was done to mitigate the risk.

"A lot of critics said that Bill Clinton rushed the executive order during his last days in office. My response is that the standard was 20 years in the making. Perhaps ironically, the original proposal to do an ergonomics standard was made by Elizabeth Dole when she was Secretary of Labor under the current president’s father’s administration.

"I think the interest in ergonomics at that time was prompted by the beginning of a musculoskeletal disorders outbreak in the late 1980s. If you look at data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you’ll see a huge increase in the numbers of mu sculoskeletal disorders being associated with repetitive tasks after the late 1980s and early 1990s. We aren’t sure what caused the large increase. It could have been from better awareness of these kinds of injuries, improved reporting, or other fact ors such as increased computer use.

"OSHA hired its first ergonomics expert in 1979 and started to issue guidelines and create outreach programs on ergonomics in 1990. On November 23, 1999, the administration published its first proposal for an ergonomics standard and then conducted a public comment period for nine weeks. During that time, OSHA received 18,000 pages of testimony from 714 witnesses as well as 11,000 comments and briefs.

"Based on the testimony it had collected, as well as more than a decade of research, OSHA issued the final standard last November, but it didn’t go into effect until January 15, 2001, five days before George W. Bush took office. Congress then had 60 days to overrule the order. They killed it in the last week of this 60-day period.

"Critics said the standard was based on bad science, which I find disturbing. The standard was founded on a lot of good science and was supported by two National Academy of Science reports initiated by the Republican Congress during Clinton’s term. Both reports said that work-related injuries and musculoskeletal disorders are huge public health problems that we need to do something about sooner rather than later, and that prevention is the best way to attack the problems.

"Opponents to the standard also said it would cost too much. That’s a harder argument to fight against. When you actually do prevent injuries, how do you show the success of the prevention? Data indicates that work-related injuries cost Ameri can companies an average of $10,000 per injury. What if you could do a little intervention at the cost of $2,000? The net return to the company would be $8,000, but how do you prove that a company’s employees were likely to become injured in the firs t place?

"The other big criticism was that the standard included a worker-restriction protection clause, which guaranteed that an employee receive 90 days of pay after reporting an injury or the onset of a musculoskeletal disorder. The clause was meant to protect workers so that they would not fear getting fired if they reported an injury, but opponents said it left too much room for potential abuse. That is a concern, but the clause specifies that any injury or disorder must be verified by a health profes sional, much in the same way as a short-term or long-term disability would have to be confirmed.

"In my opinion, we need to get beyond this bipartisan debate and work together on what is in the best interest of the American people. Ergonomics is all about common sense. If you design a job right, people won’t get hurt, and they’ll be more productive. Large companies such as auto-manufacturing firms already know this. They have been using good ergonomics measures for years. The standard that Congress killed was meant to protect the employees who have been left behind.

"OSHA was created to protect the health and safety of the American worker. When Congress voted to get rid of the standard, it was sad, because in the end you didn’t feel that any of this rancor was for the American people.

"The current Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has stated that the government should continue to look into ergonomics. It would be great to see George W. Bush say, ‘This makes sense,’ and move forward with an ergonomics policy that brings e veryone together. But what I don’t hear coming out of Washington is, ‘How do we protect the American worker?’"