On November 4th voters in Washington will be asked whether the state's latest set of rules regulating the workplace, called the ergonomics rule, should be repealed. Unlike past ballot measures, Initiative 841 does not seek to make new law. Its goal is to reverse a regulatory action taken by a state agency, in this case the Department of Labor and Industries, without the specific direction of the legislature. Initiative 841 is one of the rare occasions when voters are being asked to pass judgment on a state regulation.

Opponents of I-841 say the ergonomics rule will reduce workplace injuries and save money through lower workers' compensation claims. I-841 supporters argue the rule is unnecessary and that its complexity and cost will contribute to job losses and will damage Washington's business climate.

Ergonomics regulations were issued for all states during the Clinton Administration, but Congress repealed them in 2001. Today, only Washington and California impose their own ergonomics regulations.

Since Washington's ergonomics rule is intended to improve safety for workers, it makes sense to assess it in light of what is already happening in workplace safety.

Workplace safety has improved dramatically over the years. In the 1930s, injuries on the job killed 38 workers per 100,000 people employed. Today, workplace fatalities have been reduced by 90%. Nationally, workplace ergonomic disorders have declined 26% over the last ten years. Washington has shared in this trend. Ergonomic injuries in our state have fallen more than 24% since 1996. For example: back disorder claims fell 19%, carpal tunnel syndrome claims fell 27%, and neck and arm disorder claims fell 16%, all in the absence of state-mandated regulations.

Supporters of Initiative 841 say the falling injury rate shows the compulsory ergonomics rule is not needed, and that it may discourage employers from continuing voluntary workplace safety programs.

By any measure the rule I-841 seeks to repeal is extremely complicated. The Concise Explanatory Statement alone is 126 pages, plus three appendices. The rule states that it "applies to all industries and workplaces of all sizes, but specific employers are covered only where defined exposures are found." All workplaces in the state are potentially covered, so all employers must be aware of and comply with the ergonomics rule.

The rule applies to "caution zone jobs." These are defined as jobs that require work activities such as lifting, bending, squatting, kneeling, bending the head or wrist, high hand or arm vibration, or lifting arms above the shoulders.

Employers with "caution zone jobs" must identify those with work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WMSD) hazards that must be reduced. A WMSD hazard is "a physical risk factor that by itself or in combination with other physical risk factors has a sufficient level of intensity, duration or frequency to cause a substantial risk of WMSDs."

To avoid a WMSD hazard, employers must make sure workers do not, for example:

• Work with hands above the head more than four hours a day.
• Work with back bent forward more than 30 degrees more than four hours a day.
• Work squatting more than four hours a day.
• Bend wrists more than 30 degrees more than three hours a day.
• Grip an object weighing more than 10 pounds more than three hours a day.
• Pinch an object weighing more than two pounds more than three hours a day.

These limitations mean many current full-time employees may only be allowed to work three or four hours a day, resulting in a significant cut in their personal income.

The rule states that it must be implemented where "economically feasible," but that will not provide a legal defense for employers. The law says state regulators, not employers, will decide what is feasible. Penalties for violating the rule range from $7,000 to $70,000 per infraction.

Government regulations often produce unexpected and undesirable outcomes. The ergonomics rule represents a significant increase in the regulation of business in an effort to further improve workplace safety, and it will be up to voters to decide whether the potential benefit outweighs its cost and complexity.