| The legislature of Suffolk County, Long Island (yes, counties in New York
State have their own legislatures) recently passed a law regulating the use of
video terminals on the job. According to the IEEE, it is the first such law in
the U.S. It governs the kind of things you are talking about (lighting, chairs,
max number of hours without a break, etc.). Because there are few, if any, DEC
workplaces in that part of Long Island, it has only a minor effect on DECcies.
But it could require us to make some changes in the terminals we sell in that
region.
My impression is that the law is aimed mainly at 'sweatshop' environments
where clerks are asked to work at terminals for 3-4 hours straight and have
bosses watching them most of the time. It doesn't address the belief (which I
think is false) that video terminals are a radiation hazard.
|
| I'd been waiting to type this in to the 'BOX, but this seems a better place for
the text.
/AHM
The New York
DAILY NEWS
New York's Picture Newspaper�
Wednesday, June 15, 1988 C 5
First VDT law passed
Suffolk sets use rules
By JERRY CASSIDY
and ROSE MARIE ARCE
-------------------
Daily News Staff Writers
The first law in the country to regulate the use of video display terminals in
the work place was enacted yesterday by the Suffolk County Legislature,
overriding County Executive Patrick Halpin's veto.
The bill, which Halpin vetoed Friday, forces employers to provide 15-minute
breaks every three house to anyone who faces a VDT for more than 26 hours a
week. It also requires glare-free screen, detachable keyboards and more
comfortable five-legged stools in offices with more than 20 VDT operators. The
bill takes effect in 1990.
The most controversial aspect of the legislation is a requirement that companies
pay 80% of the cost of annual eye exams and glasses. That's where Halpin drew
the line. "I cannot justify the county mandating a health care benefit," he
said.
Violators face Health Department scrutiny but no fines. Health Department
investigators can initiate court action if firms fail to comply within 60 days
of being cited.
He'll enforce it
Despite the veto, Halpin promised to do his best to implement the law so that it
has minimal impact on the business community. Two years ago, Halpin, then a
state legislator, supported the bill, but changed his mind after becoming county
executive and concluding the bill would adversely affect businesses.
Several studies have linked VDT use to increased miscarriages and other
problems.
Long Island's business community disputed those findings and opposed the bill
with an intense lobbying effort. Virtually the same bill was vetoed by acting
County Executive Michael LoGrande last year.
The impact on business is less significant than claimed, said Suffolk County
Legislator Gregory Blass (R-Riverhead).
"We heard the gloom and doom from business when we passed the bottle bill and we
heard the gloom and doom when we passed the smoking ban," said Blass.
"Suggestions that the VDT bill might wipe out the business community is playing
up to theatrics."
Jobs loss feared
During earlier hearings, James LaRocca, president of the Long Island
Association, which represents 3,500 businesses, estimated that the law would
cost Long Island as many as 3,000 jobs.
New York Telephone vice president Roy Dollard had said he would consider moving
the company out of its Smithtown, L.I., offices.
Yesterday, N.Y. Tel's Long Island spokesman, Bruce Reisman, said the company had
no immediate plans to move its 7,500 employees but would take the law into
consideration in the future.
The impact of the landmark legislation outside Suffolk County is unclear. Blass
said 30 states have pending VDT legislation, including a bill co-sponsored two
years ago by Halpin in the New York Legislature.
"It's going to aid all other efforts to get similar legislation," predicted
Louis Slesin, editor of VDT News.
Business leaders vowed to continue their fight outside Suffolk.
"We opposed the legislation because there is no scientific basis," said Theo
Chisholm, a spokeswoman for IBM, where 80% of their almost 238,000 employees
nationwide work with VDTs.
================================================================================
New VDT law mum on miscarriages
By EDWARD EDELSEN
-----------------
Daily News Science Editor
A potential time bomb that Suffolk County's new VDT law doesn't touch is the
controversial health issue of miscarriages and birth defects.
It's well known that VDT users can experience eye fatigue, discomfort and other
related problems, experts say. The Suffolk County law attacks those side
effects by mandating 15 minute breaks every three hours, special desk
specifications and similar measures.
But it avoids the much more explosive contention that low-level electric and
magnetic emissions from VDTs cause miscarriages and birth defects.
Studies have produced mixed results. For example, the Office of Naval Research
in Washington, D.C., asked five laboratories to verify a report by Dr. Jose
Delgado of Madrid that low-level pulsed magnetic fields caused malformations in
chick embryos.
The labs will report next week. Sources say two verified the findings and three
didn't.
Human studies
In human studies, researchers at Kaiser-Permanente Medical Center in Oakland,
Calif., have just reported an 80% increase in the miscarriage rage for women who
worked with VDTs more than 20 hours a week. No increase was found in women who
spent less than 20 hours weekly with VDTs.
A larger Michigan study in 1986 found an increase in the miscarriage rate, but
the rise was not large enough to make a significant case for increased risk in
over-20-hour users.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has just started a
survey of women telephone workers and VDT; results will be available next year.
Unions say their members report clusters of miscarriages and birth defects in
some VDT-using offices.
"But epidemiologists say the clusters can occur by chance," said Arthur Guy,
director of the Bioelectromagnetic Research Laboratory at the University of
Washington. "The issue hasn't been resolved. Until we have conclusive animal
studies, it's difficult to reach any kind of conclusion."
If VDT emissions are found to be dangerous, they can be eliminated by special
screens and wiring, he said. "If it turns out to be a problem, the technology
is there," Guy said.
|