Occupational Stress

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Summary 99-10 September 1999

I’m stressed out.” The reality may be that the worker saying this is, in fact, experiencing an occupational illness. Many employees undergo stress as a normal part of their jobs, but some experience it more severely than others, to the point that they need time away from work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses classifies occupational stress as “neurotic reaction to stress.” There were 3,418 such illness cases in 1997. The median absence from work for these cases was 23 days, more than four times the level of all nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses. And more than two-fifths of the cases resulted in 31 or more lost workdays, compared to one-fifth for all injury and  illness cases. (See chart.)

Case Count                                                                                                                                                                                                                The 1997 estimate of 3,418 cases of occupational stress is the lowest since 1992, when BLS first began collecting these data. The decline  is consistent with the trend for all nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work. Occupational stress cases declined by 15 percent over the 1992-97 period, whereas all injuries and illnesses declined by 21 percent. 

Industry                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Finance, insurance and real estate, with 12 percent of the cases, and services, with 35 percent, had higher proportions of occupational stress cases than they did of all occupational  injury and illness cases involving days away from work, 2 and 23 percent, respectively. The proportion of occupational stress disorders was lower in all other industries than comparable proportions of all injuries and illnesses. Four industries accounted for the bulk of occupational  stress cases: Services (35 percent), manufacturing (21 percent), retail trade (14percent), and finance, insurance, and real estate (12 percent).

Occupation                                                                                                                                                                                                                      White-collar occupations had a higher proportion of stress cases than both blue-collar and service occupations combined (see table). Managerial and professional occupations, with 16 percent of the cases, and technical, sales, and administrative support occupations with 48 percent, had higher proportions of occupational stress cases than they did of all occupational injury and illness cases involving days away from work, 5 and 15 percent, respectively. Three occupations accounted for almost 80 percent of all cases of occupational stress: The two white-collar occupations just mentioned and operators, fabricators, and laborers. Occupations most often leading to occupational stress disorders include bookkeepers, accounting, and auditing clerks—5 percent; supervisors and proprietors, sales occupations—4 percent; investigators and adjusters, excluding insurance—4 percent; cooks—4 percent; and production occupation supervisors—4 percent. (See table.)

Sex                                                                                                                                                                                                                               For every case of occupational stress involving a male, 1.6 cases involved a female. The opposite was true for all occupational injuries and illnesses: For each case involving a female, two cases involved a male.                                                                                                                                                                                 

Incidence Rates

Industry                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The nonfatal occupational injury and illness incidence rate for occupational stress and illnesses, the rate of 67.4 in FIRE was the lowest among the major industry divisions, and less than one-third of the total private industry rate.

Relative risk by Occupation                                                                                                                                                                                        The risk of injury or illness faced by employees in individual occupational groups compared to the risk faced by all occupations combined is called relative risk. When constructing an index for such a risk faced by all occupations combined, the index is equal to 1. In 1997, the index for occupational stress ranged from 0.6 for managerial and professional occupations to 1.6 for technical, sales, and administrative support occupations.

The relative risk for occupational stress exceeded the relative risk for all injuries and illnesses for white-collar jobs. Among blue collar and service jobs the reverse was true: relative risk for occupational stress was lower than the risk for all injuries and illnesses.

Additional information For more information about the data presented here, contact Timothy Webster or Bruce Bergman in the Office of Safety, Health and Working Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics at (202) 606-6179, or by e-mail at Webster_T@bls.gov or Bergman_B@bls.gov. Occupational injury and illness data are also available at http://stats.bls.gov/oshhome.htm, the

Repetitive Stress Injuries on Steady

Decline, Without Ergonomic Regulations

Employers and employees have been successfully working together to reduce repetitive stress injuries (RSIs). They are determining the most appropriate response in their unique work environments without government “ergonomic regulations.” And the numbers speak volumes. Since 1994, the rate of repetitive stress injuries (RSIs) has gone down 35 percent. In fact, for the last consecutive eight years, the number of RSIs has declined each year, demonstrating a clear trend in the right direction. RSIs, which include musculoskeletal strains and aches to the back, arm and neck, now represent only 4 percent of all injuries and illnesses on the job.

ERGONOMIC PRINCIPLES MAKE SENSE. The basic principle of ergonomics is to adjust the workplace to the worker. That commonsense approach is at work today in large and small businesses around the country. Employers are applying the principles of ergonomics in their ongoing efforts to make workplaces safer, more comfortable and more productive.

EXPENSIVE, UNSCIENTIFIC GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS MAKE

NO SENSE. Government regulations that would treat every business identically contradict the whole idea behind ergonomic principles – matching workplaces and workers. An across-the-board, one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure. In fact, regulating ergonomics could do more harm than good. A regulation would force unproven and financially prohibitive changes onto virtually every private employer in the nation. Yet, despite the billions of dollars a regulation would cost, it would come with no assurance a single injury would be prevented. Small businesses could be forced into expensive compliance with a rule, even if none of their employees have been injured on the job. And billions spent on ineffective regulations means higher prices for goods and services, and jobs lost as businesses cut back, close up, or turn to automation. That makes no sense.

Unfortunately, there is no medical and scientific consensus on the causes of repetitive stress injuries. And there is no medical and scientific consensus on the remedies for RSIs. Until doctors have a clear, developed medical understanding of the causes and the cures of RSIs, an across-the-board prescription runs the risk of doing more harm than good.

Today, for example, two beauticians can be working side by side – same work, same working conditions – yet one develops a back strain while the other does not. Doctors cannot explain why. What we DO know, however, is that there is extensive medical literature that has found multiple and varied causes for RSIs. Key factors include the improper use of equipment, vitamin consumption, job satisfaction, sports activities, and stress at home. Employers don’t question whether they should spend billions of dollars to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. They already do. More precisely, they question whether it makes sense to impose costly experimental changes with no assurance a single illness or injury will be prevented.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bureau of Labor Statistics Illness and Injury Annual Report 2001* Ergonomic Principles Make Sense. Costly and Experimental Regulations Make NO Sense. Provided by the National Coalition on Ergonomics 1615 H Street, NW ● Washington DC 20062 ● (202) 637-3134 *2001 is the most recent year available of compiled statistics by the Bureau of Labor Statistics