[comp.society.women] VDTs again

skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (09/12/88)

There was a massive system failure on Saturday morning and unread
mail was lost.  So if you mailed an article to me, you should
definitely try again.

On another matter, some unions are requesting that it be written
into the contracts that pregnant women may request a transfer or
sick leave or various other things rather than work with VDTs.
I found this troubling.  It has not been shown that there is a
cause-effect relationship between VDTs and miscarriage; there have
been clusters of miscarriages which may be due to things other than
VDTs.  I wonder if such contracts make women much less attractive
employment prospects--at least women in the child-bearing ages.
What do the rest of you think?

-Trish

roy@phri (Roy Smith) (09/13/88)

skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) writes:
> some unions are requesting that it be written into the contracts that
> pregnant women may request a transfer or sick leave or various other
> things rather than work with VDTs. [...] I wonder if such contracts make
> women much less attractive employment prospects

	I'm sure it does.  Recently around here, Sufolk County (far half of
Long Island, distant NYC suburbs) passed a law requiring all sorts of
special protections for VDT operators.  The law specified work hours, kind
of seating and lighting, etc.  I'm sure it also specified transfer
privileges for pregnant women.

	Depending on who you talk to, it was either an excellent piece of
progressive social/labor reform legislation or a vile, oppressive bill
which cowtowed to the hysterical fears of the uneducated masses.  In any
case, the result was that several large companies announced that the cost
of doing business in Sufolk county just got too high and that they would
take their planned expansions elsewhere.
-- 
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"

[According to the July 10, 1988 NY _Times_ the Suffold law does not address
the pregnancy issue.  Another  article in the _Times_ (unfortunately, when
I cut it out of the paper, I didn't note the date) says:

	...a new law passed on Tuesday by the Suffolk County
	Legislature requiring companies to subsidize annual
	eye examinations for VDT qorkers and eyeglasses or
	contact lenses if needed because of working on terminals.

	The law was not based on concerns about radiation
	emissions or miscarriages, according to its backers,
	but rather on studies, here and abroad, that detected
	such ailments as eyestrain, stiff necks, and crippling
	hand and wrist pains among workers who put in long hours
	at terminals.

	The American Academiy of Opthalmology...today reiterated
	its position that "there is no convincing scientific evidence
	that VDT's are hazardous to the eyes."

In other words, it's a similar situation--the law was passed before conclusive
evidence as to damage.  That is either playing it safe or playing it scared.
TR]

ekwok@decwrl.dec.com (Edward C. Kwok) (09/15/88)

In article <5303@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) writes:
>.  It has not been shown that there is a
>cause-effect relationship between VDTs and miscarriage; there have
>been clusters of miscarriages which may be due to things other than
>VDTs. 


There was recently a study by the Kaiser Foundation hospitals in the
Northern California region, and found that women working with VDT
have significantly higher miscarriage rate than the general population.
I don't know about the details of the study, but I kind of doubt the
results. (How do you separate the other aspects of work from the use
of VDT? For example, if programmers who don't use VDT has appreciably
lower miscarriage rate than those programmers working with VDT?  Comparing 
very different jobs (say, programmers versus construction workers) and
blame it on the VDT is not fair: maybe jobs with VDT are inherently more
stressful, quite unlikely though.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Just as sure as I am a major in the Union army."

                         - Somebody famous said that -

[An article on this study was posted in this group early on.  The
group has been archived, so if anyone needs a copy, it's still around.
Note that a more recent article in the NY _Times_ indicates that job
stress does have something to do with it.  Also, an article on miscarriages
in _Time_ (I'll grant it's not a magazine I trust very far, so this may
be wrong) says that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage and that
women frequently miscarriage without even knowing they were pregnant.
Hence, a study like the one at Kaiser might show a high incidence of mis-
carriage simply because women found out they were pregnant and found out
they miscarried when, under normal circumstances, they would not have
known either.  TR]

coffey@ucsd.edu (pat coffey) (09/15/88)

Trish Roberts says
>   ...    some unions are requesting that it be written
>into the contracts that pregnant women may request a transfer or
>sick leave or various other things rather than work with VDTs.
    ...
>VDTs.  I wonder if such contracts make women much less attractive
>employment prospects--at least women in the child-bearing ages.

I started working in the DP field in 1961 and found that the laws
implemented to 'protect' women only prevented me from competing in
this male dominated field.  For example, in California, it was illegal
for a woman to work more than 8 hours a day or more than 48 hours a
week.  In the case where overtime was authorized, it meant that my male
co-workers could bring home more money.  (remember the salaries in the
early 60's -- $400 per month was very good) .  If no paid overtime was
authorized, and I needed to put in a few extra hours, I had to hide from
the night watchman.  Again, the men could stay as late as they wanted to
get their work done.

I know that it is illegal to discriminate in employment because of sex these
days (it wasn't in the 60's), but I have an aversion to special rules and
provisions for women.  If VDT's are unsafe for women, then they are unsafe
for men too!  I've been using a VDT since we gave up our punced cards many
years ago, and the only ill affect I have found has been sore shoulders.
When I got a new, expensive computer chair and lowered my crt screen,
the problem went away.

     _   _        Pat Coffey    
    |_) (_        San Diego State University
    |