14

Safety in the Workplace

KEY TERMS

• safety in the workplace

• safety

• accident

• injury

• workers’ compensation laws

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

• William Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

• hazard communication standard

• Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals

• Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard

• bloodborne pathogens standard

• lockout/tagout

• OSHA Whistleblower Program

• willful violation

• serious violation

• accident proneness theory

• safety performance assessment

Objectives

After studying this chapter, the reader will be able to:

1. Explain the importance of safety.

2. Discuss the history of safety legislation and workers’ compensation.

3. Explain OSHA’s development, goals, jurisdiction, standards, recordkeeping requirements, and inspections.

4. Describe at least four strategies for improving safety in the workplace.

Introduction

Safety in the workplace is a broad concept that includes a host of methods that aim to reduce risks from a variety of threats and hazards to the workplace such as accidents, violence, and natural disasters. This chapter focuses on workplace accidents and related safety methods.

Safety is a major loss prevention measure to reduce the likelihood of accidents and injuries. When accidents and injuries occur, both losses and a drain on profits inevitably result. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines safety as “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss” and “to protect against failure, breakage, or accident.” Accident is “an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness, unawareness, ignorance, or a combination of causes.” Injury is “hurt, damage, or loss sustained.”

Examples of hazards in the workplace are as follows:

• Inadequate training (Figure 14-1)

• Noncompliance with safety policies and procedures

• Failure to use safety devices or equipment

• Dangerous storage of toxic or flammable substances

• Poorly supported ladders and scaffold

• Electrical malfunctions

• Blocked aisles, exits, and stairways

• Poor ventilation

• Insufficient lighting

• Excessive noise

• Horseplay; running

image

FIGURE 14-1 Accident Report, Crushed by Dump Truck Body.Courtesy: OSHA.

Accident Statistics and Costs

Since the early 1900s, great strides have been made to increase safety in the workplace. Safer machines, improved supervision, and training all have helped to prevent accidents. If one were to apply the industrial fatality rate that existed in 1910 to the present workforce in the United States, more than 1.3 million workers would lose their lives each year from industrial accidents. In the past, a manual worker’s welfare was of minimal concern to management; the loss of life or limb was “part of the job” and “a normal business risk.” In the construction of tall buildings, it was expected that one life would be lost for each floor. A 20-story building would yield 20 lost lives. During tunnel construction, two worker deaths per mile was the norm. Coal mining experienced exceedingly high death rates (Anderson, 1975: 5–6).

As written in Chapter 2, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (2006a) reported 4.4 million injuries and illnesses among private sector firms in 2003, with about 32% of work-related injuries occurring in goods-producing industries and 68% in services. The same year recorded 5,559 worker deaths, including 114 additional deaths from the previous year among self-employed workers and 61 more from workplace violence. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2006) reported that society-wide there are about 160,000 deaths each year from injuries and millions more are injured and survive. In 2000, the 50 million injuries that required medical treatment will ultimately cost $406 billion, including $80.2 billion in medical care costs and $326 billion in productivity losses.

Direct and indirect losses are costly; for example, the death of a worker in a manufacturing plant immediately creates a tremendous direct loss to family and friends. Direct losses also involve an immediate loss of productivity, medical costs, and insurance administration. Indirect costs include continued grief by family and friends, continued loss of productivity, profit loss, selection and training of a new employee, overtime for lost production, and possible litigation. In addition, internal and external relations may suffer. The lowering of employee morale can result from the belief that management is incompetent or does not care. Rumors frequently follow. In the eyes of the community, the company may appear to have failed.

History of Safety Legislation

In 18th century England, as the Industrial Revolution progressed, a number of statutes governing working conditions were passed. One of the first statutes for safety resulted from a serious outbreak of fever at cotton mills near Manchester in 1784. Because child labor was involved, widespread attention added to public concern and government pressure to improve the dangerous and unsanitary conditions in factories. A few years later, additional legislation dealt with hours, conditions of labor, prevention of injury, and government inspectors. In 1842, the Mines Act provided for punitive compensation for preventable injuries caused by unguarded mining machinery. Subsequent to this law, a series of mining accidents caused more laws to be passed for miner safety. During this time, “strong evidence” pointed to incompetent management and the neglect of safety rules. Laws relating to factory safety also were expanded. More and more trades were brought under the scope of the law.

In the United States, textile factories increased in number between 1820 and 1840. Massachusetts, first of the United States to follow England’s example, passed laws in 1876 and 1877 that related to working children and inspection of factories. Important features pertained to dangerous machinery and necessary safety guards. As years passed, some industries increasingly realized that hazards were potentially harmful to workers, production, and profits. Consequently, more and more industrialists became safety conscious. However, serious hazards still existed in the workplace through the 20th century (Grimaldi and Simmonds, 1975: 33–43).

Workers’ Compensation

Increasing concern for workers led to workers’ compensation laws. In essence, these laws require employers to compensate injured employees. England passed such laws in 1897, and the United States followed in 1902, when Maryland passed this country’s first workers’ compensation law—although, essentially, the Maryland law was so restrictive that it was almost useless. In 1911, Wisconsin passed the first effective workers’ compensation law. Seven other states passed similar legislation during that year. Amid controversy between businesspeople and groups interested in the welfare of laborers, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these laws in 1916. Businesspeople argued that they could never bear such compensation costs nor could they control accidents. They predicted that the cost of goods would rise considerably. Those who favored workers’ compensation laws believed that these laws would provide the impetus for greater safety, because business owners and managers would want to control losses.

Workers’ compensation laws provided insurance companies with a new opportunity. As states enacted these laws, business owners became concerned about their ability to pay for workers’ compensation. Therefore, insurance companies sold casualty insurance policies to businesses that needed the security from a possible workers’ compensation burden. A concurrent benefit of such insurance was that insurance companies were willing to reduce premiums if a company instituted accident prevention measures. To remain competitive, insurance companies provided safety specialists who would survey a business and recommend prevention strategies (e.g., safeguards on machines). Businesspeople became increasingly interested in safety; insurance companies developed safety expertise.

Today, all states have workers’ compensation laws. These laws vary from state to state, but each requires the reporting of injures that are compensable. Private insurance companies insure most employers for workers’ compensation judgments. Other employers are self-insured (insurance provided by the employer and not purchased through a private insurance company; it is regulated by a state insurance commissioner) or place this insurance with state insurance funds. When an employee is injured, medical benefits usually are granted, and benefits for wages lost are granted when an employee is incapacitated and cannot work.

The workers’ compensation system of today has its problems. Because dealings with the insurance industry are frequently adversarial, injured employees often believe that the system helps them only when they obtain the services of an attorney. Insurers, on the other hand, claim that they must protect their interests and that fraud (i.e., worker malingering) is a very serious problem.

Are workers’ compensation laws necessary today? Support your viewpoint.

The Development of OSHA

With the advent of improved safety conditions, accidents and injuries declined until the 1950s. In the late 1950s, rates leveled off until the late 1960s, when accidents and injuries began to increase. This upward turn caused the federal government to become increasingly concerned about safety. Several safety-related laws were passed during the 1960s, but none was as monumental as the federal law creating OSHA. OSHA stands for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a federal agency, under the U.S. Department of Labor, established to administer the law on safety and health resulting from the William Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This federal legislation was signed into law by then-president Richard Nixon and became effective on April 28, 1971. The basic purpose of the OSHA legislation was to provide a safe working environment for employees engaged in a variety of occupations.

The OSHA act was significant because it was the first national safety legislation applying to every business connected with interstate commerce. Mason (1976: 21) notes: “The need for such legislation was clear. Between 1969 and 1973 [in the United States] more persons were killed at work than in the Vietnam war.”

The Secretary of Labor via ten regional offices administers OSHA. The secretary has the authority and responsibility to establish occupational safety and health standards. Workplace inspections can result in citations issued to employers who violate standards (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2006b: 15).

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) performs numerous functions that aid OSHA and those striving for worker safety. These functions relate to research, the development of criteria and standards for occupational safety and health, training OSHA personnel and others (e.g., employers and employees), and providing publications dealing with both toxic substances and strategies on how to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses. NIOSH is under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA Standards

OSHA promulgates legally enforceable standards to protect employees in the workplace. Since OSHA standards are constantly being updated and reviewed, it is the employer’s responsibility to keep up-to-date. Two sources for standards and changes are the Web sites of OSHA and the Federal Register.

There are actually thousands of OSHA standards. Some pertain to specific industries and workers, whereas others are general and practiced by most industries. Examples include safety requirements for machines, equipment, and employees, such as requiring face shields or safety glasses during the use of certain machines; prevention of electrical hazards (Figure 14-2); adequate fire protection; adequate lunchrooms, lavatories, and drinking water; precautions against infectious diseases; and monitoring of employee exposure to chemical or toxic hazards.

image

FIGURE 14-2 Accident Report, Electrocution.Courtesy: OSHA.

The following standards demonstrate OSHA’s concern for worker safety and health.

Subpart 1—Personal Protective Equipment

1910.132 General requirements.

(a) Application. Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.

Subpart K—Medical and First Aid

1910.151 Medical services and first aid.

(a) The employer shall ensure the ready availability of medical personnel for advice and consultation of matters of plant health.

(b) In the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace which is used for the treatment of all injured employees, a person or persons shall be adequately trained to render first aid. Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.

(c) Where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body shall be provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.

OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard

The bloodborne pathogens standard (1910.1030) limits exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials, which could lead to disease or death. The standard covers all employees facing potential exposure. Employers are required to establish an exposure control plan covering safety procedures, protective equipment, and the control of waste. The hepatitis B vaccination is to be made available to all employees who have occupational exposure to blood. Postexposure evaluation and follow-up is to be made available to all employees who have had an exposure incident, including laboratory tests at no cost to the employee. Exposure records must be confidential and kept for the duration of employment plus 30 years. Training is required on all aspects of this standard, and the training records must be maintained for three years (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2006e).

Lockout/Tagout

OSHA standard 1910.147 is designed to control hazardous energy. Better known as lockout/tagout, the aim is to prevent the accidental startup of machines or other equipment during maintenance and servicing. The rule requires that hazardous energy sources must be isolated and rendered inoperative before work can begin. Elements of a lockout/tagout program are written procedures, training, and audits (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2006f).

Examples of OSHA citations involving this standard include Lifetime Doors, for 37 alleged violations after employees suffered finger amputations at the door manufacturing plant. OSHA proposed penalties of $1.1 million. In another case, an employee of Hanna Paper Recycling entered a baler to dislodge a jammed cardboard bale and was crushed to death between the bale and the gathering ram. OSHA cited Hanna for 19 alleged violations and proposed penalties of $59,200 (“Lockout/Tagout,” 2001: 17).

OSHA Recordkeeping and Reporting

Before the development of OSHA’s centralized recordkeeping system, workplace statistics on injuries and illnesses were kept by some states and private organizations. No uniform, standardized system existed. Today, with the help of OSHA’s comprehensive statistics, it is easier to pinpoint serious hazards and work toward improvements. In addition, employee awareness and safety precautions are enhanced through knowledge about injuries, illnesses, and hazards.

In 2006, the OSHA Web site offered the following guideline for recordkeeping. All employers covered by the OSHA act must report to OSHA any incident on the premises resulting in a fatality or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees within 8 hours. The Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (Form 300) is used to list injuries and illnesses and track days away from work, restrictions, or transfers. The Injury and IllnessReport (Form 301) serves to record supplementary information about cases; a workers’ compensation or insurance form can be used as an alternative document if it contains the same information. The Summary (Form 300A) shows totals for the year in each category. The employer is responsible for keeping the records up-to-date and available to OSHA inspectors. Employers with 10 or fewer employees, or those employers classified in a low-hazard industry (e.g., insurance or real estate), do not have to keep injury and illness records unless informed to do so by OSHA or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2001).

Confined Area Entry

Hazards that are not easily seen, smelled, or felt can be deadly risks to people who work in confined areas. For instance, storage tanks may reduce oxygen or leak combustible or toxic gases. The cardinal rule for entry into a confined area is, “Never trust your senses!” A harmless-looking situation may indeed be a potential threat. Some of the deadliest gases and vapors have no odor. Before entry, the following safety strategies are recommended: proper training, equipment to identify hazards, and an entry permit issued by a safety specialist. Schroll (2006: 44) emphasizes the importance of equipment. He writes that personnel should be able to select appropriate monitoring equipment and know how to use it. He also refers to personal protective equipment (PPE), especially respiratory protection. In addition, personnel should know the operation of harnesses and retrieval devices. OSHA’s standard for confined spaces, Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1910.146, contains the requirements for practices and procedures to protect employees from the hazards of entry into permit-required confined spaces.

In the petroleum industry, for example, a storage tank had been rinsed and vented for several days. When it was checked with gas detection equipment, no flammable gases were measured. However, after workers removed loose rust, scale, and sediment, the percentage of flammable gas rose, and the gas ignited.

As another example, two employees of a fertilizer company descended into an old 35-foot well to repair a pump. The well was covered with a concrete slab and entry was made through a covered manhole. About 6 feet below the opening was a plank platform. When the first worker dropped to the platform, he was immediately overcome and fell unconscious into the water below. His partner sought help quickly. When two helpers entered the well, they, too, fell unconscious into the water below. A passerby, in an attempt to save the drowning men, jumped into the water and drowned also. By this time, the fire department had arrived. The fire chief, wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus, went to rescue the victims. On the platform, he removed his facemask to give instructions to those above and was overcome. Subsequent tests revealed that the well atmosphere contained a lethal concentration of hydrogen sulfide. Five men died from pulmonary paralysis (Chacanaca, 1996: 61–65).

What would you say and do if your supervisor ordered you to enter a confined area without first taking safety precautions?

Additional Employer Responsibilities

An employer is required to post specific OSHA-related material for employee review. The OSHA poster “Job Safety and Health Protection” informs employees about their rights and responsibilities and must be displayed in an appropriate location for employees. Copies of the OSHA act and relevant rules and regulations must be available if requested by employees.

If an employer receives a Citation and Notification of Penalty, the employer must post the citation, or a copy, near the place where each violation occurred to inform employees of hazards. The citation must remain posted for three working days or until the violation is corrected, whichever is longer. These requirements are mandatory even if the citation is contested (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2005a: 7).

The OSHA Whistleblower Program helps to ensure that employees are free to report safety and health violations. The OSHA act prohibits any person from discharging, retaliating, or discriminating against any employee because the employee exercised rights under the Act (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2006b: 16).

OSHA Inspections

An important priority of OSHA compliance inspectors was to view the workplace as it functions on a typical day. To attain this goal and to prevent an employer from altering typical workplace characteristics by concealing unsafe conditions, inspections frequently were made unannounced. However, only a few years after this practice began, it was challenged in the courts. In 1975, the president of a utility installation company, who posted a copy of the Bill of Rights on his office wall, sued while claiming that the Fourth Amendment restricts warrantless searches. The federal appellate court upheld the employer’s contention. The case was appealed, and in May 1978 the Supreme Court, in Marshall v. Barlow, ruled that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches protects commercial establishments as well as private homes. Therefore, OSHA inspectors must obtain a warrant before making an inspection, unless employers consent. Such a warrant is to be based on administrative probable cause: the inspector is required to show a judicial officer that the inspection is part of OSHA’s general administrative plan to enforce safety and health laws, or upon evidence of a violation (Hall, 2006: 146–151; Dreux, 1995: 53).

When an inspection takes place, the employer and even employee representatives may join the inspector. The inspector is obligated to show credentials that contain a photograph and serial number. The number can be verified via the nearest OSHA office. Typically, machinery, equipment, and other workplace characteristics are examined. The inspector can interview the employer and employees in public or in private. Any interference with the inspector’s duties can result in stiff penalties. The employer is wise to document the inspection and comments by the inspector through note taking. This information may become useful if a disagreement or a dispute of a citation or penalty evolves.

Because millions of workplaces are subject to inspections, OSHA has established priorities. Obviously, workplaces with serious accidents will be subject to inspections.

During the 2005–2006 fiscal year, OSHA targeted about 4,400 high-hazard worksites for unannounced comprehensive inspections. This site-specific inspection program was based on a survey of injuries and illnesses from approximately 80,000 employers. OSHA also inspected some establishments that did not respond to the survey and 400 workplaces that reported low injury and illness rates to review the actual degree of compliance with OSHA requirements (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Communications, 2005).

OSHA has a staff of about 2,300, including 1,300 compliance safety and health officers. Twenty-six states operate their own OSHA State Programs with about 3,000 state employees, including 1,300 compliance safety and health officers. Federal OSHA conducts about 38,000 inspections each fiscal year. The state programs conduct about 58,000 inspections each fiscal year (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2003b).

The National Federation of Independent Business recommends the following strategies during an OSHA inspection (Gaudio, 2005):

• Manage the inspection process to minimize operational disruptions;

• Control the flow of information to OSHA so that when the inspection has ended, the employer understands the significance of the evidence OSHA has gathered;

• Present the worksite in the best possible light; and

• Be proactive by addressing OSHA’s compliance concerns during the inspection so OSHA does not issue citations.

As expected, the atmosphere at the worksite might be chaotic and an OSHA inspector can receive conflicting information from different sources. Thus, an employer should designate one principal contact person to act as OSHA’s main contact during every inspection to control the flow of information.

By understanding OSHA’s concerns early in the inspection process, the employer can provide information that refutes OSHA’s factual findings or interpretation of the OSHA standard or regulations. This information may ultimately convince OSHA not to issue citations or at least to minimize penalties.

Each inspection is different, so the need for counsel will depend on individual circumstances. On one hand, a routine inspection that does not stem from a significant injury or fatality may be handled without an attorney. On the other hand, an employer is strongly advised to have counsel directly involved during an OSHA inspection when a major accident or event such as a catastrophic accident, serious injury or employee fatality has occurred. If the inspection results from a fatality or serious injuries and/or you decide that you would like a lawyer during the inspection process, the compliance officer will typically delay for a short period. The best strategy is often to allow OSHA to perform the walk-around inspection and review documents and then to have an attorney present later in the inspection when OSHA wants to begin interviews.

OSHA Fines Two Businesses

The following information is from news releases that describe OSHA investigations and fines.

OSHA National News Release 06–1961–NAT (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Communications, 2006):

OSHA cited Thomas Industrial Coatings Inc. of Pevely, Mo., for 33 willful, including “instance-by-instance” willful [i.e., each violation of a standard], and eight serious alleged violations of job safety and health standards. Proposed penalties total $2,362,500. OSHA’s citations resulted from the investigation of two fatal workplace accidents within two months involving the painting contractor. Both accidents occurred at the same bridge painting worksite in Kansas City and the same suspended scaffold. One employee died when he fell through a hole in the platform while he was painting. The other employee fell to his death while dismantling the scaffold. The instance-by-instance willful violations alleged the lack of fall protection and training for employees, especially in the use of fall protection and the safe dismantling of the scaffold. The single willful citations alleged the lack of safe scaffold access; that a qualified person did not design the scaffold; and that there were no competent persons to supervise the work. The citations also alleged the employer failed to inspect the scaffold and its components and to secure the suspension cables properly. The serious citations addressed other unsafe practices including the employer’s permitting debris that employees could trip over in front of the large platform holes and overloading the personnel lift.

OSHA Regional News Release, OSHA-06–1937–DAL (U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Public Affairs, 2006):

A Wynnewood [OK] employer’s alleged failure to protect employees from safety and health hazards has resulted in citations for 22alleged violations of standards from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Proposed penalties total $154,800. Wynnewood Refining Co. was cited following an initial inspection that began May 9 and again on May 12 following a fire and explosion at the refinery plant in Wynnewood. The facility, which produces gasoline, propane, propylene, butane, fuel oils, asphalts, distillates and solvents, is a subsidiary of Gary-Williams Energy Corp. based in Denver. There are about 184 employees at the Wynnewood site. The willful violation was for failing to properly maintain processing equipment relating to the operation of the hydrofluoric acid alkylation unit when it was evident that flare line leaks were occurring, exposing employees to hydrocarbons and hydrofluoric acid. A willful violation is issued for intentional disregard of or plain indifference to the OSHA law and regulations. Serious violations include failure to provide required fall protection, properly maintain electrical equipment, provide adequate respiratory protection and provide the required machine guarding. A serious violation is one in which there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazardous condition about which the employer knew or should have known. One other-than-serious citation was issued for failing to maintain required employee injury and illness recordkeeping.

For cases as above, the employer has 15 working days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply and pay the penalties, to request and participate in an informal conference with the OSHA area director, or to contest the citations before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

OSHA: Criticism and Controversy

Through the years since its inception, OSHA has been the target of considerable criticism and controversy. Most of the OSHA battles have taken place on Capitol Hill, when different interest groups pressure legislators either to maintain and expand OSHA or to reduce or eliminate it. The forces in favor of OSHA are primarily OSHA itself, the AFL-CIO labor organization, and select legislators. Those opposed to OSHA consist mainly of businesspeople, business organizations, and select legislators. Some say the controversy essentially is between “big labor” and “big business.”

The main arguments against OSHA are the following:

1. “Regulatory overkill” is a major theme of those against OSHA. Many business organizations believe that OSHA has gone beyond what is necessary for fostering a safe and healthy workplace. Businesspeople and employers often rate OSHA as the prime example of excessive government regulation; they state that the agency’s overzealous inspectors afflict employers with rules.

2. OSHA is not cost effective. It provides limited benefits.

3. The costs of OSHA, reduced productivity, lost jobs, and higher prices for goods add to inflation and are a threat to companies’ competitive position.

4. OSHA and other government bureaucrats, who are appointed rather than elected and thus are not accountable to the people, are making decisions that businesspeople should be making for themselves.

5. OSHA has had an impact on the labor-management process that has compounded labor troubles. Many unions have become involved in worker safety and employees’ rights under OSHA to the point where productivity is hindered.

6. Numerous employers have become paranoid due to adverse publicity and labor disputes arising from unnecessary OSHA citations.

The major arguments in favor of OSHA are these:

1. OSHA is essential to reinforce a safe and healthy workplace for employees.

2. Many deaths and injuries have been prevented because of OSHA.

3. In today’s technologically complex business world, employees need protection that only government regulation can provide.

4. Employers who oppose OSHA are too interested in the costs of safety and health, and in productivity and profits, and they are not concerned enough about employees.

5. There are employers who have a favorable attitude toward OSHA and benefit from its existence. These employers actively work with OSHA in a joint effort to prevent and reduce safety and health problems. To these businesspeople, OSHA compliance is cost effective.

Assistance with Problems

There are many sources of assistance for employers concerned about workplace safety or health problems:

1. Many insurance companies provide specialists who visit, inspect, and recommend stategies for preventing and eliminating hazards at client workplaces.

2. Trade associations and employer groups have become more conscious about safety and health.

3. Trade unions and employee groups are often interested in coordinated activities for preventing and eliminating hazards.

4. The National Safety Council has an extensive information service.

5. Local doctors may be willing to provide information on a consulting basis about workplace medical matters. The Red Cross is a source of first-aid training. An employer who is not able to locate a local chapter should contact the American National Red Cross.

6. The Web and libraries contain a wealth of information on safety and health matters.

7. Local colleges and universities may have educational programs in the field of occupational safety and health. If an employer contacts the relevant departments, educators may provide useful information.

8. Free on-site consultation is offered in many states through agreements between OSHA and either a state or private contractor. These consultants do not write citations but expect cooperation or OSHA will be contacted. Enforcement action is rare, especially because the employer requested the consultant and showed a concern for safety and health.

Although this chapter emphasizes accidents in the workplace, other safety issues should be considered for a comprehensive loss prevention program. Examples include workplace violence and natural disasters. Furthermore, OSHA guidelines go beyond preventing accidents. For instance, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, OSHA has published guidelines for emergencies, including terrorist events.

Safety Strategies

The OSHA Small Business Handbook states four basic elements to all good safety and health programs (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2005b: 6–7):

1. Management commitment and employee involvement.

2. Worksite analysis to identify all hazards.

3. Hazard prevention and control methods are put in place and maintained.

4. Managers, supervisors, and employees are trained to understand and deal with worksite hazards.

Socialization and Incentive Programs

Training is a prime strategy for accident prevention. The objective of training is to change the behavior of the employee. He or she should think and act in a safe manner. Training is useless unless employees are motivated to continually act in a safe manner. Even if familiar with safety procedures and other relevant information, an employee will not necessarily “practice what is preached.” A method for stimulating the employee to act safely and to use safety knowledge is necessary. This objective is accomplished through incentive programs. Businesses may develop such programs on their own or outsource the work to a service firm. Examples of incentives are as follows: Every time a manufacturing plant reaches a million hours without a lost-time accident, every employee receives a gift. Another approach is safety bingo: Numbers are drawn every workday for a week and posted on a sign in the employee parking lot. If an employee completes a row, $25 is awarded. If the whole card is filled, $1,000 is won. When lost-time accidents occur, the game is halted until a month later. Companies often set safety goals for individual departments, which facilitate a competitive spirit to win prizes. Safety, rewarded by merit pay increases for employees, will also reduce accidents.

What are the results of such incentive programs? Safety incentives provide a powerful, cost-effective management tool to prevent accidents. Enthusiasm and safety awareness increase. Employees are more vigilant about other workers’ safety. Incentive programs provide fun in the workplace, which results in higher morale. As accidents decline, so do insurance premiums for workers’ compensation. Money is saved. Fewer accidents mean fewer production interruptions and greater profits. It is feasible to use incentives for a comprehensive loss prevention effort involving not only safety but also crime and fire prevention.

The Dangers of Safety Incentive Programs

There are three basic types of safety incentive/reward programs as described here, along with concerns (Atkinson, 2000: 32–38).

Traditional programs offer rewards to employees for going a certain period without a recordable injury. The focus is on results. OSHA, labor unions, and some employers argue that these programs may be used by employers to take the place of formal programs. In addition, employees may feel pressured not to report injuries because coworkers would be upset about not winning incentives, and so a serious workplace hazard might go undetected by management.

Behavior-based programs offer rewards to employees for behaviors (e.g., wearing personal protective equipment) that promote safety. Labor groups say that this approach places safety on the shoulders of employees and then management blames them when accidents occur. Furthermore, employers watch actions and may ignore hazards that can be corrected.

Safety activities offer rewards to employees for suggestions to improve safety, identifying and correcting hazards, participating in inspections, and serving on a committee, among other activities.

Whereas the first two programs often involve a greater level of participation, safety activities are frequently voluntary; however, everyone should be involved in safety. Since each type of program can create concern, the employer and employees should seek to understand each one and capitalize on the beneficial aspects of each.

Investigations

After an accident, an investigation is vital to prevent future accidents; the cause of an accident can be pinpointed so that corrections can follow. Established procedures important for well-planned accident investigations include the following:

1. Respond quickly to reinforce that loss prevention personnel are “on the job.” This will also show employees that management cares. Ensure that the injured receive proper medical attention.

2. Protect the scene of the accident to prevent unintentional or intentional harm to evidence.

3. If required, contact appropriate regulatory agencies and insurers.

4. Find out the following: who was involved, where did it occur, when did it happen, who was injured, what occurred, what was damaged, and how did the accident take place?

5. Try to pinpoint the cause. Investigate possible direct and indirect causes. Study equipment, work procedures, the environment, and the employees involved. Is a drug test required?

6. Estimate injuries and direct and indirect costs.

7. Use a standard accident report that fits management’s requirements and aids the investigative inquiry.

8. Maintain an open mind, remaining aware that some employees attempt fraudulent workers’ compensation claims by staging an accident or by providing false information.

9. If necessary, complete appropriate forms (e.g., workers’ compensation, OSHA).

10. Prepare a presentation for the safety and health committee concerning the accident. Solicit feedback from the committee to solve problems.

11. Follow up on corrective action to ensure safety.

One of the most difficult questions to answer during an accident investigation is the cause; often considerable controversy is generated. Opinions vary, but facts are necessary. There are two primary causes of accidents: unsafe conditions and unsafe acts by people. Frequently, unsafe conditions (e.g., unguarded moving parts, poor lighting) are known, but corrections are not made because of inaction or costs. Unsafe acts by people can result from ignorance, poor training, negligence, drugs, fatigue, emotional upset, poor attitude, and high production demands. Other circumstances also can cause accidents. One of the oldest and most controversial theories of accident causation is the accident proneness theory. This theory suggests that people who repeatedly have accidents are accident prone. Many experts agree that about 20% of the people have most of the accidents, whereas the remaining 80% have virtually no accidents.

Haaland (2005: 51–57) writes that the literature in the discipline of safety shows that 90% of accidents are attributed to human error. He notes specific human traits that have been linked through empirical research to accident proneness. One of these traits is conscientiousness and Haaland defines it as “an individual’s degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal-directed behavior.” Those who are low in this trait tend to ignore safety rules and get into more accidents. Extreme extroversion and extreme introversion are other traits linked to accident proneness. The former is characterized by being sociable and outgoing, but also easily distracted and having a shorter attention span. The latter is characterized by limited interpersonal interactions and possibly hesitation before seeking assistance. Haaland adds that unsafe employees are also characterized by other behaviors harmful to the bottom line, such as arriving late to work, more absences, and poorer levels of productivity and quality. Consequently, employers can systematically hire applicants who are less likely to become involved in accidents and injuries. A safety performance assessment measures personality traits that influence safety in the workplace. It consists of written statements and an applicant can complete the assessment at a kiosk or through a Web site.

Harry Nash, Machinist, Is Injured Again

As Harry Nash was cutting a piece of metal on a band saw, he accidentally cut off his thumb. Workers in the surrounding area rushed to his aid. The foreman and the loss prevention manager coordinated efforts to get him and his thumb to the hospital as quickly as possible. After Harry was in the care of doctors, the foreman and the loss prevention manager began an investigation. A look at Harry’s record showed that he had been working for the company for eight years. During the first year, he slipped on some oil on the workplace floor and was hospitalized for three weeks with a sprained back. The third year showed that he accidentally drilled into his finger with a drill press. The report stated that Harry did not receive any training from a now-retired foreman, who should have instructed Harry on drill press safety techniques. By the fifth year, Harry had had another accident. While carrying some metal rods, he fell and broke his ankle because he forgot about climbing one step to enter a newly constructed adjoining building.

Even though Harry had had no training in operating the band saw, the loss prevention manager and the foreman believed that Harry was accident prone. The foreman, angry with Harry spoiling the department’s safety record and incentive gifts, wanted Harry fired. The loss prevention manager was undecided about the matter.

Later, management, the foreman, and the loss prevention manager decided to assign Harry to a clerical position in the shipping department. Harry eventually collected workers’ compensation for his lost thumb.

Additional Safety Measures

Other safety measures are to display safety posters, create a safety-by-objectives program, and recognize employees with excessive accident records and reassign or retrain those workers. Safety posters or signs are effective if certain guidelines are used. Research indicates that if the safety message is in negative terms (e.g., “Don’t let this happen to you,” followed by a picture of a person with a physical injury), it causes fear, resentment, and sometimes anger. Posters with positive messages (e.g., “Let’s all pitch in for safety”) produce better results. Posters and signs (see Figure 14.3) are more potent when they reflect the diversity of employees (e.g., multiple languages), are located in appropriate places, are not too numerous, and have attractive colors. A safety-by-objectives program is a derivative of management by objectives. In a manufacturing plant, department heads formulate safety objectives for their departments. Management makes sure that objectives are neither too high nor too low. Incentives are used to motivate employees. After a year, the objectives are studied to see if the objectives were reached. Future objectives are modified or increased.

Search the Web

Here are Web sites relevant to this chapter:

American Red Cross: www.redcross.org/

Federal Register: http://fr.cos.com/

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html

National Safety Council: www.nsc.org/

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): www.osha.gov

image

FIGURE 14-3 Safety signs.

Case Problems

14A. As a loss prevention practitioner for a large corporation, you are asked by a local college professor to lecture on the pros and cons of OSHA. What will your comments be to the class?

14B. If you were a company safety and loss prevention manager, how would you react to an OSHA inspection? What conditions in your company do you think would influence your reaction?

14C. In reference to the case describing Harry Nash, do you feel that the loss prevention manager and the foreman were justified in labeling Harry as accident prone? Support your answer.

REFERENCES

Anderson C, (1975). OSHA and Accident Control Through Training. New York, NY: Industrial Press;.

Atkinson W, (2000). “The Dangers of Safety Incentive Programs”. Risk Management.47.

Chacanaca M, (1996). “Specialty-Confined-Space Rescues”. Emergency..

Dreux M, (1995). “When OSHA Knocks, Should an Employer Demand a Warrant?”. Occupational Hazards..

Gaudio B, (2005). “OSHA Inspection … Can It Happen to You?” NFIB Business Toolbox (January 21). http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_19802.html . [retrieved December 17, 2006.]

Grimaldi J, Simmonds R, (1975). Safety Management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin;.

Haaland D, (2005). “Who’s the Safest Bet for the Job?”. Security Management.49.

Hall D, (2006). Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education;.

“Lockout/Tagout”. Occupational Hazards.63.

Mason J, (1976). “OSHA: Problems and Prospects”. California Management Review.19.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control , (2006). “The Economic Costs of Injuries”. www.cdc.gov/nipc/factsheets/Cost_of_Injury.htm . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]

Occupational Safety and Health Administration , (2005a). “Employer Rights and Responsibilities Following an OSHA Inspection”. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3000.pdf . [retrieved November 9, 2006.]

Occupational Safety and Health Administration , (2005b). Small Business Handbook. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/smallbusiness/small-business.pdf . [retrieved November 9, 2006.]

Occupational Safety and Health Administration , (2003a). “OSHA’s 2003–2008 Strategic Management Plan Goals: 15% Drop in Fatality Rates, 20% Drop in Injury and Illness Rates by 2008”. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=10214 . [retrieved December 14, 2006.]

Occupational Safety and Health Administration , (2003b). “Frequently Asked Questions”. http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/osha-faq.html . [retrieved December 17, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006a). “OSHA Facts”. www.osha.gov . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006b). “All About OSHA”. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/all_about_OSHA.pdf . [retrieved November 9, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006c). “Hazard Communication”. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18890 . [retrieved December 15, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006d). “Frequently Asked Questions: HAZWOPER”. http://www.osha.gov/html/faq-hazwoper.html . [retrieved November 10, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006e). “Bloodborne pathogens—1910.1030”. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10051 . [retrieved December 15, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006f). “The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)—1910.147”. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9804 . [retrieved December 15, 2006.]

Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2001). “Recordkeeping”. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3169.pdf . [retrieved November 9, 2006.]

Occupational Safety and Health Administration , Office of Communications , (2005). “OSHA Announces Targeted Inspection Plan for 2005” (August 9). www.osha.gov . [retrieved December 17, 2006.]

Occupational Safety and Health Administration , Office of Communications , (2006). “U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA Fines Thomas Industrial Coatings Following Two Worker Fatalities in Kansas City” (National News Release 06–1961–NAT, October 30). www.osha.gov . [retrieved December 20, 2006.]

U.S. Department of Labor , Office of Public Affairs , (2006). “Serious Violations of Health and Safety Standards Bring Wynnewood Refining Co. $154,800 in Fines from U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA” (OSHA Regional News Release: OSHA-06–1937–DAL, November 9). www.osha.gov . [retrieved December 20, 2006.]

Schroll C, (2006). “Confined space training: follow these 17 key steps”. Industrial Safety & Hygiene News.40.