Safety Consultants    1-888-755-8010    info@FDRsafety.com

T: 1-888-755-8010
E: info@FDRsafety.com

 

Occupational Safety Blog

By Fred Rine, CEO of FDRsafety and former long-time Managing Director of Safety and Health at FedEx, Jim Stanley, President of FDRsafety and former No. 2 at OSHA headquarters and Mike Taubitz, Senior Advisor to FDRsafety and former Global Safety Director for General Motors.


Archive for June, 2010

Removing roadblocks to sustainable safety improvement

June 30th, 2010 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

Are you satisfied with the current state of your safety program?

  • Have training, audits and attempts to change behavior not yielded the long-term results you desire?
  • Do you feel like the safety department is carrying most of the load?
  • Are organizational responsibilities understood and people held accountable?
  • Is top management integrating safety with production, quality and other major company initiatives?
  • Are you searching for an answer to achieving true continuous improvement?

First, let me suggest that you look at your health and safety management system and ask the following:

1. Do you have one?
2. If so, is it integrated into the management system(s) used by top management on a regular basis?

If you can’t answer “yes” to both #1 and #2, you should consider incorporating the following principles into your operations:

  • Top management is responsible for leading safety and integrating it into the business.
  • A management system is the primary “tool” that allows senior executives to define organizational responsibilities and hold people accountable.
  • Safety personnel are there to serve the operations end of the business. Suggest an integrated management system.

Whether you do it in-house or call in a safety consultant, thoroughly assess existing systems and processes and then construct a plan that allows top management and senior operations management to fully integrate safety into their daily business. Then you’ll be on the road to sustainable safety improvement.

Share




Scrambling to keep the Gulf cleanup safe

June 29th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

The massive, expanding cleanup on the Gulf is creating safety challenges aplenty and both the government and private industry are scrambling to respond.

We’ve seen the impact in our safety staffing operation. One Friday afternoon we were asked by a major cleanup contractor if we could find 10 safety professionals to put on the job by Monday morning. We were able to oblige.

OSHA reported this week that more than 39,000 workers were involved in the cleanup as well as 6,500 vessels. OSHA itself began deploying staff to the Gulf in late April and now has personnel at all 17 staging areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

Depending on their jobs, OSHA said, workers can face hazards from “heat, falls, drowning, fatigue, loud noise, sharp objects, as well as bites from insects, snakes, and other wild species native to the Gulf Coast area. Workers may also face exposure to crude oil, oil constituents and byproducts, dispersants, cleaning products and other chemicals being used in the cleanup process.”

The agency reported that it has made over 1392 site visits, covering vessels and staging areas as well as decontamination, distribution and deployment sites.

OSHA says it is also working to ensure that workers are not exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. OSHA has reviewed the BP monitoring data and has brought in a team of industrial hygienists to conduct its own independent monitoring both on shore and on the cleanup vessels.

Share




OSHA wants some violations to carry prison terms

June 22nd, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA has raised the ante on enforcement to a whole new level. The agency now would like to see some violations treated as crimes with prison terms attached.

Speaking to the American Society of Safety Engineers at the Safety 2010 meeting last week in Baltimore, OSHA’s head, David Michaels, said: “It’s an unfortunate fact that monetary penalties just aren’t enough. We believe that nothing focuses the mind like the threat of doing time in prison, which is why we need criminal penalties for employers who are determined to gamble with their workers’ lives and consider it merely a cost of doing business when a worker dies on the job.”

Later in the week, OSHA officially launched another enforcement initiative, the Severe Violators Enforcement Program.

The program, details of which were previously announced, would identify employers with repeated, serious violations, and subject them to increased inspections of the site where the violations took place as well as inspections of other sites the company may operate.

According to OSHA: “SVEP is intended to focus enforcement efforts on employers who have demonstrated recalcitrance or indifference to their OSH Act obligations by committing willful, repeated or failure-to-abate violations in one or more of the following circumstances: a fatality or catastrophe situation; in industry operations or processes that expose workers to severe occupational hazards; exposing workers to hazards related to the potential releases of highly hazardous chemicals; and all egregious enforcement actions.”

For advice on preparing yourself for OSHA scrutiny, see my article “How to meet the challenge of greatly increased OSHA scrutiny”

You may also wish to have a mock OSHA inspection conducted at your site.

Share




Is a workplace possible where no injuries occur?

June 20th, 2010 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

Is it really possible to have a workplace where no injuries occur? Emmitt Nelson, a pioneer of the zero-accident approach, believes so.

Nelson, who chaired the first Construction Industry Institute task force that researched contractors with few or no injuries, was featured in a recent article on the Safety Daily Advisor website.

The article presents the following checklist, developed by the Institute, of practices followed by “zero injury” organizations.

  • The president/senior company management reviews safety reports.
  • Top management is involved in injury/incident investigations.
  • Management and supervision are evaluated on safety performance.
  • Project safety representatives report directly to senior management.
  • The company maintains a minimum of one safety representative for every 50 workers.
  • Projects have site-specific safety plans.
  • Before each task, a task safety analysis/pretask planning meeting is held with the foreman’s crew.
  • Safety training is a line item in the project budget.
  • Every worker on the project attends a standard orientation training session.
  • Safety orientation is formal.
  • Workers receive an average of at least 4 hours of safety training each month.
  • Superintendents and project managers attend mandatory safety-training sessions.
  • All levels of management and supervision receive training in behavior-based safety.
  • A structured worker-to-worker safety observation program is in place.
  • The company/project supports and maintains an effective, formal near-miss reporting process.
  • Workers are encouraged to report near misses.
  • Safety recognition/rewards are given to workers at least monthly.
  • Family members are included in safety recognition dinners.
  • Workers are evaluated on safety performance.
  • Subcontractors are required to submit project-specific safety plans.
  • Sanctions are imposed when subcontractors do not comply with safety requirements.
  • Employee safety perception surveys are conducted.
  • Off-site company personnel perform frequent audits.

I am confident that most safety professionals would concur that this extensive list has all the ingredients necessary to create an organizational culture where safety is ingrained in daily operations. However, we are once again overlooking the “why” of safety.

In W. Edwards Deming’s 14 points for management transformation to a sustainable organization (“Out of the Crisis,” 1982), he clearly cites the need to explain “why” to employees.

I keep wondering “why” we in safety keep failing to explain “why” safety should be important to each employee. Typically, everyone is asking, “What’s in it for me?”

Isn’t it about time that we address this fundamental issue?

MWV7DHQVHP6J

Share




A recordable injury may not be what you think

June 16th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

With OSHA putting enforcement pressure on recordkeeping, it may be helpful to refresh your memory on just what constitutes a recordable injury.

Arthur Sapper of the McDermott Will & Emery law firm has written an excellent article that straightens out some misconceptions he says are prevalent in the construction industry about what injuries must be recorded.

Here’s what he has to say:

Work restrictions

“The single most common of mistakes that lead to recordkeeping charges is misunderstanding what an OSHA-recordable work restriction is. Employers commonly but honestly believe that if an injured employee can still perform useful work, the injury is not recordable as a work restriction.

“Thus, employers may try to avoid an OSHA recordable by assigning office work to an injured tradesman. Other employers believe that an injury case is not recordable if the employee can still perform work within his job description. So they might, for example, give purely sedentary electrical work to electricians who otherwise would climb ladders daily to perform their jobs.

“Both ideas would be mistakes. OSHA’s regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1904.7(b)(4)(i)-(ii)) state that a restriction occurs when either:

“1) The employer keeps an occupationally injured employee from performing one or more “routine functions” of his job; or
“2) A licensed health care professional recommends that the employee not perform one or more “routine functions” of his job. The term “routine function” is specially defined as a work activity regularly performed at least once per week. In the case of the injured electrician now unable to climb a ladder, the case is recordable because the electrician otherwise regularly climbs ladders every day.

Light duty

“A second and related misconception is that light duty is not a work restriction. A recordkeeping regulation (§ 1904.7(b)(4) (vii)) indicates that light duty can indeed amount to a work restriction. In fact, this regulation indicates — although indirectly — that light duty is presumptively a restriction.

“The regulation starts with the question, “How do I handle vague restrictions from a physician or other licensed health care professional, such as that the employee engage only in ‘light duty’ or ‘take it easy for a week’?” After stating that the employer “may” ask the physician whether this means that the employee may not perform all of his routine job functions or work his entire normally assigned work shift, the lengthy provision ends with this: “If you are unable to obtain this additional information from the physician … who recommended the restriction, record the injury or illness as a case involving restricted work.”

“OSHA officials take this last sentence to mean that “light duty” is a recordable work restriction unless the physician affirmatively states that the employee may perform all of his routine job functions and may work a full shift. Employers are thus well advised that when faced with a vague restriction such as “light duty” to contact the physician and get clarification on what tasks the employee may not perform.

“If even one of these tasks is among the work duties regularly performed at least once a week, an OSHA recordable case must be entered on the log.
“Another aspect of light duty work restrictions that employers overlook is that the recordability of a restriction depends on the particular employee’s routine functions. Hence, two employees can be identically injured, treated and restricted, but the restriction might be recordable for only one of them. A restriction for an ironworker might not be a restriction for a receptionist.

“An employer therefore needs to review with the employee or the employee’s immediate supervisor what tasks the employee regularly performs at least once per week and whether the restriction prevents any from being performed.

Final caution

“A caution can be offered about these misconceptions. Even OSHA’s online Recordkeeping Handbook, of which few employers are aware, gives inadequate information about gray areas in the regulations.

“Employers with questions are understandably reluctant to call OSHA, plus area offices are often too busy for an employer to reach a knowledgeable person; moreover, different OSHA offices may offer different advice. Even so, employers should make every effort to get definitive guidance from OSHA or legal counsel rather than guessing what the recordkeeping requirements are. A wrong guess may mean big penalties from a less than sympathetic agency.”

Share




How to react to tighter OSHA enforcement on safety training

June 4th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

OSHA is increasing enforcement pressure in yet another area: Making sure that employees receive safety training in a format they can understand.

OSHA is instructing its inspectors to issue “serious” citations if a “reasonable person” would conclude that safety training has not been provided to employees in a format which they are “capable of understanding.”

Rod Smith, Pat Miller and Matt Morrison of the Sherman and Howard law firm have published an excellent newsletter article with advice about how make sure your company meets the requirements. Here are some excerpts:

“This could raise several troubling issues for employers. Allowing inspectors to issue a citation based on the views of a hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ is an extremely ambiguous standard, and an invitation to arbitrary enforcement. Although many safety professionals understand the need to translate training materials into appropriate foreign languages, OSHA does not provide any guidance on how employers can present training in a manner which all employees are ‘capable of understanding,’ so as to avoid a citation.

“Learning styles vary widely among individuals, and some employees may be reluctant to admit to their employers that they do not understand the training material. … In short, this new enforcement initiative has the potential to saddle employers with unjustified citations.

“So, what should employers do to avoid a citation and ensure that their employees understand the safety training that they receive? Providing complex, written materials to employees with a sign-off sheet indicating that the employee ‘has read and understood’ the training material is not enough, especially if the employee cannot read or comprehend the rules. A better approach, as recommended by OSHA, is for employers to realize ‘that if they customarily need to communicate work instructions or other workplace information to employees at a certain vocabulary level, or in language other than English, they will also need to provide safety and health training to employees in the same manner.’

“Employers may find it worthwhile to:

  • Adopt simplified safety rules and ‘plain English’ restatements of OSHA requirements.
  • Utilize written tests, translated where necessary, to confirm employee knowledge.
  • Where reading comprehension presents an issue, draft policies and training materials with diagrams or pictures, showing the ‘right way’ and the ‘wrong way’ to perform the job.
  • Verbally quiz employees with language or reading comprehension barriers, making certain to document the determination that the employee adequately understands the materials.
  • Use a documented task evaluation that requires employees to actually demonstrate how to safely perform a job, such as putting on a safety harness or locking out a piece of equipment.

“These efforts may go a long way toward ensuring that employees understand the safety training they receive and convincing OSHA that training was presented in a manner that employees were capable of understanding.

“To assist employers in meeting their training obligations, OSHA has created a web-based assistance tool intended to help employers communicate with a Spanish-speaking workforce. This tool is located on OSHA’s website.

“OSHA’s new enforcement policy is available here.

Share




A place to learn more about connections between safety, ‘lean’ and sustainability

June 3rd, 2010 posted by Fred Rine

Fred Rine

When you get right down to it, safety, “lean” processes and sustainability are all about the same thing: eliminating waste. In the case of safety, it’s about eliminating the waste of human resources through accident or illness; the other two are about conserving financial or natural resources.

At FDRsafety, we believe that thinking around these three ideas will continue to converge. That is why we have established a section on our website called “Safe, Lean, Sustainable.”

In that section, we have created a resource center where you’ll find articles about the relationship between these three concepts as well as some practical ideas about putting them into place. The main driver behind the section is FDRsafety’s Senior Advisor, Mike Taubitz. Mike, who is former Global Director of Safety for GM, has done lots of thinking and writing about how these ideas connect.

We invite you to take a look at the section and also to check out a new LinkedIn group called SHE, Sustainability and Lean, where people interested in this topic can gather and share ideas.

Share