A review of the history of safety over the last few decades offers good reason for hope, says Rose McMurray, Chief Transportation Advisor at FDRsafety.

“Unlike 50 years ago when workplace injuries and deaths were considered an unfortunate byproduct of a robust economy and steady national growth, today, there is much broader citizen support and demand for setting limits and standards for worker safety,” Rose said in a recent interview with the National Safety Council that was posted on its website.

Rose is well-qualified to assess the big picture on safety, having served as Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation, and we are very proud to have her on our team.

Rose’s interview offers good advice to the next generation of safety leaders:

“There are solutions to every problem. Don’t be deterred in your efforts to fix a difficult one. Look for alternative strategies to remedy the issue and remain steadfast in finding possible new solutions. Search out other champions and build other stakeholders. Remember that it often takes decades for seemingly intractable problems to make progress.”

For more from Rose’s interview, click here.

I’ll leave it to you to solve the problem and will give you until the end of this blog post to do so.

Speaking of problems, it is interesting to read a recently released interpretation letter from Richard Fairfax, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. Fairfax, who retired after the letter was written, was responding to a union inquiry.

In the letter, Fairfax said that non-union employees can select anyone, including representatives of a union, to accompany an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection of their worksite. Some employers believe this is an unfair way to favor unions by giving them backdoor help in trying to organize a workplace.

Here’s what Fairfax said, in part:

“The OSH Act authorizes participation in the walk-around portion of an OSHA inspection by ‘a representative authorized by [the employer's] employees.’ 29 U.S.C. § 657(e). Therefore, a person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative can act on behalf of employees as a walk-around representative so long as the individual has been authorized by the employees to serve as their representative.”

This marks a major departure in procedures for OSHA inspections and litigation seems likely from unhappy non-union employers, some of whom already believe that OSHA favors union workplaces when it comes to inspections.

As I said at the start, current events draw the mind in interesting directions.

So what did you come up with when you did the math?

Non-union employees can select anyone, including representatives of a union, to accompany an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection of their worksite, according to a recent interpretation letter issued by OSHA.

This marks a major departure in procedures for OSHA inspections and potentially provides an opening for union organizers to get a presence in a non-union workplace. As noted in an article by the Constangy Brooks & Smith law firm, the letter is provoking a backlash from employers.

The letter, released April 5, but dated Feb. 21, 2013, was in response to a request from Steve Sallman, a health and safety specialist with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union.

Sallman had asked whether workers at a non-unionized workplace could authorize a person affiliated with a union to act as their representative under the OSH Act. Richard Fairfax, Deputy Assistant Secretary of OSHA, responded in the interpretation letter that not only could a union representative be selected to go along on an inspection, but that workers had the right to choose anyone they pleased to act as a representative, including non-employees.

In addition, Fairfax said in the letter that employees in a workplace without a collective bargaining agreement may designate a union-affiliated individual to act as their personal representative. In this capacity, non-employee personal representatives may file complaints on behalf of an employee, request workplace inspections, participate in informal conferences, contest the abatement period in OSHA citations and participate in contest proceedings.

In my opinion, if OSHA goes forward with this policy, it is likely to result in employer litigation.

OSHA is failing to hold state-run programs accountable for addressing problems in their programs in a timely manner, the Government Accounting Office says in a report.

The report, released last week, finds a number of issues in states with their own occupational safety and health programs. Under the law, states may opt to run their own programs rather than having the federal government do it, but have to meet federal standards while doing so or risk having OSHA take over. Twenty-six states have approved plans, although in several coverage is limited to employees of state and local government.

Among the problems identified by the GAO:

• Many states have difficulty retaining inspectors because of higher salaries offered in private industry.
• Some states have hiring freezes owing to budget pressures.
• Training of state inspectors is falling short due to shortages of instructors and problems with obtaining appropriate equipment and facilities in the field.

“Although OSHA evaluates state-run programs during its annual reviews, GAO found that OSHA does not hold states accountable for addressing issues in a timely manner or establish time frames for when to resume federal enforcement when necessary,” the GAO said.

“In addition, the current statutory framework may not permit OSHA to quickly resume concurrent enforcement authority with the state when a state is struggling with performance issues. As a result, a state’s performance problems can continue for years.”

“GAO also noted that OSHA does not compile lessons learned from its past experiences when it has resumed federal enforcement in a state,” the report said. “This prevents the agency from building on previous experiences in responding to future situations.”

It appears likely that the Voluntary Protection Program would take a hit under the President’s proposed 2014 budget for OSHA, while funding for the whistleblower enforcement program would substantially increase.

According to a report by Bloomberg BNA, OSHA would hire 47 new staff members for the whistleblower enforcement program with the program’s budget increasing $5.9 million to $21.8 million. Meanwhile, 33 positions would be cut from the compliance assistance program.

David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, said in a web conference about the budget that enrollment growth in VPP would slow.

“To focus on the integrity and modernization of OSHA’s cooperative programs and reduce the backlog of VPP recertifications, the agency will slow the growth in the number of new cooperative program participants,” Michaels said.

He also said OSHA has no plans to turn VPP into a fee-based program, an idea that OSHA previously explored.

Advocates of ramped-up enforcement are pushing again to revise the Occupational Safety and Health Act, with a goal of increasing penalties and widening OSHA’s jurisdiction.

The bill, introduced late last month in the Senate, would:

• Increase the maximum penalty for “repeat” and “willful” violations from $70,000 to more than $100,000.
• Expanding criminal liability to make willful violations causing death or serious bodily injury a felony rather than a misdemeanor.
• Place all federal and state government employees, and some local government employees, under OSHA’s jurisdiction.
• Create new liabilities for “site-controlling” employers at multi-employer worksites.

An article by Pat Miller and Matt Morrison at the Sherman & Howard law firm provides more details. The article notes that the Senate bill is a revived version of the Protecting America’s Workers Act, or PAWA for short, which failed to be passed in 2009 and 2011.

“Given the current composition of the U.S. House of Representatives, passage of the PAWA – at least in its present form – is unlikely,” the Sherman & Howard article says.

“However, if passed, the PAWA will significantly alter the OSHA landscape for public and private employers. Even a substantially revised and weakened PAWA could make important modifications to the OSH Act.”

The March issue of ASSE’s Professional Safety magazine was devoted to the subject of Prevention through Design (PtD), with three excellent articles that covered:

• Integrating PtD into undergraduate curricula
• Design methods for implementing PtD, including things like policy, standards, processes and procedures, management of change, etc.
• Business cases supporting PtD solutions

What I rarely see is something that the writer actually put into practice.  In 1970 (some of us lived in ancient times), I was a graduate engineer responsible for purchasing millions of dollars of production equipment for Chevrolet engines.  A few months into the job, we were called into the Master Mechanic’s office (chief manufacturing engineer) and advised that the Walsh Healy act had passed and we were now responsible for OSHA compliance.  Our bosses told us not to look to safety because they had no more information than they did.

We were engineers – what the heck did we know about safety?  The answer – precious little. But our bosses made us personally responsible for noise, guarding, ventilation and engineered controls for employee safety.   One thing all engineers know is this:  If you miss something in the bid specification and place an order for a machine or process, you will pay big time to get the added features.  While in the competitive bid stage, many of those items might have been no cost.

We learned something that all PtD proponents should put into practice immediately — make sure your bid package requires vendors to detail costs for noise control, guards, etc.  In some cases, you may ask for different options because you, the buyer, will determine what is feasible for your operations.  Not only is it right for the purchaser to put responsibility on the supplier but you’ll quickly flush out those who aren’t qualified to handle the job.  Once the bid is awarded, engineering and safety can demand CAD drawings or equivalent of the safeguards just like the base machine, sub assemblies and components.

Don’t wait until the machine is nearly done to start safeguarding – demand that the vendor offer solutions in the competitive bid stage.

On the horizon is another vital reason for motor carriers to get their safety performance “house in order.”

Coming later this year as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by DOT is the next “leg” on the CSA stool. This rule — the  ”Safety Fitness Determination” Rule — will propose to satisfy the Congress’ mandate that all motor carriers have an up-to-date safety rating.

DOT plans to meet this obligation by using the CSA scoring system to categorize carriers using unambiguous adjectival ratings likely to be some form of “satisfactory, continue to operate (or equivalent language indicating no evidence to indicate safety issues), marginal and/or unsatisfactory.”

As opposed to the old SAFESTAT system, CSA scores have the advantage of reflecting a more current picture of a carrier’s safety performance since it compiles the past 24 months of on road activity, and its severity and time-weighting features provide a more recent assessment of a company’s safety condition.

As carriers know, in the old rating scheme, receiving an unsatisfactory or conditional rating after a full government-conducted audit could be devastating to their business. What is expected from DOT later this year is a proposed new rating system that will use the CSA scores and the relative scoring of data within CSA, to be the basis for a de facto rating system for each carrier.

There will likely be no audit to verify scores are accurate. A carrier’s CSA scores, then, translated by a formula reflecting risk, are what will probably be proposed as the current safety rating. That provides plenty of reasons to seriously review and correct any mistaken data now and in the future, address CSA deficiencies and continue to prod DOT to competently fix the crash accountability issue it is currently reviewing so that the carrier profile data reflects the true safety condition of a company.

Changes not immediate

These changes to the safety rating requirement will not happen overnight. It typically takes around two years for rules to become final after public comment, the need for government oversight reviews and the press of competing workload by the rule writers. But be warned that because the CSA model is so central to DOT’s mission to identify high risk carriers and goad them into better on road performance, finalizing this rule after its first public comment period may be given higher priority within its very heavy rulemaking agenda.

Motor carriers are also urged to read and react, in writing, to the proposed rule. Because of competing pressures, carriers often rely on others to comment on their behalf. While associations typically submit very useful comments, the rule writers also look for commenters representing all classes and sizes of carriers to get a better sense of the impact the rule will have across the industry, including the shipper community.

With CSA, many companies were caught “flat-footed” and have suffered business reverses as a result. They should not let the prospect of a new rule on safety ratings catch them a second time.

Multi-tasking has evolved from a talent to a necessity to maintain the pace of everyday productivity.

Whether an employee is talking on a cell phone while working, or not wearing his or her personal protective equipment, many workers have placed themselves and others at needless risk to save time or be more comfortable.

The bottom line is that the majority of accidents are not due to a lack of training, skill or knowledge — they are simply related to poor decision-making.

This article will take a comprehensive look at addressing this problem along with the culture of safety, and examines the philosophy, accountability and structure needed to develop a successful safety program.

First thoughts about safety

Think back to the person who taught you the first safety rule: Possibly, it was your mother warning you about a hot stove. (“Hot, don’t touch!”) Most people are likely to rebel when pushed into a decision until they truly understand the rationale and risk behind the decision. The “it could never happen to me” attitude sends many people to emergency rooms with serious injuries, sometimes life-threatening.

Sadly, carelessness in the workplace can tend to go hand in hand with pressures to produce and, in some cases, it is rewarded. Too often, it is easier for a manager to turn away and cross his or her fingers when observing a safety rule being violated than to slow down the process with enforcement and follow-through.

Time, effort, comfort and peer pressure are the foremost reasons employees commit unsafe acts when they know better but don’t do better. Many employees don’t like being required to attend safety training sessions or, in some cases, obey safety rules. Many companies establish safety as a “No. 1 priority,” but send mixed messages when something more important bumps safety to the back burner.

Employee safety must be a value and a lifestyle, with a 24/7 approach.

Accountability for actions

Poor management techniques and/or lack of company-sponsored training efforts are ultimately responsible for sustaining a culture that “permits” unsafe behavior. If there are no consequences for violating company safety rules, no enforcement of the safety program, and no way to point to any bottom-line accountability, major changes must be made and implemented in the existing programs.

There are three main components of an effective safety program:

1. Total, unwavering safety commitment from management.

2. Active implementation of a formal site-specific safety program led by mid-management.

3. Employee involvement through example and demonstration, not directives.

It’s not enough to make safety a “No. 1” priority. Safety must become an inherent company value because priorities nearly always change at some point.  All individuals want to succeed, best echoed by the old saying, “What interests my boss, fascinates me.”

The term “accountability” typically tags along with a negative connotation of punitive or disciplinary action. In a compliance context, this word translates to everyone owning responsibility for individual safety.

How a company demonstrates its commitment

While conventional wisdom says that employees criticize their companies when they impose strong disciplinary actions in safety, the opposite is usually the case. Companies with a high regard for safety and health demonstrate a greater level of care and concern for employee well-being. When safety and health standards break down, serious injuries/illnesses or even fatalities can occur, leaving families shattered due to carelessness and irresponsibility.

What would happen if there were no highway patrolmen to monitor traffic on the roads? Obviously, that would be a recipe for disaster. The same principle holds true with safety measures. Lower costs and higher productivity correlate directly with companies that demonstrate a strong baseline safety program that includes front-line supervision and employee participation. Safety becomes part of the job and a condition of employment.

Companies need to have highly detailed safety procedures in place, ensure and account for employee training and awareness, and ultimately use a zero-tolerance policy for serious violations of the policy. Employers must create a system of accountability that includes:

• Thorough training
• Strong and effective safety and health policies
• Regular and frequent inspections and documentation
• Accountability to follow through with safety rules

To look at it another way, many companies terminate employees because of excessive tardiness or theft, while merely warning them for a serious breach of safety rules that could have caused death or serious physical harm.

Emphasizing what’s really important

Safety is about creating an environment where employees want to be safe because it’s the right thing to do.

Asked, “What are the top three most important things in life?”, employees commonly answer:

1. Family

2. Faith

3. Health

“If someone were to say that he or she would hurt a member of your family, what would you do?” Most people would do anything in their power to stop that from happening.

Safety values, whether at work or at home, have the power to protect or ruin your family, faith and health. If an unsafe action were to undermine any one of these values, would shaving off a few extra minutes by not putting on protective equipment or skipping steps through a safety procedure still seem as important in light of its possible consequence? Safety shouldn’t be a “have to,” it should be a “want to.”

Preparing an effective safety program

To establish a successful safety initiative here are my recommendations for senior leadership:

• Safety begins first with top management; and deliver the message with visual concepts, not just words.
• Create a program that is site-specific and makes sense to management and workers.
• Identify where safety and health issues exist and implement a program that corrects these issues and all similar issues.
• Fully understand the responsibility and requirement to follow safety and health rules.

And here are some recommendations to foster a culture of safety:

• Encourage employees’ involvement and feedback and act on their suggestions.
• Develop a safety committee with the authority to create and implement changes.

Select an employee from the workforce to function as a fulltime safety coordinator (without disciplinary authority) with the responsibility of making safety changes.

Subscribe to our Workplace Safety blog and receives updates automatically in your inbox or to your reader.

Since DOT replaced its old motor carrier safety fitness high risk identification system—SAFESTAT—with the new Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) measurement project, more and more motor carriers are paying attention to its effects. For many months preceding and following CSA’s official December 2010, roll-out, many truck and bus companies did not pay much attention to it. Some simply felt the program would not be ready for nationwide use or that political maneuvering would delay its implementation. As we know, that did not happen.

But now, while many of the CSA components are not yet finalized, poor safety-performing carriers are feeling the pinch as shippers, customers, insurers, charter bus customers, etc., consider the CSA measures in their decisions to conduct business with certain carriers. Whether they like it or not, these carriers are taking steps to improve their scores and have been forced to see the economic market forces that compel them to make safety a higher company priority.

As one of the early architects of CSA when I served as Chief Safety Officer at DOT, providing this public information to consumers was intended to act as an economic imperative for carriers to comply with their regulatory responsibilities since, for many high risk operators, the fear of government enforcement action did not deter them from continuing to be non-compliant. After 27 months of operation, CSA appears now to be that incentive.

Modernizing management methods

More than ever, companies are turning to safety advisors, technologies and other proven measures to deal with issues that cast an unflattering light on a carrier’s operation. Companies which have earned poor scores by not exerting enough oversight over drivers and fleet maintenance have realized that relying solely on spreadsheets, tickler systems and notes scribbled on pieces of paper do not provide enough structure to allow for timely and active action to manage results.

One carrier I recently reviewed demonstrated they well understood their safety duties but were simply overwhelmed by too much paper, disorganized files and reliance on lower level managers to stay vigilant. Poor scores in the Driver Fitness measure, for example, often reveal an incompetent system for staying ahead of expiring CDL’s and medical certificates—two of the main violations cited within this factor. Scoring poorly on this measure also suggests the carrier may lack an effective overall operating system capable of managing what are very basic oversight requirements. If a company cannot get this “right” what might it reveal about more complex, difficult compliance duties.

Companies using old fashioned methods to track these requirements are finding themselves struggling to improve their scores before customers threaten loss of business or regulators act. Carriers oversubscribed to paper tracking can take heart.

There are a number of inexpensive, automated compliance tools in the marketplace able to harness the era of smartphones and other handheld technologies that are simple for drivers to use and provide managers with vital operating data to ensure compliance requirements are met. This includes hours of duty tracking, pre- and post- trip inspections, driver credentialing, etc. Compared with the potential loss of customers and civil penalties imposed by enforcement officials, not to mention the operating efficiencies that these automated compliance tools offer, carriers would be well advised to explore if these systems will help them perform better.