Jordan Barab, the No. 2 official at OSHA, made a shocking statement at a recent public health conference, as reported by Occupational Safety and Health Reporter: Half of workplaces inspected under a recent national emphasis program were underreporting injuries and illnesses.

Under the pilot program, OSHA inspected about 350 workplaces suspected of providing inaccurate reports of workers’ injuries and illnesses. The program was a relaunch of an earlier version that was halted because inspectors failed to find the underreported injuries and illnesses they were expecting.

After all the confusion surrounding the original pilot and its failure to find recordkeeping violations, I have substantial doubt that a new look at targeted companies could really find legitimate accidents and illnesses that were never reported. On the other hand, given the complexities of OSHA’s current recordkeeping requirements, it is possible that some of the injuries and illnesses were recorded improperly.

In my opinion, this pilot program is evidence that OSHA has misplaced its priorities. The agency has limited resources, as do businesses. Instead of splitting hairs about inaccurate recordkeeping, time and attention needs to go towards identifying hazards in the workplace and their correction before injuries or illnesses occur. Everyone agrees that this will produce safer workplaces.

Recently, I attended two important annual meetings — the American Trucking Associations meeting and the National Safety Council Congress. As a safety professional, both meetings allowed me to catch up with my colleagues while getting updated on new safety developments and emerging issues.

At the Trucking Associations meeting, I was most intrigued by a survey it conducted a few months back that identified the top challenges its members are facing. Not surprisingly, one of the top five issues was the impact the US DOT’s new enforcement program, CSA, will have on carrier operations.

I have written many times before that CSA would become a “game changer” and, in fact, for the trucking industry it has become so. As freight demand is increasing, companies are anxious for more customers. However, companies with poor scores are being told that until they improve, customers will be giving their business to companies that perform better on safety.

At the conference, it was clear that a cottage industry of consultants and businesses has sprung up to help companies identify their safety weaknesses and improve their CSA performance. This help comes in the form of technologies capable of managing hours of service compliance to individual consultants skilled in improving safety culture and a company’s overall safety management program.

The demands of running a trucking operation can be overwhelming but the compliance requirements are the same whether a company has three power units or 30,000. The point is that solutions are available and many are affordable and within the reach of the small operator. To remain competitive, companies need to be mindful of their CSA performance and set a course to make improvements by either focusing time and attention on remedies or hiring someone who can help get them into a better safety position.

Home, community accidents on rise

Unintentional injury prevention is the main mission of the National Safety Council. It focuses on helping business and the public recognize the impact injuries/deaths have on business profitability and the wellbeing of families.

Surprisingly, the fastest rate of increase in preventable injury and death comes from abuse of prescription drugs, aka unintentional poisoning. We have all heard stories of people doctor-shopping, receiving highly intoxicating drugs and mixing drugs that unintentionally and tragically result in death.

In recent decades, workplace and motor vehicle deaths have been declining but home and community categories of death and injury have been on the rise. Other danger sources in the home include slips and falls. The challenge is how to create a better recognition of risk and then promote a sense of personal responsibility for oneself and one’s family that recognizes these risks and sets out to curb them.

Ladder safety, handrails in bathtubs, etc., are examples of measures that enhance safety. Adopting a mindset that says “this event can happen to me so I’m going to improve the odds by making the safe choice” is something we don’t often do. Always wearing a seat belt even when we drive the 10 minutes to the grocery store is a practice we all need to adopt.

These meetings provided me a sense of renewal and commitment to my safety journey and reminded me that there is still a great deal of work to be done to help us all be safer — whether it’s on the road, at our workplaces or in our homes. While we all can’t be at every conference that affirms our vocation, we can commit to making better choices and caring more about our personal and family’s well being.

I spent the last 10 years of a 40-plus year career seeking out emerging global health and safety issues to help General Motors align its manufacturing practices and policies with regulation, standards and other external forces over which we had little control. In the course of that work, I learned to connect the dots before the tsunami hits.

One such emerging issue is the safety and health needs of a workforce that is growing older. Issues like an aging workforce are not tidal waves because you don’t see the wave. With a tsunami, when you see the wave it is too late.

An aging workforce is more than a socially responsible issue for many companies. The theme I heard in recent presentations from both CNA Insurance and NIOSH is – believe it or not – that many companies will be facing a major labor shortage in the next few years. I place a lot of value on actuarial tables used by insurance companies and other experts studying demographics. The data suggest that many companies will be faced with employing aging workers to stay in business or grow their business – it’s not a question of doing something nice for older workers – it’s about survival in the workplace utilizing the talents and skills of an older workforce.

I know it’s hard to believe with the current economy, but I hear employers complaining that they can’t find workers with necessary skills. Many older workers meet their requirements – - with this caveat — older workers pose new health, safety and ergonomic challenges.

A 1/8-inch difference in the floor may not be a problem for young workers but could become a trip hazard for an older worker. Lighting and visual acuity is another challenge. Workers who could handle lifting and bending in their younger years may not be able to handle similar stresses in their old age.

When/if your company hires aging workers or keeps older workers on the payroll, will you have the necessary hazard prevention processes in place to keep them healthy and well?

Is the incessant focus on OSHA recordable injury rates keeping us from planning on strategic issues that will impact our organizations? It’s all about long-term sustainable growth folks. Let’s make sure that we adding real value and deal with emerging issues like an aging workforce.

Pointing to what it says is an “unacceptable” level of workplace injuries and illnesses among workers in nursing homes and other residential care facilities, OSHA has announced that it will soon begin a national emphasis program to increase enforcement in that industry.

The incidence rate for healthcare support workers increased 6 percent in 2010 to a level nearly two and a half times that for all private and public sector workers, according to figures from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of ergonomics injuries with days away from work increased 10 percent for nursing aides, orderlies and attendants.

OSHA chief David Michaels said the national emphasis program would “increase our inspections of these facilities, focusing on back injuries from resident handling or lifting patients; exposure to bloodborne pathogens and other infectious diseases; workplace violence; and slips, trips and falls.”

The program will cover nursing homes and residential care facilities, such as assisted living complexes.

Operators of these businesses, who may be unaccustomed to intense OSHA scrutiny, may wish to read our article “How to meet the challenge of greatly increased OSHA enforcement,” which provides useful tips.

To subscribe to this blog, which focuses heavily on OSHA, and have updates delivered to your email box or reader, click here.

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics recently announced that non-fatal injuries and illnesses in private industry declined by 200,000 from 2009 to 2010.

OSHA hailed that as good news, and rightly so. But to gain a fuller understanding of the numbers, you need to look at statistics going back a number of years.

These statistics show that the number of illnesses and injuries in private industry have been on a steady decline for years, as shown in this chart created by the government which tracks injury and illness numbers from 1994 to 2010.

That, of course is great news, as well. But it also demonstrates that maybe OSHA’s enforcement crackdown over the last two-plus years hasn’t changed the trend.

What’s ahead for OSHA

In announcing the numbers, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis gave some indications about where the agency will be focusing in the future: recordkeeping, the healthcare industry and public sector employers.

“We remain concerned that more workers are injured in the health care and social assistance industry sector than in any other, including construction and manufacturing,” she said.

“Illness and injury rates for public sector workers also continue to be alarmingly high at 5.7 cases for every 100 workers, which is more than 60 percent higher than the private sector rate,” Solis said.

“A report like this also highlights the importance of accurate record keeping.” she said. “Employers must know what injuries and illnesses are occurring in their workplaces in order to identify and correct systemic issues that put their workers at risk. We are concerned with poor record-keeping practices and programs that discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses.”

Too much focus on recordkeeping

My concern with this focus is that it prompts employers to expend their limited safety resources on recordkeeping requirements rather than continuing to identify and correct hazards and behaviors in the workplace. A tremendous amount of industry resources are devoted, for example, to trying to determine whether an injury should be classified as first aid, medical treatment or restricted duty. At the same time, OSHA has recently determined that falls from heights is the most violated standard.

I can’t believe that OSHA is expending their limited resources in recordkeeping yet OSHA still has general industry fall protection regulations that are totally inadequate. Somehow OSHA’s priorities have been misplaced.

Recently, I had the pleasure of being the keynote speaker for a statewide organization focused on improving quality in healthcare. Some of you are probably asking, “What the heck does that have to do with safety?” Good question and the answers lie in the bridge called “lean” thinking.

All of the attendees were immersed in using “lean” to improve operational performance in their organizations. Many healthcare organizations are beset with challenges to reduce errors, cut costs and provide faster services. Do those sound familiar to the management challenges laid out in your own organization?

“Lean” is the term used to describe Toyota’s production system in the 1991 book, “The Machine that Changed the World.” Lean thinking and tools focus on the identification and elimination of waste, allowing any business process or system to be faster, better and cheaper. Over the years, many companies and industries like healthcare have learned that “lean” works in offices and any kind/size of business.

History buffs may know that Toyota created tools and problem solving processes to follow the teaching of W. Edwards Deming. Deming, often credited with being one of the key figures for the modern quality movement, did not preach lean. His 14 Points or principles simply laid out the foundation for leadership that allowed every member of the organization to be involved with organizational transformation.

Leadership with engaged employees – sounds a lot like what we in safety are always striving for.

You cannot be lean without being safe

My message was “You cannot be lean without being safe.” It is a given that healthcare professionals are focused on patient safety. Healthcare organizations that are several years into their “lean journey” for organizational transformation have impressive case studies demonstrating improvement in operational excellence. Yet, only a few of these organizations have included employee safety in their processes to improve work.

How can this be? Needle sticks, blood borne pathogens and a myriad of ergonomic issues are just some of the hazards that confront nurses and other healthcare workers. For the lean folks, is it someone else’s responsibility to handle employee safety?

Is this the same thinking that safety folks use when we say, “Lean or production is someone else’s responsibility.” Do our paradigms about roles and responsibilities constrain taking advantage of opportunities that would make things run faster, better, cheaper – - and safer?

Whether your company uses “lean” or some other form of continuous improvement, we in safety have a golden opportunity to help our leaders understand that injury and illness is waste. If we value our employees, then we need to make safety 24-7. When we do this, we have made the first step onto the path where lean and safety are carried out as an integrated process.

Is it right for OSHA to penalize an employer for an incident that was completely beyond the company’s ability to prevent?

If that seems wrong to you, I agree. But that is exactly where OSHA is heading with a new directive issued to its inspectors.

It instructs those inspectors how to hold employers responsible under the General Duty clause for instances of workplace violence not even committed by one of the company’s employees.

In an excellent article about the directive in the Washington Examiner, Michael Billock, a labor and employment lawyer at Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC in Albany, N.Y., creates a hypothetical situation that demonstrates where this could lead:

“Picture this scenario: One day, in a large hospital with thousands of patient visits per year, the unthinkable occurs — while a doctor explains unfortunate news to a patient’s family, a relative pulls a gun and mortally wounds the doctor.

“That hypothetical scenario would be terrible enough. But now imagine that, in the midst of the hospital trying to recover from this tragedy, a federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigator arrives to conduct an inspection.

“After months of interviewing employees, reviewing documents, and taking videotaped tours of the hospital, OSHA issues the hospital a citation and fine (!) on the basis that the violence was foreseeable and the hospital did not do enough to prevent it.”

Billock goes on to point out that General Duty clause was not intended to be used this way and that the directive provides employers no clue about what to do to avoid a citation.

This is yet another instance of overreaching by the “New” OSHA. Even though the agency appeared to be pulling back earlier this year to some degree on issues like noise, ergonomics and a proposed Injury and Illness Prevention Program, it is now clear that the agency intends to keep its overly aggressive approach in place. Proposals on noise and I2P2 are back and now OSHA is going even further with this misguided approach to workplace violence.

To keep up with the latest developments on OSHA subscribe to this blog and have it sent direct to your email box or reader.

Two controversial proposals by OSHA are becoming entangled with partisan fighting over the federal budget.

A spending bill crafted recently by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), chairman of the House Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, would block OSHA from moving ahead on proposals to change the way ergonomic injuries are reported and to create an Injury and Illness Prevention Program.

As reported by The Hill, a Washington publication, Rehberg’s bill drew immediate criticism from the Obama administration and the AFL-CIO.

The ergonomics bill would create a separate column for musculoskeletal injuries on the injury log that employers must submit to OSHA. Business groups have said that this is the first step towards reviving efforts to create an OSHA standard on ergonomics, an effort which failed 10 years ago.

The Injury and Illness Prevention Program – I2P2 for short – would require employers to develop safety programs that conform with specific federal guidelines. Business groups have objected that such a program would be a bureaucratic nightmare, creating guidelines that would not fit well with a wide variety of industries and business conditions.

At a hearing last week, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), chairman of the House subcommittee on workforce protections, said that the costs of regulations can be significant and can cause employers to refrain from hiring new workers.

OSHA administrator David Michaels defended the safety regulations, saying, “OSHA regulations don’t kill jobs. They stop jobs from killing workers.”

Subscribe to this blog and have Jim’s posts on OSHA fed automatically to your mailbox or reader.

Based on recent calls, OSHA appears to be turning a spotlight on companies that use energy control circuitry during tasks that are routine, repetitive and integral to their operations.

As most readers know, OSHA requires lockout/tagout to control potentially hazardous energy or unexpected startup during service and maintenance work. OSHA has also said that “Setting up is not considered utilization of a machine or equipment and is classified as servicing and/or maintenance, rather than normal production operations.”

For purposes of this blog, we’ll only discuss lockout. Lockout procedures must assure the primary energy source is disabled and locked. The use of control circuitry is not allowed for tasks where lockout is required. However, minor tool changes and adjustments, and other minor servicing operations, which take place during normal production operations, are not covered by the standard if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of machines or equipment for production, and if work is performed using alternative protective measures which provide effective employee protection. Lockout/tagout is not required when each of these elements exists and employees may perform servicing and maintenance activities with the machine or equipment energized.

But how do you know whether your tasks meet these criteria?

A process to follow

The good news is that there is a process a company can follow to answer the question. In a 1999 letter to the UAW and General Motors, OSHA said that the company and union had used a Task Based Risk Assessment methodology through which a Monitored Power System (MPS) was incorporated into specific equipment. (A Monitored Power System is circuitry using control reliable safeguarding.)

In the letter OSHA stated:

“…an MPS, which meets the above referenced ANSI (B11) consensus standards on control reliability and control component failure protection, would provide alternative safeguarding measures, which constitute effective employee protection. Thus, such an MPS may be used to protect employees who are performing minor tool changes and adjustments, and other minor servicing activities, which take place during normal production operations, provided that each element of the §1910.147(a)(2)(ii) exception is met. In other words, the MPS system may be used in cases in which minor tool changes and adjustments, and other minor servicing activities, are performed during normal production operations, and are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of the equipment for production…”

FDRsafety Senior Advisor Mike Taubitz is a a long-time member of the B11 Accredited Standards Committee. He also assists companies in conducting a task based risk assessment to determine if lockout/tagout or alternative safeguarding is needed for effective employee protection.

OSHA has reduced the minimum size for companies to be included under the Site-Specific Targeting program, so that now companies in selected industries with as few as 20 employees can be inspected.

The Site-Specific program is OSHA chief programmed inspection plan for high-hazard, non-construction workplaces. Earlier versions of the program applied only to companies with at least 40 employees. The agency selects establishments randomly for inspection from a primary list of 3,700 manufacturing, non-manufacturing, and nursing and personal care facilities.

Here are the criteria for being included on the list for potential inspection:

Manufacturing establishments

Manufacturing establishments with a DART rate at or above 7.0, or a DAFWII case rate at or above 5.0 (only one of these criteria must be met). This is approximately 3,000 sites.

The DART rate is based on “Days Away, Restrictions and Transfers” for workers per 200,000 hours.

The DAFWII rate is the number of cases of “Days Away from Work Injury and Illness” per 100 full-time equivalent employees.

Non-manufacturing establishments

Non-manufacturing establishments (except for nursing and personal care facilities) with a DART rate at or above 15.0, or a DAFWII case rate at or above 14.0 (only one of these criteria must be met). This is approximately 400 sites.

Nursing and personal care facilities

Nursing and personal care facilities with a DART rate at or above 16.0, or a DAFWII case rate at or above 13.0 (only one of these criteria must be met). This is approximately 300 sites.