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

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

 

Occupational Safety Blog

By Jim Stanley, former No. 2 official at OSHA and President of FDRsafety


Archive for the ‘Training’ Category

Radical change to OSHA advancing in Congress

July 7th, 2010

Prison terms of up to 10 years could be imposed on officers and directors of companies that knowingly violate OSHA rules under a proposed revision to the Occupational Safety and Health Act now advancing through Congress.

The 10-year term would apply in situations where a violation contributed to the death of an employee. The current maximum sentence under the OSHA act is six months and the law does not specify that officers and directors can be held criminally responsible.

Employers need to pay close attention to this bill since the provision on criminal penalties is only one of several proposed enforcement changes in the bill that would radically alter the occupational safety and health landscape for employers. In my view the bill would significantly change OSHA as we now know it.

The proposed measure is in keeping with the Obama administration’s philosophy of substantially increasing enforcement, which OSHA has already been carrying out administratively in such areas as training, recordkeeping, ergonomics and severe violations.

The proposed revisions to the law, introduced as the Protecting America’s Workers Act, have been percolating for months. But it now appears that the House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing on the bill on July 13, followed soon after by a committee vote. The bill could reach the floor of the House by the end of the month.

The bill originally was a standalone measure, but now has been combined with a bill to make changes in the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Pressure is strong to change MSHA because of the fatal accident that occurred earlier this year at a Massey Energy Co. mine in West Virginia and that in turn makes it more likely that changes to OSHA will pass as well.

One especially significant change to the OSH Act would allow officers and directors to be held criminally liable In cases where they had knowledge of violations that led to a fatality. The law currently states that an employer may be held criminally liable, but the definition of an employer is vague enough that it rarely is enforced against individual managers. The new bill specifies that the term “employer” means officers and directors.

Other changes In the bill:

  • Employers would be required to immediately begin abating serious, willful or repeated violations. Currently abatement requirements are automatically stayed if an employer contests a violation. Under the bill, employers who want a stay would have to ask for one from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. (I call this provision the “guilty until you prove yourself innocent” clause.)
  • Protections for “whistleblower” employees would be significantly strengthened. It appears to me that the bill would make it virtually impossible for employers to discharge an under-performing employee for cause if that employee makes any kind of complaint about safety conditions, warranted or not. This has a potential to severely inhibit employers’ ability to hold employees and managers accountable.
  • Prison terms of up to five years could be imposed on any officer or director of a company that knowingly violates any OSHA standard, rule or order if that violation contributes to serious bodily harm to an employee. Currently there is no provision in the OSHA act for a prison term in such situations.
  • The maximum civil penalty for willful and repeated violations would increase from $70,000 to $120,000. If the violation resulted in a death, the maximum penalty could be $250,000.
  • The maximum civil penalty for serious violations would increase from $7,000 to $12,000. However, if the serious violation resulted in a death, the maximum penalty could be $50,000.
  • The maximum civil penalty for other-than-serious violations would also increase from $7,000 to $12,000.
  • Minimum and maximum penalties would be adjusted for inflation at least once every four years beginning in 2015.

For tips on how to prepare your company for increased OSHA scrutiny, see my article “How to meet the challenge of greatly increased OSHA enforcement.”

  • Share/Bookmark

Is a workplace possible where no injuries occur?

June 20th, 2010

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/Bookmark

How to react to tighter OSHA enforcement on safety training

June 4th, 2010

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/Bookmark