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 the ‘Training’ Category

Do you know the leading cause of non-fatal workplace injuries?

March 26th, 2012 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

Dramatic accidents involving long falls or amputations in machines are often what makes headlines when it comes to non-fatal safety issues. But the costliest disabling injuries for industry, at least when it comes to Workers Compensation, involve something much more routine – overexertion.

That’s the conclusion of the2011 Liberty Mutual Safety Index, which found that about 25 percent of total direct workers compensation costs from injuries that kept workers off the job for six days or more stemmed from overexertion, which includes lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying or throwing. That amounted to $12.75 billion in costs of an estimated $50.1 billion total in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

Others in the top 10, and their estimated cost:

• Fall on the same level — $7.9 billion
• Fall to lower level — $5.4 billion
• Bodily reaction — $5.3 billion
• Struck by object — $4.6 billion
• Highway incident — $2.2 billion
• Caught in/compressed by — $2 billion
• Struck against object — $2 billion
• Repetitive motion — $2 billion
• Assault violent act — $0.6 billion

The path to reducing these injuries? Skills training of course is helpful. But the truth is that for overexertion and many of the other items on the list, most workers know perfectly well how to act more safely – they just have to want to do it. Safety awareness training can help workers realize just what is at stake when they venture into behavior they know is unsafe.

Subscribe to Jim Stanley’s OSHA blog.

Share




Research shows the importance of attitude in safety

February 13th, 2012 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

As we have stressed here before, a key factor in safety is making sure that the people involved have the right attitude.

That truth is driven home by a fascinating article called “Cognitive – Behavioral Safety: How Stages of Change Influence Safety Behaviors.”

Here is how author Dianne R. Stober, Ph.D. starts out:

“Let’s face it, we all have to deal with change. Whether we are trying to lose weight, change our golf swing, improve our communication with our spouse, or adopt a new safe work procedure, important change takes energy. And people do not expend energy without sufficient motivation to do so.”

The article goes on to say:

“Addressing internal processes among leaders and workers will help move a company closer to meeting the safety challenge. However, it is also important to recognize that becoming a person who thinks and behaves more safely involves personal change. As such, to be successful, any safety program will need to consider the specific internal processes involved at various points during the change process … The stages include:

1. Precontemplation: the individual at this stage is not aware of, nor contemplating, the need for change
2. Contemplation: the individual has begun to think about the need for making change but has not committed to nor made change
3. Preparation: the individual has increased his or her commitment to change, with intention to make change in the near term, and may have begun making small changes
4. Action: the individual has begun engaging in new behaviors but has not yet cemented these changes over time
5. Maintenance: the individual has been consistently acting on the change made over a period of time
6. Relapse: many change efforts result in periods of relapse where the individual falls back into old behavior patterns.

“Many efforts aimed at improving safety, including many BBS systems, focus primarily at the action stage. If our initiatives are aimed here, we are assuming that individuals are ready, willing, and able to make changes regarding their safety.

“Trying to modify behavior without awareness is unlikely to work in the long term: ‘overt action without insight is likely to lead to temporary change.’

“When it comes to the stages of change, diving right into behavioral change may not work. Until awareness of the need for change, evaluation of what that change is, commitment to making change, and preparation for effective action steps are all present, jumping straight into action will be unlikely to be successful in the long run.”

The article provides the research foundation for what Fred Rine, Flavius Brown and other FDR safety pros have learned while training over 400,000 employees on safety awareness. You have to help move individuals from “have to” be safe to an attitude of “wanting to” be safe. It’s important to get to the heart as well as the mind.

Share




Change safety behavior: focus on the heart as well as the head

January 30th, 2012 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

Why is it that safety professionals keep hoping to instill safe behavior by dealing only with the minds of employees? Think about it — skills training, hazard awareness and even (from my perspective) the misguided attempt to have one employee watch another to correct unsafe acts – all of it deals with knowledge, skill, competence and awareness. Yet we also know that employees who understand the safe way to do things sometimes don’t.

Wait, that doesn’t apply only to working. It applies throughout life. Ask yourself how many times you drove over the speed limit, used a cell phone while driving in heavy traffic, didn’t take time to put on hearing protection while using a power tool at home – and the list goes on. We are all human and whether for sake of comfort or saving time, it’s easy to take shortcuts.

I’m as guilty as anyone but I’ve found that new thinking is helping me be more conscious of safety on a 24-7 basis. My discussions with Fred Rine and exposure to the FDRsafety training session on safety awareness has caused me to be much more thoughtful about what would happen to my family if I were seriously or fatally injured. I already know my major risks. They are driving and slips, trips and falls.

I’m one of these folks blessed with great health throughout my 64-plus years. No broken bones, no surgeries and I missed 4 hours of work in a 43-year career. But in the last few months, I took two tumbles – both from really stupid situations that were avoidable and I will not discuss. Both had to do with a “time” issue. I have done my self-assessment and made a commitment (to myself) to be more diligent.

Thinking from the heart

What’s important and the focus of this post is not what but why. I “want to be safer” because of my family. It’s thinking about safety from the heart – not the head. I know what to do from my head but the “want to” comes from the heart.

That takes me to thinking about my years in safety and what I read in all the professional journals and articles. We are simply missing the boat. The drive to reduce OSHA recordable cases is necessary but far from sufficient. 96% of accidental deaths are away from work. The offset of the natural inclination to take shortcuts – on and off the job – is to get folks to think about their families and make safety a 24-7 priority. That will also help improve safety in the homes and community if we do this right.

If we value someone’s safety and desire to have them “want to” be safe, we need to deal with the heart as well as the mind. Let’s expand our focus and start dealing with the real issues that are being ignored.

Share




Exploding some myths about fall protection equipment

April 6th, 2011 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

Fall protection is a vital part of construction safety programs, but as is well-known, a lot of times workers don’t use the equipment or don’t use it properly.

Workers’ excuses range from complaints that the equipment slows them down, makes it harder to work or really isn’t needed. Many of these complaints center on personal protective equipment, such as harnesses and lanyards.

Some of the complaints stem from misconceptions, as Thomas Kramer points out in an article in Contractor’s Tool Source.

This article gets into the nitty-gritty of fall protection, pointing out such myths as:

• An adequate clearance distance is six to eight feet when using an energy-absorbing lanyard.
• A harness only needs one D-ring.
• A guard rail that is taller than 42 inches is always acceptable.
• Self-retracting lanyards always lock up in a few inches.

Consistent, proper use of personal protective equipment and other fall protection devices can be a lifesaver – literally. I commend Kramer’s article to you as a valuable tool for worker education.

Share




Hidden in the stats: The dangers of maintenance work

December 8th, 2010 posted by Mike Taubitz

Mike Taubitz

Thorough recordkeeping is essential to a strong safety program, but even companies that keep good records may be missing something in their numbers: the high risk presented by maintenance activities.

About 6 percent of workers are involved in maintenance activities on a daily basis, where they are exposed to a wide variety of hazards. Figures from EUROSTAT indicate that around 10 to 15 percent of all fatal accidents are related to maintenance.

So a one-day conference called “Maintenance: Do It Safely,” sponsored by EU-OSHA and the Belgian EU Presidency last month was particularly valuable. The goal was to show how safe maintenance could save lives. This coincided with the release of EU-OSHA’s report, “Safe maintenance in practice: outlining key strategies businesses should adopt to prevent maintenance risks.”

The conference noted that maintenance is not only necessary to ensure the reliability of physical structures and productivity, but also is important to safer and healthier working conditions. “While maintenance is essential to keep equipment, machines and the work environment safe and reliable and prevent harm, the maintenance work itself is a high-risk activity,” the conference said.

The report details how safety and health risks associated with maintenance can be successfully managed. Good occupational safety and health management practices are at the heart of reliable and safe maintenance. Worthy of note is the recognition and inclusion of Prevention through Design, a NIOSH initiative.

Normal safeguards not always available

Awareness, skills, training, procedures and PPE become more important during maintenance work, because normal safeguards no longer provide protection. Unplanned/unscheduled breakdowns require maintenance to get back into production. Such situations are inherently higher risk when normal safeguards must be bypassed, for example:

• Guards must be removed
• Two hand controls do not provide protection
• Power may be required for diagnostic work and trouble shooting

These hazards and hazardous situations cannot be identified by analyzing lost time or recordable injury cases resulting from different exposures. If your company is primarily “focused on the numbers,” you may be overlooking some of the highest risk situations facing your workers – maintenance work. Two other factors inhibit efforts to deal with maintenance related injuries and fatalities:

• Research has shown that these high-severity incidents have low probability. Unless you have a database of near miss incidents for maintenance work, you will not have past history to analyze. Again, the exposures in maintenance work are different from those in your traditional injury illness database.

• There may be hundreds (even thousands) of unplanned maintenance tasks performed each year in small and medium enterprises. Unplanned maintenance typically involves many more tasks than planned maintenance and may pose greater risk because the risks have not been analyzed.

These issues could explain why good companies have an employee fatality when their injury statistics have been trending downwards for years. CEOs and others ask themselves, “What did we miss?” Maintenance cases are typically infrequent but often high severity. The maintenance recordable cases will be different exposures than those that result in a death. Near miss reporting could provide a history – but few have it.

Elements of a prevention initiative

Make sure that your injury prevention initiatives include:

• A process for proactively identifying high-risk maintenance work:

    –Talk to the workers and engage them in identifying the highest risk jobs.
    –Use task-based risk assessment to assure that proper protection is provided.
    –Observation

• Strong supervision
• Procedures
• Responsibility and accountability

If you have any questions, FDRsafety can help or feel free to contact me at mtaubitz@fdrsafety.com.

Share




Free tool to conduct OSHA-required PPE assessment

October 28th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

All general industry employers are required by OSHA to assess their workplace for hazards that would necessitate the use of personal protective equipment, known as PPE.

If you are unsure how to conduct such an assessment, we are providing the personal protective equipment assessment checklist that we use at FDRsafety. After conducting the assessment, employers must then certify that they have done so. Employers can make that certification on the form we are providing.

If you have questions about the checklist or personal protective equipment, check with our information center.

We cannot stress enough the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE), which can range from safety glasses to gloves to special kinds of protective clothing, among other things. Conducting the survey is vital for employers, not just so they can meet OSHA requirements, but so they will know how to protect their workers and prevent injuries.

Having the right personal protective equipment available for employees is only half the battle for employers, however. The real trick is making sure that it is actually used. Workers sometimes fail to put it on because of time or discomfort issues. Employers may want to investigate safety awareness training that not only teaches workers how to use PPE, but also motivates them to want to use it.

Note: “General industry” refers to all industries not included in agriculture, construction or maritime.

Share




Scary photos show log truck hooked to 7.2 kv primary power line

September 14th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

Knowing safety procedures is one thing. Using them is another. Download and view this power point of some scary photos that show what happened when a logger who tried to throw a hook over a pile of logs on a truck ended up hooking a 7.2 kv electrical line instead.

(When the first slide opens, click the right arrow on your keyboard to see the pictures.)

Safety awareness training may have helped here.

Share




Radical change to OSHA advancing in Congress

July 7th, 2010 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

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




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




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