“Injury and illness prevention programs are a better approach than safety incentive programs,” said OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels in his American Society of Safety Engineers webinar in May. “Already, workers have lots of incentives to work safely. We don’t need incentives. We need strong safety and health programs.”

Given this perspective, OSHA’s accelerated effort to adopt an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) standard makes sense. Once adopted, the standard would require all U.S. employers to have company I2P2s, something that, incredibly, is not required under current regulations. Michaels said he wants the standard in place within three years, a lightning pace if judged by OSHA’s past standard adoption performance.

Through its effort to require injury and illness prevention programs at all work sites, OSHA hopes to bring much added focus to the question of what constitutes an effective safety and health program. The basic purpose of an I2P2 is identification and assessment of hazards and the institution of prevention measures. Good data collection is one aspect; so is worker involvement and top-management attention. Training is also critical.

“Safe work is more important than reporting,” said Michaels, who stressed that employers’ drive for low, reported injury and illness rates has corrupted the data and masked the extent of the nation’s workplace safety and health problems. “We want programs that reward workers for working safely, identifying hazards and abating them. A good I2P2 is a better approach than an incentive program.”

During June, OSHA convened three sessions to receive public comment on its proposed I2P2 standard. The LHSFNA participated and is working with the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to develop an I2P2 rule specific to the construction industry. Eventually, the key components of a solid safety program will be codified in the new standard.

Michaels also urged companies to use government safety consultation services that are provided at the state level, and he praised Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) companies that strongly pursue safety programs and safe workplaces. He advised all companies to develop I2P2s and to engage their workers and supervisors in the process.

The LHSFNA’s Occupational Health and Safety Division provides support to LIUNA signatory employers who want help developing company- and site-specific safety programs. It can be reached at 202-628-5465

OSHA defines I2P2 programs as management systems that are designed to help employers reduce workplace injuries and illnesses “through a systematic process that proactively addresses workplace safety and health hazards.” In 1989, OSHA implemented an I2P2 program that encouraged employers to voluntarily implement a safety and health protocol and programs. During the Clinton administration, OSHA attempted to promulgate a regulatory requirement that employers implement I2P2 programs, but the effort stalled due to opposition from employers. OSHA dropped the effort from its agenda in 2002, but the Obama administration has indicated that an I2P2 rule is a high priority. Current OSHA Assistant Secretary David Michaels has spoken frequently of his determination to implement a final rule on I2P2 in the near future.

Stakeholders at the June 29 meeting discussed four general topic areas: possible regulatory approaches, the scope and application of the rule, organization of the rule, and the economic impacts of the rule. Organized labor was bullish on the notion of implementing an I2P2 requirement, while employers were mostly opposed to a new mandate. In general, employers expressed concern over requiring firms to implement an I2P2 system rather than relying upon a voluntary system. Small business representatives were particularly vocal about the burden of an I2P2 requirement and urged that any such rule permit flexibility or carve out exemptions based upon size or injury rate. Additionally, many employers requested that an I2P2 rule should consider employees’ behavior and overall wellness and the impact of those factors on risk and injury. During the meeting, a recommendation was made that the proposed rule contain a section on employee duties to complement the employer duties. Finally, employers in attendance urged OSHA to ensure that any I2P2 regulation would not be overly prescriptive and that it address only those areas of workplace safety that have been proven quantitatively to benefit from specific health and safety management protocols.

Several steps remain before an I2P2 rule could be finalized; indeed, a proposed rule has not even been drafted. The June 29 meeting marked the third of five I2P2 stakeholder meetings scheduled for 2010; previous meetings took place on June 3 in East Brunswick, N.J., and on June 10 in Dallas, Tex. The remaining meetings will be held on July 20 in Washington, D.C., and on August 3 in Sacramento, Calif.

Once the stakeholder meetings have been completed, OSHA must proceed through the regular rulemaking process, which involves drafting a proposed rule, publishing it in the Federal Register, permitting public comment, and responding to public comment before a Final Rule is issued. Since the regulation impacts small businesses, OSHA must include one additional step as part of the review process: In coordination with the Small Business Administration (SBA), OSHA must also establish a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel that includes small business representatives impacted by the proposed rule. The panel will review the regulatory language and preliminary government analysis of the regulation’s impact before producing a report that will be published along with the rule. SBREFA also requires that all rules reviewed by a panel are subject to Congressional review.

Recently, Dave Kaufman from Techlife, sent me an article he found in Gizmodo about a safety inventor who finally got justice.

Years ago, Floridian inventor Michael Powell pitched Home Depot a device that would keep its employees’ fingers safe when cutting wood for customers. It worked so well that they stole his idea. Now Powell’s getting sweet, $25 million justice.

Before Michael Powell came along, Home Depot employees were slicing off fingers left and right, resulting in nearly $1 million a year in worker’s compensation claims. But Powell devised a simple guard for protecting workers’ digits and let the company test it out in eight stores in the area. The trial was a huge success—and cut worker’s compensation claims down to $7000 the following year—but instead of ponying up Powell’s proposed $2000 per device, Home Depot just went ahead and fabricated copies of the saw guards without Powell’s consent.

According to court documents, when Powell’s claim to the invention was brought up in a meeting, one Home Depot executive responded, “Fuck Michael Powell. Let him sue us.” Well, hey, Powell did just that, and after a series of courtroom victories, he’s now looking to collect some $25 million from the company.

Handing down the latest ruling, a district judge said:  ”Home Depot knew exactly what it was doing. They simply pushed Mr. Powell away and they did it totally and completely for their own economic benefit.”

To read the full article check out the Palm Beach Post News.

18 states and Washington DC have now passed laws prohibiting drivers of a moving vehicle to text while driving. Yet over 10% of all drivers still continue to text. Many of these drivers are under the age of 29. The University of Utah recently published a study (December 16, 2009) Text Messaging During Simulated Driving, which found that drivers who texting have a much greater chance for an vehicle incident (6 times) than those who use a hand-held cell phone.

Recently I have been speaking at regional and local safety conferences on the topic of driver distraction, You Can Drive Me To Distraction. During these presentations I ask the audience how many people either text or use a cell phone (hand-held or hands free) while they drive. When I ask them to be honest, more than 60% of the people raise their hands.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines distraction as:

Distraction is anything that diverts the driver’s attention from the primary tasks of navigating the vehicle and responding to critical events.  To put it another way, a distraction is anything that takes your eyes off the road (visual distraction), your mind off the road (cognitive distraction), or your hands off the wheel (manual distraction).  So when you think about tasks that can be a driving distraction, you can see that they often fit into more than one category: eating is visual and manual, whereas using a navigation system is all three.

Both the National Safety Council and the NHTSA have become very active in awareness programs and getting laws passed which prohibit the used of any electronic device while driving a motor vehicle.  To make the point much clearer click on this link and watch this video (hint; it is a little hard to watch, be prepared).

So, what’s that message here?  Any time you lose focus on driving for only 2 seconds, your reaction time to avoid an incident is the same as if your blood alcohol level is .08 or the DUI limit.  We must stay alert and focused to stay alive and keep others from getting killed or injured.

MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS ARE THE #1 CAUSE OF EMPLOYEE DEATH AND INJURY.

More people have died in 1 year from texting related incidents in the US, than all the service people who have died in the middle east conflict since 2003.

NIOSH Update: Aging Workers at Higher Risk of Death, Severe Injury, Conference Report Suggests Ways to Keep Workers Healthy and Productive

Policy Shifts on Work Environment, Health Promotion, Continued Research Needed to Maintain Healthy U.S. Workforce

A report of conference presentations and discussions among participants from the National Academies of Science, universities and research institutions, and representatives of professional associations, industry and labor, recommends attention to workplace environments to maintain “work ability” as workers age, along with legislative fixes and research to fill in knowledge gaps for keeping workers healthy and productive.

According to researchers using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, older workers are more severely injured and die with greater frequency from work-related injuries than younger workers. Older workers also have longer recovery periods than younger workers. These findings raise health care delivery and economic issues for the nation, as more workers are choosing to delay retirement due to collapsed 401(k) plans and savings. BLS uses workers age 55 and older in its calculations, although the rates rise sharply for those workers over age 65. Other agencies and organizations define the term as age 50 or 55 and up. The Department of Labor uses age 40 as a starting point for “older worker.”

“The issue of healthy aging is critically important as the U.S. economy is revitalized. As we go forward in time, the demand for workers will grow but fewer workers will be entering the workforce and a larger proportion of the workforce will be older. This is a simple reality of demographics,” said National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Director John Howard, M.D. “Having a healthy, productive workforce will help sustain economic growth in the decades ahead. We must take steps now to help all workers stay safe and healthy at work as they age. We must also take steps to address the special needs of older workers who, more and more, will be staying on the job past traditional retirement age.”

The conference, held Feb. 17-18, 2009, at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, Md., paid particular attention to workers in physically demanding jobs, such as construction and health care. Health care cost-containment has meant longer work hours and increased stress among health care workers, which has led to a shortage of nurses. Thirty-nine percent of RNs were 45 years or older in 2002.

Construction workers already suffer the highest number of fatalities in any U.S. industry.  But the death rate among construction workers 55 years and older was nearly 80% higher than that of construction workers under 35 in 2007. And like the rest of the workforce, the average age of a construction worker is rising; it was 40.4 in 2008, which is 4.4 years older than in 1985. The average retirement age among construction workers is 61.

“Our nation loses an average of four construction workers every workday to a job-related incident – and that’s been consistent for more than a decade,” said Pete Stafford, executive director of CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training, one of the conference’s co-sponsors. “As we start to rebuild our nation’s crumbling infrastructure and venture into green jobs, we want to make sure jobsites do not become a source of pain and death for older workers who have so much to contribute, especially in mentoring younger workers.”

Howard believes the conference confirms and expands on a 2004 report from the National Academies of Science that recognized the deteriorating conditions facing an aging workforce, to the detriment of workers, their families, and businesses. “Health and Safety Needs of Older Workers” made clear recommendations to increase research efforts toward preventing work-related injury, illness and fatality among aging workers.   These recommendations have yet to be adopted.

“The discussions and recommendations from the conference point to steps that can be taken to address needs identified in the 2004 report  that were never acted upon,” said Jordan Barab, acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for  the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “As those discussions make clear, a sustainable workforce will be a critical component of a secure and prosperous 21st century economy. The work we do now is an investment in a stronger workforce for tomorrow.”

The Healthy Aging for Workers conference was funded through grants from NIOSH and CPWR. The Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics and the Society for Occupational and Environmental Health were conference sponsors. Additional co-sponsors were AARP, OSHA, the American Public Health Association, the Veterans Administration, and the University of Maryland Work and Health Research Center.

The full conference report and presentations from national and international researchers on occupational health and safety issues can be found on the Society for Occupational and Environmental Health’s Web site.

Nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses among private industry employers in 2008 occurred at a rate of 3.9 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers — a decline from 4.2 cases in 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Oct. 29th. Similarly, the number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses reported in 2008 declined to 3.7 million cases, compared to 4 million cases in 2007. The total recordable case (TRC) injury and illness incidence rate among private industry employers has declined significantly each year since 2003, when estimates from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) were first published using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

National public sector estimates covering nearly 19 million State and local government workers — for example, police protection and fire protection — are available for the first time from the SOII for reference year 2008.  Nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses among state and local government workers combined occurred at a higher rate (6.3 cases per 100 full-time workers) than among private industry workers in 2008.

Key findings of the 2008 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses:

• Incidence rates for injuries and illnesses combined among private industry establishments declined significantly in 2008 for all case types, with the exception of job transfer or restriction cases whose rate remained unchanged from 2007.  The number of cases of injuries and illnesses combined declined significantly in 2008 for all case types.
• For injuries only, both the incidence rate and the number of cases in private industry establishments declined significantly in 2008 compared to 2007 — each falling 8 percent from the year earlier.
• Looking at illnesses, both the incidence rate and the number of cases declined significantly in 2008 compared to 2007 — mainly the result of a decline among the ‘All other illnesses’ category, which accounted for nearly 84 percent of the decline in illness cases among private industry establishments.
• Manufacturing was the only private industry sector in 2008 in which the rate of job transfer or restriction cases exceeded the rate of cases with days away from work, continuing an 11 year trend.
• The total recordable case injury and illness incidence rate was highest in 2008 among mid-size private industry establishments (those employing between 50 and 249 workers) and lowest among small establishments (those employing fewer than 11 workers) compared to establishments of other sizes.

Slightly more than one-half of the 3.7 million private industry injury and illnesses cases reported nationally in 2008 were of a more serious nature that involved days away from work, job transfer, or restriction — commonly referred to as DART cases.  These occurred at a rate of 2.0 cases per 100 workers, declining from 2.1 cases in 2007.   Among the two components of DART cases, the rate of cases involving days away from work fell from 1.2 to 1.1 cases per 100 workers, while the rate for cases resulting in job transfer or restriction remained unchanged at 0.9 cases in 2008. Other recordable cases — those not involving days away from work, job transfer, or restriction–accounted for the remaining injury and illness cases nationally and occurred at a lower rate in 2008 (1.9 cases per 100 workers) compared to 2007 (2.1 cases per 100 workers).

Private Industry Injuries and Illnesses

Injuries. Approximately 3.5 million (94.9 percent) of the 3.7 million nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in 2008 were injuries — of which 2.5 million (71.2 percent) occurred in service-providing industries, which employed 80.1 percent of the private industry workforce covered by this survey.  The remaining 1.0 million injuries (28.8 percent) occurred in goods-producing industries, which accounted for 19.9 percent of private industry employment in 2008.

Illnesses. Workplace illnesses accounted for slightly more than 5 percent of the 3.7 million injury and illness cases in 2008. Private industry employers reported 18,900 fewer illness cases in 2008 — down to 187,400 cases compared to 206,300 in 2007. This resulted in a decline in the rate of workplace illnesses in 2008 from 21.8 to 19.7 cases per 10,000 full-time workers.

Goods-producing industries as a whole accounted for approximately 38 percent of all occupational illness cases and were responsible for more than two-thirds of the decline in illnesses reported among private industry workplaces in 2008. Consequently, both the number and rate of illnesses declined significantly for goods-producing industries as a whole in 2008. The manufacturing sector accounted for 31.5 percent of all occupational illnesses cases and reported 12,000 fewer illnesses in 2008 compared to 2007. Both the number and rate of illness cases among service-providing industries as a whole remained statistically unchanged in 2008, compared to 2007.

National Public Sector Estimates

National public sector estimates covering nearly 19 million State and local government workers — for example, Police protection (NAICS 922120) and Fire protection (NAICS 922160) — are available from the SOII for the first time for 2008.

Nearly 940,000 injury and illness cases were reported among State and local government workers combined in 2008, resulting in a rate of 6.3 cases per 100 workers — significantly higher than the rate among private industry workers (3.9 cases per 100 workers). Approximately 4 in 5 injuries and illnesses reported in the public sector occurred among local government workers, resulting in an injury and illness rate of 7.0 cases per 100 workers — significantly higher than the 4.7 cases per 100 workers in State government.

In addition to the industry-level estimates available for the first time with this release, more detailed national public sector estimates will be available in the future covering case and worker demographics for cases that involved days away from work.

OSHA said its Site-Specific Targeting 2009 program will focus enforcement efforts on nearly 4,000 high-hazard worksites on the agency’s list for comprehensive safety inspections. The agency said the SST program helps it direct enforcement resources to workplaces such as manufacturing and nursing homes where the highest rate of injuries and illnesses occur.

Changes to this year’s program include dividing the primary list of establishments slated for inspection into three sectors–manufacturing, non-manufacturing, and nursing homes. Rather than using one rate for all establishments, OSHA established minimum injury and illness rates for each group, allowing the agency to inspect even more establishments that exceed the minimum rates specific to that sector. Additionally, some facilities that did not answer an OSHA Data Initiative survey will be added to the inspection list. The agency said its intent is to deter employers from not responding to avoid inspection.

“These inspections examine all aspects of a workplace’s operations and the effectiveness of its safety and health efforts,” said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. “The SST program emphasizes to employers the importance of ensuring safe working conditions for workers.”

The SST-09 inspection program is based on injury and illness data from the agency’s 2008 Data Initiative survey of 80,000 employers, with 40 or more workers, in industries with historically high occupational injury and illness rates. The primary and secondary lists show case rates calculated from the number of days away from work, restricted work activity or job transfer (DART), or a “days away from work injury and illness” (DAFWII) rate.

The secondary list shows establishments in manufacturing with a DART rate between 6 and 8, or a DAFWII rate between 4 and 13; non-manufacturing with a DART rate between 6 and 15, or a DAFWII rate between 4 and 13; and nursing homes and personal care facilities with DART or DAFWII rates between 15 and 17 or between 11 and 14, respectively.