Will Workers Compensation injuries be on the increase, merely because we have an aging workforce?

We hear it constantly – the aging workforce – and for some of us that are of the baby boomer generation we don’t like hearing it!  We can’t stop the aging process, but we do actually have some control over the WC injuries that can result.

Whether you work at a desk, in commercial construction, or in manufacturing, it’s unfortunate but true that as you age your body parts just get worn out!  Years of typing can cause repetitive motion issues; years of lifting or digging trenches can cause repetitive traumas, as well as knee, back, and shoulder issues.   But it comes down to the fact that even though just the aging process may weaken the body part, if the “final straw” happens on the job, it’s a workers’ comp claim.

It is evident that the baby boomer generation is willing to learn new techniques, take care of us both physically and mentally, and they don’t want to give in to the idea of getting older so they can’t do certain tasks.  They are highly motivated to keep going, but without pain.

So, what can an employer do to help the aging workforce not get injured?  First of all observe how tasks are performed and be open to having them done a different way to alleviate stress on certain body parts.  Enlist assistance with this evaluation from those who actually do the job and have done the job for many, many years.

For repetitive motion issues, it can merely be an ergonomics issue.  Still even in 2010 we should be looking at how an individual’s workstation is set up and if they have the proper tools.   From a construction standpoint it can be holding training sessions regularly on proper lifting techniques, or merely telling your employees it’s okay to ask for assistance when lifting items of a certain weight – in fact encourage or insist they ask for help!

By providing your employees with training on correct body mechanics, healthy eating habits, support in joining a gym, more employees may come to realize that they do have control over their personal discomfort and/or pain and see that they can prevent and alleviate the physical stresses or work and personal life!

To take it a step it a step further let’s look at the worker compensation cost to a company.  To get a more accurate figure the company should  multiplying the number of injuries by the average costs of such injuries. Direct average costs for medical care were drawn from the National Council on Compensation Insurance Ultimate Reports. Lifetime medical costs for deaths were valued at $17,226; for Permanent Total at $113,372; for Permanent Partial at $15,342; for Temporary Total and Partial at $2,782; and for no work loss at $294. The average cost per hour is estimated to be abut $30 per hour worked for injuries.  The medical expenses were drawn from workers’ compensation accounts and did not require adjustment for charges versus payments since workers’ compensation paid virtually 100 percent of medical bills that is, very few co-payments or deductibles were charged to clients.

The bottom line is as we get older we have more incidents and  it takes us longer to heal.  The cost of healthcare continues to rise.  Therefore, companies can expect a rise in worker compensation cost which goes directly to the bottom line.  For the safety professional, this present a greater challenge to reduce incidents and injuries in the workplace.

Safety’s Impact on the Bottom Line

By Mark Steinhofer, CSP

Suppose your company could make an investment in its business that provided a 400 to 600 percent rate of return. Sound like a fantasy? It isn’t.

Successful owners and managers understand the importance of measuring return on investment (ROI) whenever they put money into new equipment, processes, and even employees. In fact, many won’t invest a dime unless they see solid proof that the ROI will assure a complete payback within a set period of time.

The concept of ROI can also be applied to efforts that lower a company’s costs. For example, if by investing $10,000 in a new piece of equipment you can lower your annual production costs by $25,000, you’d probable see that as a very sensible move that would benefit your bottom line year after year. By Mark Steinhofer, CSP

Looking at investments in safety in the same way can provide similar benefits. That’s not wishful thinking or some kind of trick math – the economic benefits of improved safety have been documented time and again. In fact, studies have consistently shown that every dollar invested in safety programs provides a payback of $4 to $6 in reduced costs.

The key is looking at the money you put into safety as an investment in your business, rather than thinking of it as an expense. It may sound strange to think of safety as an investment, but once you understand the economics involved, along with the negative bottom-line impacts of each safety incident, that viewpoint becomes clear. In simplest terms, the money you pay for a safety program and the people to implement is likely to be significantly less than what you’d pay for a preventable incident.

A dramatic economic impact
Workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities cost more than $170 billion per year in the U.S. Beyond the immediate financial impact, more than one million injuries and 2.3 million cases of ill-health are experienced by workers in an average year, contributing to a loss of about 40 million working days. In addition, more than 25,000 individuals are forced to give up work because of injury or ill health issues. Overall, nearly 50 workers are injured every minute of every work week, and 17 will die on the job every day.

Of course, the potential hazards vary by workplaces, as does the potential cost of accidents and work-related health problems. Factors that have to be considered include the number of people who work for your organization, how many incidents actually occur at your workplace, and the nature of the work your company does. You also have to consider the value of the materials, products or services you provide, because that has an impact on how significantly an incident will affect your bottom line.

The costs you can see
Suppose that one of your best employees is injured three hours after starting work this morning. While you’re concerned about his well-being, you’re probably not too worried about the economic impact of his injury. After all, you reason, your workers’ compensation coverage will take care of his medical costs and compensate him while he recovers.

But injury costs are like icebergs. Just as ninety percent of the typical iceberg lurks unseen beneath the surface of the water, surprisingly high unanticipated costs lurk beneath every injury.

To understand why, let’s analyze the costs of that incident. The “visible” portion is the direct costs. Beyond the cost of medical services (from the ambulance fee to follow-up care), there’s also replacement labor. Your supervisory staff likely had to step away from other tasks to address the situation. You may also face some costs to investigate the incident and protect yourself from a legal standpoint.

The costs that may surprise you
So what are those costs lurking below the surface? The so-called “indirect” costs may include everything from the production downtime and its effect on your business, possibly some overtime to make up for that downtime, damage to your products or raw materials, and repairs to your plant and equipment. You may have had to fork over sick pay. Your supervisors will lose more time as the incident is investigated and steps are taken to prevent future incidents. You may even face OSHA fines and legal costs.

Productivity suffered when other employees stopped working to help, watch, or simply talk about the incident. Equipment they may need could have been damaged – or the injured employee may have been the only one with knowledge about a particular procedure or process.

In the worst-case situations, the injury may cause you to lose a contract with a customer that has very strict safety standards. Your reputation can suffer a significant loss, especially if the injury puts your company on the 10:00 news or the front page of the newspaper.

How much of an impact?
Many studies have examined the ratio between direct and indirect costs of safety incidents, and while there is quite a bit of disagreement over what that ratio should be, all of the studies concur on one important point: indirect costs tend to be several times higher than the direct costs. Whether it’s the 4:1 ratio identified by H. W. Heinrich in 1979, or the 50:1 difference that Bird and Loftus tracked in their study, it’s clear that the injury-related costs you don’t prepare for are the ones that will really hurt your profitability. Click here to use our online injury cost calculator.

Consider the costs of making up the lost work. The standard way to compute that amount is to divide the cost of the incident and its related claims by your normal profit percentage. Multiply that number by 100, and you’ll see how much more you need to sell just to make up what you lost in the incident. If an incident cost you $230,000, and your company earns a normal operating profit of 13.47 percent, you’d have to sell an addition $1.7 million in products to compensate for the incident.

Even a smaller incident can have repercussions far beyond what you’d expect. Take an accident that ended up costing you just $500. Using the same formula, if you’re in the concrete business, you’d have to deliver 20 extra truckloads. Soda bottler? You’d need to produce another 61,000 cans. And if you were in the donut business, that little incident just cost you the equivalent of 235,000 donut sales.

Insurance impacts, too
The constraints on your bottom line don’t stop when your employee comes back to the job. Having incident claims on your record will affect what you pay in workers’ comp premiums, because your EMR (experience modification ratio) will increase. Have enough claims, and your carrier may even refuse to cover you. Take two 30-employee firms, both with annual payrolls of about $600,000. One firm has achieved an EMR of 0.7, so it pays about $105,000 a year in workers’ comp. But the other had a few incidents that drove its EMR to 1.3, and pushed the annual premiums of $195,000. The firm with the better safety record pays $90,000 less.

Beyond the cost savings, improved safety has many beneficial effects. In one recent survey, 95 percent of business executives reported that workplace safety has a positive impact on a company’s financial performance. Typically, companies that implement a comprehensive safety and health program report that employee morale improves, leading to increases in productivity, competitiveness, and profits.

Changing the mindset
Gaining the full benefit of a safety program demands more than simply making it a priority. It needs to become one of the organization’s core values. In addition to providing the financial returns I’ve described, it’s a very good business practice, but it’s the right thing to do from a human standpoint.

The companies that take industry-leading positions with regard to safety view losses from accidents in the same way they look at any other type of loss – it’s a risk that must be prevented. Taking steps to prevent the causes of accidental losses is seen not as an element of overhead, but an investment in the company’s own health. They also recognize that reducing losses improves the quality of products and services they deliver, leading to greater customer satisfaction and increased revenue. That’s why they integrate health and safety into the overall management agenda.

By looking beyond the direct costs of injuries and other incidents that impact employee health, and focusing on the economic impact safety problems have upon the business, management will be in a better position to make confident, informed decisions. Examining these issues in an economic context will benefit the bottom line – and even more important, it will ensure that all of your workers return home safe and healthy every day, reducing the likelihood that their families and friends will suffer the ill effects of an injury.

Mark Steinhofer (MarkSteinhofer@SafetyManagementGroup.com) is an Account Manager for Safety Management Group, an Indianapolis-based professional service organization that provides nationwide workplace safety consulting, training, staffing, program planning, and implementation. Information is available at www.safetymanagementgroup.com/pub or by calling 800.435.8850.

“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.

OSHA Steps Up Enforcement of Worker Training Requirements

OSHA will step up enforcement of worker training requirements, especially for non-English speaking workers, according to a recent announcement from Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. She announced a number of major new OSHA enforcement initiatives during her April 14 speech at the National Action Summit for Latino Worker Health and Safety. OSHA currently requires that training provisions under OSHA standards be provided in a language or a form workers can understand. OSHA has already developed a training language policy. OSHA further requires that its compliance officers check and verify that workers have received the training required by OSHA standards. The Agency will expand upon this and effective on April 28—Workers Memorial Day—Secretary Solis explained, “OSHA will also assure that its Compliance Officers check and verify not only that the training has been provided, but that it was provided in a format that the workers being trained can understand.”

Trainers need to find ways to hurdle language barriers. While English is a second language for an increasing percentage of the workforce, employers are still obligated to make sure Hispanic worker training and other immigrant worker training is understood by employees. It’s not enough to make a presentation if you know that members of your audience may not be able to comprehend or use the information effectively. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor (DOL), and other government agencies are keenly aware of this.

Following are some commonsense tips for Spanish worker training:

• Establish companywide safety policies for bilingual training supported by top management.
• Hire supervisors who are bilingual.
• Provide signage (safety guidelines, emergency evacuation, warnings) in Spanish and include diagrams or symbols.
• Pair new employees with bilingual veteran employees who comply with safety and health guidelines.
• Conduct periodic jobsite visits and work with employees in the field.
• Follow up formal training with demonstrations, then have employees demonstrate to one another.
• Conduct safety meetings and toolbox talks to reinforce formal training

OSHA’s Training Language Policy

According to OSHA’s training standards policy statement, if an employee does not speak or comprehend English, instruction must be provided by the employer in a language the employee can understand. Similarly, if the employee’s vocabulary is limited, the training must account for that limitation. According to OSHA, an employer’s responsibility to provide employees with safety information and training doesn’t go away because an employee can’t understand standard English-language training programs. When that is the case, employers must inform and train these workers in a language they can understand.

The policy directs OSHA compliance inspectors to determine whether workplace instructions regarding job duties are given in a language other than English. If so, they will also need to provide safety and health training to employees in the same manner. If a reasonable person would conclude that the employer had not conveyed the training to its employees in a manner they were capable of understanding, the violation may be cited by the inspector as serious.

Where did that come from? I didn’t expect that! Didn’t see that coming! How did that happen? Sound familiar? After an injury caused by an incident, these are the types of comments often expressed by the victim — sometimes the witnesses.

Witnesses as well as those involved often exclaim that they had no idea what happened. This is an expression of frustration. They thought they were working safely and had probably performed the job hundreds of times. The worker could probably do the task blindfolded. Perhaps he did?

TOTAL AWARENESS IS THE KEY

A common factor in injury incidents is a lack of awareness. A thorough pre-operational inspection of workplaces and equipment is one of the most important acts that anyone can do to ensure his or her own safety each day. But a pre-operational inspection is only a start.

Each worker must constantly be aware of changes in his or her environment throughout the shift and be prepared to react appropriately to changes that occur. These differences may occur because of a change in location, or a natural change in the immediate environment. They may be changes that are forced from outside sources, or they may be changes that we create by the work we perform.

An air hose is normally a safe tool. One could consider it a tripping hazard if it crosses a walkway, or it could represent a strain hazard when lifting or pulling. But normally, if in good condition, an air hose is rather innocuous.

But, suppose someone begins to disconnect the hose. Fittings may be difficult to break. Pinch points may be encountered using tools to break the connection. But what if the hose is pressurized? The valve was shut off and the pressure was bled off. But what if the valve leaks and pressure is re-built? What if the wrong hose was bled off? Each of these hazards is easily controlled if the worker is alert.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

A worker is preparing to splice a section of conveyor belt. It must be cut square. There are machines to help do this, but we don’t make that many splices and the razor knife does a good job. The belt material is designed to resist cutting and abrasion, so the cable resists the action of cutting and requires effort, even with the sharpest knife. The worker may be cutting away from his body, but his leg is under the edge of the belt. The line-of-fire hazard is easily controlled.

Debris takes on many forms, but normally has one common characteristic. It’s disorderly. This fact raises a number of new potential hazards — pointed objects, sharp edges, unbalanced pieces, heavy loads, slippery surfaces, tangles, tension, awkward shapes and sizes, and others. It may be necessary to move smaller quantities (more trips) and/or it may require cutting pieces into manageable sections. These types of hazards are easily controlled if the worker is alert.

You are in the lunchroom and have just finished eating. Time to clean up and go back to work. You go to the sink to wash your containers and silverware. While washing some of the water splashes on the floor. Not too much, it will be fine. Someone else will clean it up and you leave. A couple of minutes later someone, comes to the sink to wash their lunch containers, but they don’t recognize the hazard. They slip on the wet water on sprain their wrist as they fall down. If the previous person had just wiped up the floor this could have been prevented. Now the injured employee will miss a few days of work, have to get medical treatment and physical therapy for a few weeks. Be restricted in their work responsibilities, so other people in the department have to do more work, they might have to get a temp employee or pay overtime. Additional expenses from the profits earned, because someone did not take the time to remove the hazard.

A THOUSAND THINGS TO SEE

Your safety and the safety of your coworkers are dependent on your awareness of potentially hazardous conditions in the workplace. Take off the blindfold. There are a thousand things to see, hear, feel and smell in the workplace. Learn to observe and notice changes. If you do not recognize the hazard, you cannot control the hazard. If you cannot control the hazard, you cannot prevent the injury.

It all starts with awareness.

Do you think a health hazard exists in your workplace? Do any of the following stories resemble situations at your workplace?

• A factory worker was feeling numbness and tingling in her fingers. She learned that three coworkers had the same problem, and two had headaches while at work but not over the weekend. Some workers said the air at work smelled bad. Their supervisor noticed the smell but didn’t think it was anything to worry about.
• A manager noticed that employees in one work area had more skin rashes in the past year than the year before. He wanted to know why, but didn’t know what to do.
• A work crew was putting cement tiles on a roof. They were working outside, but the air seemed dusty. The saws used to cut the tiles were noisy. Someone told them that this work was dangerous and they should have it checked out.

At no cost to employers or employees, or their representatives, the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) program may be able to help with problems like these. This site lets you know about the program and how to ask for NIOSH help. It also has links to reports from thousands of HHEs done by NIOSH.

What is a Health Hazard Evaluation?

An HHE is a study of a workplace. It is done to learn whether workers are exposed to hazardous materials or harmful conditions. On the basis of the information you provide, NIOSH responds to an HHE request in one of the following ways:

• NIOSH staff responds in writing with helpful information or a referral to a more appropriate agency.
• NIOSH staff calls to discuss the problems and how they might be solved.

NIOSH staff visits the workplace. When this happens, they will meet with the employer and the employee representatives to discuss the issues. They will tour the workplace. They may review records about exposure and health, interview or survey employees, measure exposures, and do medical testing. These activities may happen during one or more visits. At the end of this evaluation, NIOSH will provide a written report to the employer and to the employee representatives. This can take from a few months to a few years, depending on the type of evaluation.

Who Can Request an HHE?

Private sector and Federal workplaces

An employee can request an HHE if he or she is currently an employee at the workplace of concern and has the signatures of two other employees. If the workplace has three or fewer employees, the signature of only one employee is enough.

An officer of a labor union that represents employees for collective bargaining can request an HHE.

Any management official may request an HHE on behalf of the employer.

For anyone who submits a request, NIOSH will not reveal to the employer the names of the persons who made the request if they indicate this on the request form

State or local government workplaces

When the workplace is part of a State or local government, NIOSH authority is more limited than for the private and Federal sectors. The cooperation of the employer may be necessary before NIOSH can do an evaluation.

Should you request an HHE?

When there is concern about a health hazard in a workplace, you can request an HHE, file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or request help from the OSHA Consultative Service. Some things to consider for each of these options are listed below.

1. When to request an HHE from NIOSH

You are an employee, employee representative, or employer and the following apply:

• Employees have an illness from an unknown cause.
• Employees are exposed to an agent or working condition that is not regulated by OSHA.
• Employees experience adverse health effects from exposure to a regulated or unregulated agent or working condition, even though the permissible exposure limit is not being exceeded.
• Medical or epidemiological investigations are needed to evaluate the hazard.
• The incidence of a particular disease or injury is higher than expected in a group of employees.
• The exposure is to a new or previously unrecognized hazard.
• The hazard seems to result from the combined effects of several agents.

2. When to request help from the OSHA Consultation Program (http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html):

You are a small business owner and you want:

• assistance in recognizing hazards in your workplace.
• suggestions or options for correcting safety and health issues.
• assistance in developing or maintaining an effective safety and health program.
• to reduce workers compensation cost and improve employee morale..

The OSHA On-site Consultation Program:

• is a free service.
• is delivered by state (and territorial) governments using well-trained safety and health professionals.
• is separate from enforcement.
• is confidential. The company’s name, and any other identifying information provided about the workplace, plus any unsafe or unhealthful working conditions that the consultant uncovers, will not routinely be reported to OSHA enforcement personnel.
• does not issue and citations, penalties, or fines.
• will provide you a confidential, written report that summarizes the consultant’s findings.
• requires the correction of hazards identified by the consultant(s).
• under specific circumstances, employers with exemplary safety and health programs can be recommend for recognition and provided with an exclusion from general schedule inspections.

3. When to file a complaint with OSHA (www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/index.html):

You are an employee and the following situations apply*:

• Immediate enforcement by a regulatory agency is needed.
• Employees want the employer to comply with existing health and safety standards.
• The hazard is well recognized.
• An OSHA standard is known to adequately protect employees from the hazard.

* [Employers in the Federal sector may wish to explore the services available through the Division of Federal Occupational Health (DFOH), which maintains an office in each Federal region. State and local government employers may be eligible for help under the OSHA Consultation Program operating in their State. The State or local health department may also be able to help with occupational safety and health issues.]

How Does NIOSH Respond to an HHE Request?

NIOSH logs in each request for an HHE and generally sends a letter to the person making the request. Most often this happens within a few weeks.When NIOSH decides to send information or make a referral to another agency, usually a letter is sent within 4–6 weeks.

When NIOSH decides that telephone consultation or a workplace visit is needed, a project officer is assigned. Usually, within 4–6 weeks, the project officer contacts the person who sent in the request. When the request is made by an employee or union, NIOSH also contacts the employer to let them know about the request and to arrange for a site visit. Typically, NIOSH does not conduct surprise visits.

What protections are provided for employees who request and participate in HHE investigations?

Confidentiality

If desired and noted on the HHE request form, NIOSH will not reveal to the employer the names of the persons who made the request. Personal information from records, questionnaires, interviews with NIOSH investigators, and individual medical results will be safeguarded in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act.

Anti-discrimination Provisions

The Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act forbid employers from retaliating or punishing employees for making HHE requests or cooperating with NIOSH investigators (see Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or Section 105(c) of the Mine Safety and Health Act). The enforcement of these anti-discrimination provisions is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor. If discrimination is suspected, contact the nearest OSHA or MSHA office immediately.

Procedural Rights of NIOSH and Employee or Employee Representatives

There are 7 legal rights of NIOSH and employees or employee representatives that NIOSH considers non-negotiable:

• NIOSH and its representatives have the right to enter the workplace to conduct HHE investigations.
• NIOSH and its representatives have the right to access information and records maintained by the employer that are pertinent to the HHE investigation.
• NIOSH and employees (including management employees) have the right to private and confidential interviews.
• Employee representatives, including an employee requestor and a representative of any union representing the affected employees, have the right to accompany NIOSH investigators during the initial inspection of any workplace to be evaluated.(NIOSH investigators may have additional employee representatives accompany them if necessary to aid in the investigation.)
• Employee representatives have the right to participate in an opening and closing conference with NIOSH investigators at the start and conclusion of a NIOSH investigation at the workplace.
• Employees have the right to wear NIOSH sampling devices and participate in medical tests when offered or requested by NIOSH. (This also applies to management employees.)
• Employees have the right to read or obtain copies of all HHE interim and final reports. (The employer is required to post the final report in the workplace for 30 days, or supply a list of names and addresses of affected employees so that NIOSH can mail the report directly to them.)

Procedural Rights of the Employer

Regardless of who submitted the request for an HHE, employers have the following rights during HHE investigations:

• To obtain a copy of the HHE request (excluding the identity of confidential requestors and any accompanying information of a personal nature.)
• To obtain verbal accounts from NIOSH investigators concerning plans, procedures, and findings at conferences at the beginning and conclusion of NIOSH visits to the workplace.
• To accompany NIOSH investigators during the initial inspection of the workplace to be investigated.
• To observe NIOSH investigative procedures during the HHE, except for certain confidential NIOSH-employee interactions, such as private interviews and medical test procedures.
• To identify, at the start of the investigation, information that is considered trade secret, and to have that information safeguarded by NIOSH unless NIOSH follows procedures outlined in 42 CFR 85.7(b) to remove the trade secret designation from such information. (These procedures provide an opportunity for the employer to defend the trade secret designation.)
• To require that NIOSH officers comply with all safety and health rules in the workplace, and conduct the investigations in a manner that does not unreasonably disrupt operations.

Role of the Employee Representative

The local, national, or international union may submit an HHE request on behalf of employees it represents. Two employees may authorize a third employee to submit an HHE request on their behalf.

The employee representative has the following rights:

• To accompany NIOSH investigators on the initial inspection of the workplace.
• To convey to the NIOSH investigators, privately if requested, additional information related to the HHE request.
• To participate in the opening and closing conferences.
• To receive copies of all interim and final reports

How Are HHE Results Reported?

NIOSH reports its findings and recommendations to employers, employees, and employee representatives. Verbal reports are normally provided to employer and employee representatives during a closing conference at the conclusion of a site visit, and by telephone. Often, results are only preliminary or incomplete at that time. Written interim reports are sometimes provided while an investigation is still in progress.

When all the information and data have been analyzed, NIOSH issues a report of its final determination, giving findings and recommendations. Copies of this report are sent to the requestor, the employer, employee representatives, OSHA, and other appropriate agencies.

The employer is required to post the final report in a place accessible to employees from all areas evaluated (alternatively, the employer may give NIOSH names and addresses of affected employees to permit NIOSH to mail the report to each affected employee.) Although NIOSH has no authority to force the employer to adopt its recommendations, experience has shown that most employers attempt to address any problems identified in the HHE report.

By What Authority Does NIOSH Conduct HHEs?

In private sector workplaces, NIOSH is supported by the following:

• The Law

Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Public Law 91-596, 91st Congress, S.2193, December 29, 1970), 29 USC 669 (a)(6), authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (delegated to NIOSH), “following a written request by any employer or authorized representative of employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.” Section 501(a) of the Federal Mine Safety Act of 1977 authorizes NIOSH, “upon the written request of any mine operator or authorized representative of miners, to evaluate potentially hazardous or toxic effects of substances, physical agents, or equipment found or used in mines.”

• Federal Regulations

The regulations governing NIOSH procedures for conducting HHEs are published in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR 85).

In Federal agency workplaces, NIOSH is supported by the following:

• The Law

Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC 668) requires the head of each Federal agency to “establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program.”

• Executive Order

Executive Order 12196 of February 26, 1980, “Occupational Safety and Health Programs for Federal Employees.”

• Federal Regulations

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1960; Basic Program Elements for Federal Employees Occupational Safety and Health

Programs and Related Matters (29 CFR 1960). Section 1960.35 of these regulations describes the procedures for requesting HHEs in Federal agency workplaces.  NIOSH follows the procedures outlined in the regulations governing HHEs (42 CFR 85) when evaluating Federal agency workplaces.

In other government agency workplaces, NIOSH is supported by the following:

• The Law

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC 667) permits OSHA to approve a plan under which the State assumes responsibility for developing and enforcing occupational safety and health standards. Section 18(c)(6) requires that such a plan, to be approved, must contain satisfactory assurances that the State will “establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program applicable to all employees of public agencies of the State and its political subdivisions.” Although approved State plans do not ordinarily extend the right to request HHEs to State employees and employers, the State agency charged with carrying out this plan has right-of-access to State and local government workplaces, and could request technical assistance from NIOSH in evaluating the workplaces.

• Federal Regulations

In cases where NIOSH responds to requests to evaluate State or local government workplaces, the procedures outlined in 42 CFR 85 are followed.

Occupational Medicine Rotation Program

The NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch provides hands-on, one- and two-month workplace training opportunities to Medical Residents. Residents join staff on a combination of workplace and epidemiologic investigations, public inquiries, health and safety assessments on today’s health and safety topics and learn to plan and conduct worksite health evaluations. Residents gain understanding of the role and function of CDC/NIOSH regarding occupational health research and service.

The ASSE recently launched a new interactive online safety game designed to help young workers learn how to protect themselves against the many dangers that face them in the service industry.

Ever wonder why OSHA was created?  Why does your company have to comply with all of these standards and who makes the rules?  Why must your employees attend osha safety courses and recieve osha certifications and osha 10 hour and osha 30 hour cards for construction and general industry?Employers and employees ask these questions all the time but when you stop to think about why the fereral government requires osha safety training, it is because it saves lives.  That is the bottom line, because of osha, workplace safety accidents and deaths have decreased substantially since it’s inception in 1971.  Since that year occupational deaths of been cut by 62% and injuries have declined by 42%.

OSHA Safety training is a must for our employees.  The number of job-site accidents are staggering and would be more staggering if it were not for osha safety training.  In 2005, there were 4.Over 2 million occupational injuries and illnesses among U.S. employees. Approximately 4.6 of every 100 employees experienced a job-related injury or illness, and in 2006, 5,703 employees lost their lives on the job.  Now take those numbers and double them and that is what you would have if we did not have OSHA regulating our workplace environment.

Many employers complain about the cost of OSHA compliance training but the fact is that given the statistics the cost of OSHA compliance and OSHA Safety Training is far less than the increases in accidental death and insurance benefits the company would pay otherwise.  Not to mention OSHA regulations create a much safer work environment for employees.

The cost of OSHA compliance is far less than the cost of non-compliance.  OSHA penalties range from $0 to $70,000, depending upon how likely the violation is to result in serious harm to employees. Other-than-serious violations often carry no penalties but may result in penalties of up to $7,000. Serious violations may have penalties up to $7,000. Repeat and willful violations may have penalties as high as $70,000. Penalties may be discounted if an employer has a small number of employees, has demonstrated good faith, or has few or no previous violations.

The Health and Safety of our workplace should be a priority to every employer.  OSHA Training provides an avenue of education for employers and employees to share in the responsibility we all have to create a safe and bright working future for our families.

There is an old saying, “haste makes waste.”  But to safety professionals haste makes incidents.  Today, companies are getting leaner and meaner.  They want more productivity with less expense, meaning less people.   A job that was performed by 3 people, is now done by 2, or maybe 1 person.   As a safety person, this presents new challenges to our job.  Not only does haste make waste, it cause injuries.  To work faster and be more productive you often have to use unsafe work behaviors.

Look around you, how many people are gone?  Are you working more hours and being asked to do more?  Most people are.  Talking to other safety people, we are now starting to see more unsafe work practices and more injuries than previously experienced in the past few years.  Statistics may not show this trend for a couple of years, and one reason is the decline in the number of workers in the workforce.   But just ask a safety manager what they are experiencing, and they will tell you they are seeing more injuries than every before and more serious injuries.

I believe there are 2 main causes of incidents in the current workplace or at home, HASTE (speed) and NOT BEING AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS.  As we work faster, we tend to think less of our surroundings and more about getting the job done.

When people try to do their job in a hurry, they tend to make mistakes.  Often these mistakes can cause a near miss and at other times it can cause an injury.  Most workers today do not report a near miss, which give us less opportunity to do a root cause analysis.  We have to wait until the near miss becomes an incident. 

We hurry or speed because we are required more things today.  When I teach defensive driving, speed is still the #1 cause of motor vehicle incidents.  Speed also keeps people from focusing on the task at hand.  Remember the I Love Lucy episode where the candy was coming down the conveyor belt?  The candy was coming down at a rate that made it impossible for Lucy and Ethel to pack it properly in the boxes.  Haste not only made waste, but look closely and you will also see possible near misses.

Think of your last few Slip, Trip or Fall incidents.  Our workplace had more than we wanted in the past few months.  Many were caused when someone wanting to get somewhere a little faster.  How about you, Mr./Ms safety professional?   It is finally time to leave work and go home.  What are you concentrating on:
· How fast you get out of the building
· Picking up your kids
· Making that one stop to get dinner
· Meeting someone someplace

 Whatever the case, you are probably not thinking of the ground around you, even if there is sow, ice or an uneven surface, and all of a sudden you slip and fall.
 As I stated above, haste keeps us from not being aware of our surroundings.  At home you need a box off a high shelf, so you pull up a nearby chair and stand on it.  Do you think about how unsafe this act is?  Probably not.  You cutting your lawn wear your flip-flops.  An unsafe act?  Your probably not thinking about this act either.  The company sales rep is trying to place and order and get to the next appointment at the same time.  Do you think they are thinking about their surroundings?  Bet not, until they have an vehicle incident. 

In today’s environment, safety people are dealing with these actions more and more.  What can we do to prevent more incidents?  The message has to start at the top with senior leadership.  While every CEO wants their company to be more efficient and leaner, they cannot proceed to a point where it promotes unsafe behaviors to be more productive.  The CEO must be the leader to make sure everyone is aware that safety is high priority.   The message should state that behaving in an unsafe manner is not acceptable and actually costs the company more when an incident occurs.

Managers and supervisors have to be held accountable that their employees are working safer and smarter.  The workers should understand to report if part of their job creates an unsafe work behavior.  In other words, EVERYONE has to be responsible for having a safe workplace.  Safety people have to make sure that workers are acting in a safe manner.  Slowing down enough to make their job safe and giving the worker an opportunity to focus on being aware of their surrounding.  Through training, reminders and other forms of communication, the message must be constant and often.

Hopefully as workers slow down and become more aware of their surroundings, we can eliminate the phase HASTE MAKES WASTE and replace it with SLOW, STEADY AND SAFE MAKES YOU MORE PRODUCTIVE.

It is estimated that over 40 million workers in the United States had to receive emergency medical treatment for workplace-related injuries in the year 2003. This is a staggering number when one considers the efforts most companies have put into maintaining a safe workplace. In modern times, a number of companies have been found liable for injuries sustained in their places of business. There is a relationship that exists between workplace safety and profitability.  As we know, over the past 10 years the number of work related injuries and deaths has declined.  In fact, being “at work” is the safest place many people can be.

Every company, especially those involved in industrial manufacturing, is constantly looking at ways to continuously improve their products and processes. They realize that their profits are directly related to the ways and means by which they produce their products. Unfortunately, too many companies get caught up in drive for higher profits and tend to allow workplace safety to become an afterthought.

The costs associated with operating a large manufacturing facility in America are astounding. Workplace injuries place a massive burden of expense and weakened productivity on a company. These injuries can be reduced with proper planning and careful attention to detail. Most workplace injuries are preventable. There are a number of factors to consider, but maintaining a safe and tidy work area is one of the best ways to prevent injury. Workers, too, have a responsibility in keeping themselves safe from harm.

Workplace injuries place a significant burden on health care providers and insurance companies. As companies continue to pay higher premiums for employee health care, one of the only means available for cost recovery is to increase the prices of the goods they produce. This places the burden of expense on the consumer, and allows companies to ignore the root cause of their workplace injuries. The focus here seems to be on maintaining a healthy relationship with shareholders, and not necessarily on maintaining a healthy workforce.

It is interesting to note that there are record numbers of jobs, especially in the industrial sector, being sent overseas. There are a number of reasons to account for this. One of the most significant reasons is that American companies are able to shave their operating costs down to a fraction of their domestic costs, by capitalizing on cheaper labor in foreign markets. Foreign governments, eager for investment, are all too willing to accommodate the interests of big western business. Far too often, this comes at the expense of workplace safety.

If companies want to be profitable in the long term, they need to reexamine their approach to workplace safety and the health of their workers. Many companies are sending jobs overseas, in order to take advantage of cheap labor and relaxed labor laws. American companies can be both profitable and safety conscious. Through directed education campaigns and preemptive planning, workplace injuries can be reduced in a significant way. Remember: a safe worker is a happy worker, and a happy worker is a productive worker.