OSHA has recently introduced a new part to it’s website, the Injury and Illness Prevention Programs page. There are some really useful parts to this site.

One part I am using is the program resource button. When you click on the safety pays link it takes you to an estimated cost worksheet. Why is this useful? It give you, the safety professional, a way of showing upper management the relative cost of an injury and how much additional sales is needed to pay for that injury. As Yoda might say, “very powerful it is.”

The safety pays part also gives you a step-by-step method for helping safety people get management buy-in. and other useful tools

OSHA has done a really nice job give safety professional a real tool to be more successful.

Check it out.

April is National Distracted Driving Month

Each day, more than 16 people are killed and more than 1,300 people are injured in crashes involving a distracted driver. Distracted driving is driving while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving; these activities can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash.

There are three main types of distraction:

• Visual—taking your eyes off the road;
• Manual—taking your hands off the wheel; and
• Cognitive—taking your mind off what you are doing.

Distracted driving activities include things like using a cell phone, texting, eating, drinking, and talking with passengers. Using in-vehicle technologies (such as navigation systems) and portable communication devices can also be sources of distraction. While any of these distractions can endanger the driver and others, texting while driving is especially dangerous because it combines all three types of distraction.

How big is the problem?

• In 2008, nearly 6,000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver and more than 500,000 people were injured.
• The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of a fatal crash has increased from 8 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2008.
• When asked whether driving feels safer, less safe, or about the same as it did five years ago, more than 1 in 3 drivers say driving feels less safe today. Distracted driving—cited by 3 out of 10 of these drivers—was the single most common reason given for feeling less safe today.

What are the risk factors?

• Some activities—such as texting—take the driver’s attention away from driving more frequently and for longer periods than other distractions.
• Younger, inexperienced drivers under the age of 20 may be at highest risk because they have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.

How can distracted driving be prevented?

• Many states are enacting laws—such as banning texting while driving—or using graduated driver licensing systems for teen drivers to help raise awareness about the dangers of distracted driving and to keep it from occurring.
• On October 1, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving on government business or with government equipment.
• In January 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration enacted an interim ban that prohibits commercial vehicle drivers from texting while behind the wheel. In March 2010, a proposed rule was announced that would make that ban stronger and more durable.
• The Department of Transportation recently launched a national campaign to encourage the public to get involved in ending distracted driving.   Put It Down focuses on the key messages that drivers can’t do two things at once, and everyone has a personal responsibility to pay attention while behind the wheel.

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.

If you talk about safety 24/7, here is an article to share with your employees.

U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 380,000 home structure fires per year during 2003-2007.

These fires caused an annual average of

• 2,840 civilian fire deaths,
• 13,160 civilian fire injuries, and
• $6.4 billion in direct damage.
• 92% of all structure fire deaths resulted from home fires.
• On average, eight people died in U.S. home fires every day.

Causes and Circumstances of Home Fires

Details from the U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Incident Reporting System show that in 2003-2007:

• Cooking equipment was the leading cause of home structure fires

and home fire injuries.

• Smoking was the leading cause of civilian home fire deaths. Heating

equipment ranked second in home fire deaths overall, but was the

leading cause of fire deaths in one- or two-family homes

Almost all homes have at least one smoke alarm, but almost two-thirds of reported home fire deaths in 2003-2007 resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms or no working smoke alarms.

Kitchens were the leading area of fire origin.

Ø      41% of home structure fires started in the kitchen. These fires

caused 36% of civilian home fire injuries.

Ø      15% of home fire deaths also resulted from kitchen fires.

Ø      8% of reported home fires started in the bedroom. These fires

caused

Ø      24% of home fire deaths and 21% of home fire injuries.

Ø      4% of home fire deaths started in the living room, family room, or

den.  These fires caused 23% of home fire deaths and 10% of the home

fire injuries.

Ø      Fires confined to chimneys or flues accounted for 6% of all reported

home fires. These fires caused very few casualties

Recently the American Heart Association introduced 2 major changes in the way CPR is being taught and being done.

Hands Only

Hands-only CPR is a technique that involves simply using chest compressions on an individual who has suffered sudden cardiac arrest .  The technique involves no mouth to mouth contact and is best used in emergencies outside of hospitals where a bystander has seen another person suddenly collapse. The important part to remember here is you should see the person collapse.

If you see a person collapse and they are not breathing put one hand over the other and begin pumping on the chest just below the nipples. Pump at a rate of about 100 beats per minute.  You do not have to be certified, to perform Hand Only CPR.

Traditional CPR Change

The other big change is to traditional CPR steps. There will be a switch in the process of how to do CPR. For many years the steps have been ABC. Open Airway, give 2 Breaths and then 30 Compression of the chest.

Now the order will be giving compressions first then the breathing. Getting the blood circulating is much more important then taking the time to open the airway and give the breaths.

If you are certified in CPR the change will not be hard to make.

If you are not certified, this is a great opportunity to take a class, and have the knowledge that some day you might be able to SAVE-A-LIFE.

“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.

If a stranger passed out on the sidewalk in front of you, how likely would you be to administer mouth-to-mouth?

In our age of no-touch faucets in public bathrooms and special disinfectant wipes for grocery store carts, you wouldn’t be alone if you say you might hesitate.

Happily, two new studies conclude that when it comes to CPR, pressing rhythmically on the chest with your hands is enough to save a life.

No mouth-to-mouth required.

The American Heart Association, which has been promoting hands-only CPR for two years, hopes that bystanders will feel less apprehensive and more likely to act if faced with an emergency.

Studies indicate that fear of doing something wrong, more so than catching something, makes many would-be-heroes freeze. And people may have has good reason to fear doing something wrong when practicing traditional mouth-to-mouth CPR.

The traditional method is a bit complicated, and one study showed that those who did attempt it often didn’t do it very well. For starters, the victim’s head has to be tilted back, the airway cleared, the nose pinched and the mouth completely covered with the rescuer’s.

There are many opportunities for air to escape, and some experts believe that some bystanders perform mouth-to-mouth so poorly that the interruption reduces blood flow.

Yet the aim of CPR is to do some of the mechanical work of the heart by forcing at least some blood and oxygen to the brain and other vital organs, which is why chest compressions work.

The only cases in which mouth-to-mouth seems to make a difference is when the victim is a child, or in cases of adults who have stopped breathing because of choking, drowning or other respiratory problems.

OSHA requires you to train employees to prevent lockout/tagout (LO/TO) accidents in the workplace (1910.147). This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for the control of such hazardous energy.

Employees must be trained in accordance with 1910.147(c)(7) . Here are 5 areas which are considered a must part of any Lockout/Tagout training program.

1. Failure to stop equipment. Sure, this sounds like common sense, but there’s much more involved. Some workers value productivity above safety and others feel that their age or experience with equipment make them immune from risk. “Taking the trouble” to properly safeguard energized equipment is essential in all cases.

2. Failure to disconnect from the power source. When working with and around electric equipment, some workers believe that simply operating the on/off switch will ensure their safety. They ignore the fact that the switch may be defective or that power may find its way through a short circuit or other source.

3. Failure to drain residual energy. There’s a reason that televisions carry warnings about trying to open the case even if the set is disconnected. That’s because many electrical devices store power in a capacitor or battery. Even unplugged, the risk remains. A compressed spring, hot pipe, pressurized tank, or heavy object hanging overhead can store energy even when the initial source of power is disconnected.

4. Accidental restart of machinery. Even if an employee knows how to shut down equipment before working on it, his or her co-workers may not. In too many instances, unknowing employees cause injury to their co-workers.

5. Failure to clear work areas before restarting. Restarting machinery must be performed as carefully as shutting it down and locking it out. A repair tool left in the works can fly out, or a restart while a co-worker remains in the path of danger represents as great a hazard as not locking out the machine at all.

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.