Safety = Competive Edge

BLR reports that Michael Coleman, leader of the ASSE Manufacturer's Practice Specialty group and Safety Manager for Rockline Industries, "noted in a recent address that sustained competitive edge is tied to not cutting safety and health programs during a down economy."

"Coleman told fellow safety professionals that if companies believe they will save money by reducing or ignoring safety, they are mistaken. "Not only does their bottom line benefit positively," he said, "but their company reputation stays intact, employees stay safe and healthy…." The results include savings on health care, workers' compensation, training, and turnover costs."

How many of us know a fellow safety professional who has lost his job at one time or another because times got tough and poorly advised employers cut the safety guy first. Or maybe you have been on the receiving end of that scenario.

I listened to a group of top CEO's address the ASSE PDC last week and each of them echoed Coleman's thoughts.

To read the entire article from BLR, click here.

2 Contractors Cited in Mississippi - $175,000

Yesterday, OSHA reported that it had cited two contractors in Mississippi following the collapse of a wood shoring system. Significantly, OSHA has proposed two willful and five serious violations to the general contractor. The willful violations were the result of the contractor failing to adequately brace the structure. And, as you know, willful means that the contractor knew better. Plain indifference on the part of a contractor is nothing new to any of us.

More importantly, however, concrete subcontractor was cited for three serious violations, "for failure to provide a written hazard communication program, a safety and health program, and fall protection training." The proposed penalty was a mere $2,000. Is that penalty enough to get the contractor's attention? Perhaps - perhaps not. But it brings up a very important point that most of we safety professionals already know; large numbers of subcontractors (most in the residential marketplace) don't know that they must follow safety rules - or don't care. Training? Not they!

Yesterday, I was on a jobsite where painters were using aerial lifts to paint 2nd and 3rd levels on the exterior of a building. Surprisingly, they were all wearing harnesses. Upon closer inspection, however, none of them had lanyards. There employer had been told that workers using aerial lifts must have harnesses, so he gave them harnesses. NO TRAINING!

There are two things that employers can do to significantly reduce accidents on the job: (1) Train workers in hazard recognition, and avoidance; (2) make sure that all workers understand that they will not be penalized for telling their employer about safety hazards and asking for corrective action before they are exposed to the hazard. Yes, I know, it's a cultural change!

Over the years, I have come to realize that the single most important function of a safety professional is the education and training of workers. Not just in the classroom, but in the field - one-on-one explaining why you just told that guy to get off the top step of a step ladder, or why tying off to a guardrail is hazardous.

"Congress Turns Up The Heat" [on safety]

An article in "Human Resource Executive Online" reports that "the potential for criminal convictions and increased financial penalties for OSHA violations -- coupled with an increased funding for enforcement activities -- mean that companies need to refocus on their health-and-safety policies and procedures. An emphasis on recordkeeping is also a necessity."

If you have been in the safety field for some time (spanning Presidential administrations), you should have seen this coming. We all know that there is a shift when a new party is in the White House. Democrats are generally pro-labor and Republicans are generally pro-business. I know that this is a simplification, but we usually see a fortified focus on inspections when the Democrats are in the majority.

I was delighted to see a comment from Jason Schwartz, an attorney in Washington, that is very pro-safety professional. He said that "It is important to hire health and safety professionals who 'really understand the regulations.' This stuff is not easy; the OSHA regs are very dense."

Schwartz also suggests that you make sure that OSHA recordkeeping functions are conducted by someone who understands them. The new proposals of increased criminal penalties may make this a critical function.

Bottom Line? Be Prepared! If you would like to read the whole article, click here.

Nevada Worker Safety Training Proposal

On Monday, the San Jose Mercury News reported on a proposal in Nevada that all employees complete an OSHA 10 hour class and all supervisors complete a 30 hour class. Further, it would require that employers "drop" workers "who don't get the training in a timely manner."

This sounds like a great plan. But, original plan was to give employers 60 days to complete the training. And there is a proposed amendment that would reduce that 60 days to 15. When I'm wearing my safety hat, I should say that the training should be completed before they even begin working. But from a practical sense, this may not be practical.

Although I take no position against such a bill - I see it as job security for us safety guys - I do believe that the Nevada legislature's assessment of the cost of such training is flawed. While it is true that the cost of such courses ($130 and $300 respectively) is pretty close to accurate, their analysis did not account for the salaries of the employees while attending nor the cost in terms of production (or the lack thereof). Remember, if an employee is required by his employer to take these classes, they must do so during working hours (wages/hour and loss of production), or after hours (at overtime?). Unless, of course, we should visit these costs on the employee.

Before we enact these types of requirements, we need to do a valid assessment of the cost in terms of "unintended consequences." That said, once the bugs are worked out, this may be a great way to battle the "unintended consequences" of not educating our workforces. And, if it passes in Nevada, will it set a national trend? We should all be working towards these educational goals anyway. So, my advice is that we do it now - before it is "required" by legislation.

To read the article, click here.

OSHA Fines 2 Contractors in Scaffold Collapse

If you work in the construction industry in Florida, you may remember the headlines about a scaffold collapse on Florida's East Coast back in December. Well, OSHA's inspection finally resulted in fines for the two contractors involved - a total of $9,000.

According to an article in the Palm Beach Post, "OSHA said scaffolding was not put up under the oversight of a qualified scaffolding supervisor, frames were not properly braced, and some cross braces were removed by persons not competent to do so." That "qualified scaffolding supervisor" that they're talking about is what we call a "competent person." This is a HUGE problem! I can't tell you how often I see deficient scaffolding and it all comes down to lack of training and lack of oversight by a "competent person." Even the so-called "small" scaffolds used by stucco workers have to be inspected by a "competent person" BEFORE we put workers onto the scaffolding. Even the saw-horse supported scaffolds used in residential construction from time to time have to be inspected by a "competent person" BEFORE we put workers onto the scaffolds. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Anyway, when OSHA visited that site in Florida, they didn't just look at the scaffolding. According to the Palm Beach Post, the contractor "...did not have in place proper instructions for workers in the use of respirators and both firms failed to provide adequate instruction in how to work with hazardous chemicals."

But, if we aren't careful, we lose sight of the real problem here. It's not the danger of a fine from OSHA - it's the danger of hurting or killing our fellow workers!

I've Always Done It That Way

If you have been providing safety audits, training, et al for any length of time, you've heard many excuses for NOT doing things the safe way. How often have you referred to Heinrich's Theory of Accident Causation only to see employees' eyes glaze over? Well, here's a photo that might help. You may already have seen it, but it was provided by Fort Lauderdale's OSHA Area Director Darlene Fossum in a presentation to the Florida Suncoast Chapter of ASSE. I thought you might like to see it again. It may have an impact on those "hard to reach" workers on your jobsites.

Obama Pledges to Increase Safety Enforcement

According to the Kansas City Star, "Asserting that mounting workloads and dwindling staff have hindered the government's ability to protect workers, President Barack Obama is pledging to increase the enforcement of workplace safety.

Obama's budget blueprint, released on Thursday, seeks to increase funding to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. More precise funding details for the job safety agency and other federal programs won't be released until April."

For those of you who have listened to me since the presidential election, this is exactly what I predicted. And I believe its a good thing too. Uninformed employers might get the message that safety on their jobsites IS important. I hope some of the subcontractors "get religion" - it'll make my efforts more effective.

And, it might also eliminate the necessity of OSHA's "inspection blitzes." You know, those things that OSHA says don't exist. I think they call them "saturation." Anyway, if the area offices are better funded, we'll have more consistency from OSHA and get the support we need in the prevention of workplace accidents.

To read the whole story in the Kansas City Star, click here.

New York construction contractor agrees to pay $750,000 and take comprehensive jobsite safety steps in settlement with U.S. Labor Department

This one is HUGE! (see the story below) Even with a settlement agreement, this fine was only reduced by $127k – this contractor must really have been in trouble. The really sad thing is that had they done most of the terms of the settlement agreement ahead of time (as they should have) they wouldn’t have had to pay the fine or put their people at risk.

The difference between having a real safety professional at the helm of your loss prevention program vs. that guy who has been a good employee for many years that you want to keep working even though he has limited or no safety experience, is enormous. Having spent the past five years working as the safety director for a general contractor that subcontracts all of its work, dealing with a subcontractor who has a full time safety professional on staff (or a good safety consultant on retainer) is so much better than dealing with a subcontractor who just hopes he can get lucky and have no accidents or OSHA inspections.

Having a good, full-time corporate safety professional on board – a safety professional who has the real backing of management – sets the tone of the “safety culture” of the construction firm. Constant attention to safety communication with field personnel let’s them know that ONLY the safe way is acceptable!

A good solid safety program saves big dollars for any company. That commitment to safety and loss prevention shows your insurance company that you are on top of things and will probably result in significant savings on your General Liability Premiums. Reduced workers compensation claims will save big bucks on your workers compensation premiums. To say nothing of the savings in improved production, lost time, loss of materials due to accidents, etc. A well provisioned safety program will not cost a company anything. A good safety professional on staff will let you keep all of the money that you make in the field. I’m sure that Broadway Concrete will find that in a few short years, they will recover all of that $750k that they paid out.

New York-based concrete construction contractor 160 Broadway Corp., doing business as Broadway Concrete, has agreed to pay a $750,000 fine as part of a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) addressing hazards cited last summer. The company also will take comprehensive steps to upgrade employee safety and health at its worksites.

In June 2008, OSHA cited Broadway Concrete and proposed $877,000 in penalties against the company for fall hazards at the 77 Hudson condominium construction project in Jersey City, N.J. The company initially contested the citations and penalties but withdrew its notice of contest as part of a settlement agreement, signed Jan. 26, 2009, which reclassified 13 of the 15 willful citations as repeat violations.

Under the agreement, Broadway Concrete and its sister company, Regal Construction, have agreed to abate all the cited hazards and take the following additional steps beyond what is required under OSHA standards:

· Select and employ a full-time chief of construction operations and a corporate safety director to oversee construction operations and have authority over senior job superintendents in safety and health related issues.

· Employ a full-time site safety director on each large project and have a safety director inspect smaller projects at least once a week; the safety directors will have authority to stop work and direct changes to ensure site safety.

· Reduce the salary of senior job superintendents who fail to comply with applicable OSHA and job safety practices.

· Complete a comprehensive review of current construction means, methods and safety procedures, including a crew-based, task specific hazard assessment for every phase of current construction operations.

· Develop a new corporate safety and health plan.

· Finalize a site specific safety and health plan for each new project before work begins, ensure the job superintendent reads it and provides copies to onsite employees.

· Provide safety and health management training to superintendents and supervisory personnel working on each site, and train company and subcontractor employees on each site's safety and health plan.

· Provide OSHA officials with information on major projects and access to all jobsites without need of a warrant for the next four years.

"This settlement commits and challenges these employers to take broad, effective and long-lasting steps to make employee safety and health a vital and ongoing business priority," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "Active and engaged safety and health management is a critical tool for reducing worksite hazards and their associated human and financial costs."

El Paso Contractor Fined $106k

Here's one close to my new home - that is if you think Pensacola is close to Fort Myers. OSHA is proposing $106,200 in penalties against El Paso-based Best Plastering Contractors for allegedly exposing employees to potential fall hazards.

OSHA issued the citations alleging four willful and three serious violations following an investigation that began July 11, 2008, when agency inspectors witnessed employees working on a scaffold without using fall protection equipment at the company's worksite on Patriot Point Drive in El Paso.

"The fines reflect the company's failure to follow OSHA requirements and their indifference toward providing their employees with a safe workplace environment," said Dean McDaniel, OSHA's regional administrator in Dallas. "It is fortunate that no one was seriously injured."

The willful citations are for failing to fully plank working levels of the scaffold; to set up the scaffold on adequate foundation; to supply workers with a ladder or other safe access to the scaffold working levels; and to provide guardrails for employees working on upper levels of the scaffold. A willful violation is one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

Serious violations included failing to provide training for employees who used portland cement, a chemical which can cause skin burns; to properly brace the scaffold; and to repair or replace damaged scaffold components. A serious violation exists when there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew or should have known of the hazard.

The very sad thing is that most of us in the construction safety profession preach these very same things every day. And, it doesn't matter where in the country we work. As a safety director for a general contractor, I find a lot of subcontractors who work hard at providing their workers with safety training. But, for every one who cares, there are a dozen who don't care. Scaffolding requires the supervision of a "competent person" and I believe that if contractors complied with that one rule - having a real "competent person" on-site - the hazards noted here would not have existed. I am surprised that the subcontractor wasn't cited for the lack of a competent person - or the n0n-existence of the required scaffold inspection.

White House Review Touches Cranes, Diacetyl, Confined Space Rules

OHS reports that "Putting the long-awaited OSHA negotiated rule for safe operation of cranes and derricks into effect apparently will take longer than expected. Ditto for the agency's pending confined spaces in construction rule and the promised regulation, now at OMB, that would require workers to be protected from diacetyl exposure. A memo issued Tuesday (1/20/09) by Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, told heads of executive agencies and departments that regulations not yet published should be held for review by the president's appointees, and they should consider a 60-day extension of the effective date for published regulations not yet in effect."

Although I think we need a federal crane safety standard as soon as possible, I thing a review of the confined space proposal is a good thing. Based on the initial proposal, I think the originally proposed construction confined space standard is cumbersome and burdensome. For most of us construction safety guys who find a confined space hazard on one of our sites, we would turn to the General Industry Standard for help. I'm not sure why we don't simply adopt the GI standard for confined space in a fashion similar to the adoption of the GI HazCom standard.

Send me your comments. And, to read the entire OHS article, click here.

Cost of Safety = Economic Advantages

An opinion piece in Associated Construction Publications, published a couple of days ago, expresses very well what construction safety professionals have been saying all along - The Cost of Safety Pays Big Dividends. In this market "downturn" one of the first areas many contractors look to trim is their safety budgets. This often means "the safety guy goes." We have all experienced this in our careers or have heard of it happening to one of our colleagues.

According to the ACP article, "You don't practice safety, you live it. Safety has to become ingrained in every employee starting with the head of the company and that applies to any sized operation from the largest to the smallest. If the head of the company isn't concerned about safety the attitude carries on down through the ranks to the lowest person on the totem pole.

Jobsite accidents can result in the loss of life, limb and senses. It would be fantastic if we were able to eliminate them from happening, but because we are human all we can do is work at controlling them and doing everything within our power to minimize the risk.

This factor alone should be reason enough to make management the strongest supporter of safety but adding economics into the equation makes being safe even more compelling. A history of accident-free work days is an asset when negotiating insurance packages. Companies with goods safety and security records pay fewer dollars for this very necessary expense."

Click here to read the whole article, then pass it along to someone else who you believe should read it!