Talking Safety [PDF]

Talking Safety

JANUARY 2015

ASSE Online: www.asse.org

The Need for Meaningful Conversations

Aging Workers & Ergonomics A Fresh Perspective Preventing Major Losses A System for Change

Client Defined Leading Indicators - NEW! Incident Reporting, Audits & Investigations Tracks Fires, Spills, Vehicle, NOV’s & More JSA / JHA, Observations, Surveys Environmental / Sustainability Suite Document Library, Lessons Learned Corrective Action Tracking Online Claim Reporting, Allocations Automated Email Alerts, Messaging, Pushed Reports and Key Performance Indicators ✔ Configurable and Customizable Reports ✔ Management of Change ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

One Global Platform™ Unlimited Users, Administrators and Locations License Interfaces Easily with All HR, ERP and Legacy Systems Sends, Receives and Integrates Data From Any 3rd Party Import Any Excel/CSV Spreadsheet Data for Integration with Reporting Integrates More Information in Real Time with Live KPI Dashboards Supports Multiple Languages, Currencies Implements Faster Than Any Other System, with Nothing to Install Unlimited Online Training, No “Per Seat” Fees, Hundreds of EHS Courses to Choose From, Build Your Own

Expand your capabilities, connect with your peers and get inspired

asse

Professional Development Conference & Exposition June 7-10, 2015  Dallas, TX Only an educational event of this caliber can bring together the most distinguished speakers and strategic sessions covering the latest topics and trends. It’s sure to leave you not only inspired, but up-to-date on the latest evolution of strategies, skills and innovations.

REGISTER TODAY AT WWW.SAFETY2015.ORG

Professional Safety is a blind peer-reviewed journal published monthly by the American Society of Safety Engineers, the oldest safety society. Professional Safety keeps the professional OSH specialist informed on developments in the research and technology of accident prevention, industry best practices and safety management techniques.

JANUARY 2015

www.professionalsafety.org

VOL. 60, NO. 1

Features Safety Management Peer-Reviewed

22 Safety Conversations

Catching Drift & Weak Signals

By Rosa Antonia Carrillo and Neil Samuels Drift and weak signals, clues to potential incidents, are often hidden. Even when known, strong sociocultural barriers prevent people from talking about them. This article explores research that supports the need to encourage, equip and coach managers and supervisors on the art of conversation with their employees as the most influential form of communication. The research areas include social neuroscience, relationship psychology, information management through relational coordination, and the role of leaders in managing and influencing behavior. The authors combine these concepts into a direct approach to managing the human/organizational factors of safety performance.

Safety Management Peer-Reviewed

33 Aging Workers & Ergonomics A Fresh Perspective

By Robert R. Fox, George E. Brogmus and Wayne S. Maynard The number and proportion of older workers is increasing, and objectively assessing the magnitude of this increase and the implications to occupational safety is crucial to effective responses by ergonomists and OSH professionals. Most age-related performance declines are not work- or injury-relevant. Injuries to workers age 65 and older have favorable rates and costs compared to most other age ranges. This article provides key takeaways for employers, practicing ergonomists and OSH professionals in assessing an aging workforce.

Program Development Peer-Reviewed

42 Preventing Major Losses

Changing OSH Paradigms & Practices

By James M. Keane Personal, business leadership and industry paradigms and practices contribute to the continued loss of life and permanently disabling injuries and illnesses being experienced in the U.S. and other industrialized nations. To improve these results, OSH professionals must challenge current safety paradigms and practices, change long-held beliefs and do things differently. Initiating a concerted effort to prevent major losses is one step in that process.

2 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Cover: Companies need to encourage, equip and coach managers and supervisors on the art of conversation with their employees. Photo ©iStockphoto.com/Kali Nine LLC.

About Professional Safety

Judgments made or opinions expressed in Professional Safety feature articles, news sections, letters to the editor, meeting reports or related journal content do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor, nor should they be considered an expression of official policy by ASSE. They are published for the purpose of stimulating independent thought on matters of concern to the OSH profession and its practitioners. Correspondence should be addressed to the editor. Editor reserves the right to edit manuscripts and other submissions in order to improve clarity and style, and for length. Professional Safety copyright ©2015 by the American Society of Safety Engineers. All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce articles must be obtained from the editor. Single-copy and academic reprint permission is also available through the Copyright Clearance Center [+1 (978) 750-8400]. No copyright is claimed in any works of the U.S. government that may be published herein.

WHAT IF YOU PUT A SAFETY MANAGER IN EVERY VEHICLE? Vehicle telematics technology is generating lots of buzz in the ﬂeet world. But route optimization and improved fuel economy won’t net you the savings that the Driver’s Alert safety-based solution will. Fleets that use us reduce vehicle accidents in weeks, not months. Track harsh cornering, hard braking and rapid acceleration. Even view posted versus actual speed data for each driver. And with in-vehicle, audible feedback, drivers can correct unsafe behavior in real time. We’ll even document the employee coaching session and recommend online training to ensure unsafe behavior is corrected - permanently. Request a demo at www.driversalert.com/prosafety

Number of Safety Rule Violations

Standard GPS / Telematics

Starndard GPS / Telematics

Weeks 1 & 2 Baseline

View the graph! Read the story! www.driversalert.com/SafetyTelematics

THE DIFFERENCE

Weeks 3 & 4

Audible In-Cab Feedback

Weeks 5 & 6

Driver’s Alert Integration

Weeks 7 & Beyond A Safer Driver

www.linkedin.com/company/drivers-alert

Editoral Staff

Sue Trebswether Editor (847) 768-3433; [email protected] Tina Angley Associate Editor (847) 768-3438; [email protected] Cathy Baker Assistant Editor (847) 768-3414; [email protected] Publication Design Inc. Design Consultants

Departments 8

Contributors

President’s Message Managing reputation risk

10 Reader Forum

Thoughts on safety management and health hazards

12 Events

Editorial Review Board

January, February and March professional development courses

14 Safety Matters

2015 Award for Innovation in Occupational Safety Management, safe driving, new Safety Speaks podcast

18 Leading Thoughts Global-class safety

Frank G. D’Orsi, CSP, ARM Chair Frank J. Bruzzese, CSP, CIH, CPCU Salvatore Caccavale, CHMM, CPEA David A. Dodge, P.E., CSP Devendra M. Kotecha Todd Loushine, Ph.D., P.E., CSP, CIH Steve Minshall, CSP, CIH Howard B. Spielman, CSP, CIH

Society Officers

21 ASSE Connection

Patricia M. Ennis, CSP, ARM President Michael Belcher, CSP President-Elect Thomas F. Cecich, CSP, CIH Senior Vice President Stephanie A. Helgerman, CSP Vice President, Finance Christine M. Sullivan, CSP, ARM Vice President,

49 Standards Insider

Fred J. Fortman Executive Director

ASSE’s Bilingual Spokesperson Bureau, Triangle Award Walking/working surfaces

50 Best Practices

Injury management

53 Product Pulse

The latest OSH products

OSH positions available, ad index

56 Etc. Etc. Etc. A bit wordy

Article Reproductions

Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal or educational use is granted by ASSE, provided the appropriate fee is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923 USA; phone +1 (978) 750-8400; www.copyright.com/ UseAccount/IconJr/prodchoice.html. (Reference Code No. 0099-0027.) Professional Safety is available free online to ASSE members at www.professionalsafety.org. Articles are also available via microform and/or electronic databases from ProQuest, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA; phone +1 (800) 521-0600. For specific format details, visit www.proquest.com. JANUARY 2015

Professional Development

Advertising Representatives Fox Associates—Chicago (312) 644-3888 Fox Associates—Detroit (248) 626-0511 Fox Associates—Los Angeles (805) 522-0501 Fox Associates—New York (212) 725-2106 Fox Associates—Phoenix (480) 538-5021 Advertising Inquiries [email protected]

Subscription Prices

55 Marketplace


Brendan Hilliard Digital Communications Specialist (847) 768-3427; [email protected] Siobhan Lally Communications & Design Assistant (847) 768-3468; [email protected] Tim Shaunnessey Communications & Design Assistant (847) 768-3422; [email protected]

www.asse.org

Professional Safety (ISSN 0099 0027) is published monthly by the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018-2100 USA; phone +1 (847) 699-2929; fax +1 (847) 296-3769; [email protected]; customerservice @asse.org; ASSE website: www.asse.org. U.S., Canada and Mexico—$60.00 per year; $5.50 per copy; $94.00, 2 years; $120.00, 3 years. Public and educational institution libraries—$51.00 per year; $78.00, 2 years; $106.00, 3 years. Foreign—$70.00 per year; $6.50 per copy; $111.00, 2 years; $145.00, 3 years. U.S. funds drawn on U.S. bank. Public and educational institution libraries—$60.00 per year; $96.00, 2 years; $126.00, 3 years. Add $60.00 per year for airmail. The basic association subscription price for Professional Safety is $17.50. Periodicals postage paid at Des Plaines, IL, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Change of Address Dept., ASSE, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018-2100 USA. Requests for back issues should be made within 3 months of publication.

The go-to company for EHS recruitment www.shirleyparsons.com Shirley Parsons is a specialist EHS executive search and recruitment firm with a vision to create the first truly global EHS talent network. We aim to build long-term relationships with EHS professionals from entry through to board level, operating as career agents and consultants. If you want to discuss your career with a professional or have responsibility for EHS talent within your organization, then please get in touch with us to find out how we can help.

PSM Leader MA - $100,000-$130,000 (TM408) Implement PSM requirements, ensure EHS compliance and develop mechanical integrity on a high-risk chemical manufacturing plant.

Project EHS Director New York, NY - $Competitive (SC401) Leading the EHS function for a landmark construction project within the city for a multinational infrastructure organization.

Health & Safety Specialist

MA - $75,000-$100,000 (JM404)

Implementing site and regional safety programs and supporting corporate safety initiatives for a global building materials company.

EHS Director CA - $Competitive (TM409) Leading the turnaround of an EHS function and driving a cultural change program for a large, high-risk aerospace manufacturer.

EHS Manager CT – Up to $90,000 (SC402) Supporting the construction of a high-rise project for a major general contractor.

Shirley Parsons LLC Boston, MA

(617) 939-9533 [email protected]

www.asse.org After reading your monthly issue of PS, does it take up space on your shelf? You can change your subscription to the digital edition at any time. Simply login to www.asse.org, click “Update Information” under Account Details and click the electronic delivery option for Professional Safety at the bottom of the page.

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/BRiAnAJACkSOn

Go Digital With PS

Spanish Articles Available

Professional Safety now has select articles available in Spanish. Visit the PS Extra page (www.asse.org/psextra) and navigate to the left hand sidebar for a variety of translated articles. The ASSE website also hosts a more extensive archive of translated articles found at www.asse.org/professional-safety/articles-espanol.

Honor Roll Is Online

ASSE members realize the value of ASSE membership. Visit the Society’s Honor Roll (www.asse.org/member ship.honorroll.php) to see who has been telling others about that value and the many benefits of joining.

Sign Up for CSHS Newsletters

The Center for Safety and Health Sustainability (CSHS) (www.centershs.org) works to drive worker safety and health into the core of the sustainability movement. To advance these efforts, CSHS produces monthly newsletters that address timely topics and issues centering around sustainability. Visit http://bit.ly/1wlfXmQ to sign up to receive the monthly newsletters.

Submit an Article for PS

The PS website offers many resources for those wanting to submit an article to the journal. Visit www.asse.org/professional -safety/submit to view resources including manuscript submission guidelines, tips

for clear writing, topic suggestions, a presentation about writing for PS, and a transcript of the podcast with Frank D’Orsi, chair of the Editorial Review Board. PS mentors are also available as a source to ask questions or discuss article topics. ©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/ALEkSAndR-MAnSuROV-Ru


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Free to ASSE Members on Learn@ASSE The new face of online learning has arrived at ASSE with Learn@ASSE. With Learn@ASSE, you can do all the basics that are on your schedule: search for training, complete a test, listen to a podcast. But, more than that, you can plan for your professional growth. With hundreds of courses to choose from—many of them free to ASSE members—you can use Learn@ASSE as your personal learning assistant. So, check it out. Visit the site to view an instructional video from ASSE President Trish Ennis, CSP, ARM. After viewing that, start exploring. Listen to a podcast, watch a video, even have a discussion with other OSH professionals. Everything you sign up for stays on your learning dashboard so you can view it again later. Accessing Learn@ASSE is simple. Already have a username and password on the ASSE website? Then you are halfway there. Visit http://learn.asse .org and log in. Haven’t created one yet? Just follow the instructions on the ASSE website (www .asse.org) when prompted.

http://learn.asse.org

WHO SAYS, YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU?

Announcing The Most Comprehensive Mobile Compliance Solution Ever! It is our goal to put you in control. From any device you can harness the power and versatility of the most highly functional compliance management solution ever, all in the palm of your hand-from anywhere in the world. Full enterprise functionality on Android, Google, Microsoft, and Apple* operating systems—we run on all of them. No other solution even comes close. Once you’ve seen our system perform, we know you’ll agree.

EHS Compliance at Your Fingertips • • • • • • • •

Incident Reporting Audits & Inspections BBS Observations Corrective Actions Online Training Courses, Even on the iPad Attach Supporting Documentation No Loss of Functionality Real-time Access to Your Data, Anytime, Anywhere

ONE LOOK AT OUR DEMO WILL CHANGE THE WAY YOU MANAGE SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE FOREVER. Call toll-free 855-242-6969 to schedule your demo today. www.ApplicationsInternational.com *Google, Microsoft, Apple, Android are registered trademarks of their respective companies.

President’s Message

Risk Management: Reputation Is Key

T

exas City refinery. Upper Big Branch mine. Deepwater Horizon. Tazreen Fashions factory. Rana Plaza. Each of these tragedies was caused by a chain of events that included safety and health system deficiencies. They have something else in common, too: They all caused significant damage to the reputations of the organizations involved. As OSH professionals, we may not often think about reputation risk. In fact, as recently as 2005, reputation risk was not on the radar of most CEOs, nor Trish Ennis risk managers. Today, however, it is a critical concern. According to Deloitte’s 2014 Reputation@Risk survey (which you can view at http://bit.ly/ 1uOlJb4), 87% of the 300 global executives surveyed rated reputation risk as more important or much more important than other strategic risks their companies are facing. Deloitte’s report also cites a 2012 World Economic Forum report that found that on average more than 25% of a company’s market value is directly attributable to its reputation. So what does this mean to OSH professionals? It presents “Followers who tell us with a significant opportuthe truth, and leadnity to communicate with our executive teams about how ers who listen to it, OSH issues feed into the orgaare an unbeatable nization’s larger risk position. combination.” Furthermore, it is an excelWarren Bennis lent opportunity to influence our organizations’ strategic direction. Organizations that are genuinely interested in effectively managing risk, particularly reputation risk, look to OSH professionals to be key contributors to strategic planning, budgeting, crisis management and enterprise risk management. How can we most effectively fill these important roles? As OSH professionals, we use risk identification and risk assessment tools each day to identify and mitigate hazards to prevent injuries and illnesses. We must now begin to assess OSH information using a second set of questions: How will this risk affect the organization’s financial performance? How can managing or eliminating OSH risks increase operational efficiencies and enhance regulatory compliance? How will customers/stakeholders view the risk if it becomes a crisis? 8 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

ASSE offers a wealth of resources to help us answer these questions and develop broader professional competencies. For example, the ASSE Risk Assessment Institute offers access to a wide range of tools, standards and research. The Society’s Risk Management/ Insurance Practice Specialty produces technical content that aims to advance our knowledge in this important skill area. In addition, ASSE’s conferences, webinars and continuing education programs, including the Certificate in Risk Assessment program that will launch during SeminarFest 2015 next month, provide many opportunities to build and refine our risk-related skills. We must also be aware of global developments that are driving greater interest in risk-based decision making. Global organizations including the Center for Safety and Health Sustainability, and International Network of Safety and Health Practitioner Organizations are advancing OSH initiatives. International Organization of Standardization (ISO) is developing the 45001 standard that will set the direction for global safety and health management systems—systems that rely extensively on risk assessment practices and risk management processes. As Scott Cooper explains in “Improving Worker Safety in Global Supply Chains” (PS, Oct. 2014, pp. 2933), ISO 45001 will provide a road map for OSH professionals to use when evaluating organizational risk and building a safety management system to manage that risk. Each day, incidents occur that could signal a pending crisis. More and more companies are seeking new ways to identify the emerging problems and risks that threaten their reputation. Our unique abilities to anticipate and control hazards each day positions us as valuable risk management resources who can contribute to those efforts and help our organizations continue on the path toward business success.

Patricia M. Ennis, CSP, ARM @ASSEPrez

Organizations that are genuinely interested in effectively managing risk, particularly reputation risk, look to OSH professionals to be key contributors.

Connect With Trish

Join the conversation. Read Trish’s blog, follow her on Twitter, or join her on LinkedIn or Facebook. www .asse.org/getcon nected.

GET CERTIFIED! SPAN EXAM PREP

ASP Workshop Schedule

Materials are Updated to Current Exam Blueprints SPAN® is the world leader for certification exam preparation featuring Workshops, Self Study Workbooks, and Software for the leading SH&E Certifications: ASP • CSP • OHST • CHST • CET • STS • CHMM Facilitated Workshop delivered with expert guidance to pass the exam the first time! Workshops include exam study workbooks, exam prep software, scientific calculator. Exam Study Workbooks with targeted representative test questions with detailed explanations. Exam Prep Software features flashcards, practice and exam simulation modes designed to optimize your study efforts.

Las Vegas NV Houston TX Indianapolis IN San Diego CA Atlanta GA Houston TX

February 9-11 February 23-25 March 19-21 March 23-25 April 13-15 April 20-22

CSP Workshop Schedule

Las Vegas NV Houston TX Indianapolis IN San Diego CA Atlanta GA Houston TX

February 12-14 February 26-28 March 19-21 March 26-28 April 16-18 April 23-25

CHST Workshop Schedule

Houston TX San Diego CA Dallas TX Houston TX

March 5-7 March 26-28 April 16-18 May 14-16

OHST Workshop Schedule

Houston TX Dallas TX Houston TX

March 2-4 April 13-15 May 11-13

Mentoring Services by subject matter experts to help with study plans and dedicated to your success.

UDY EXAM STOOK WORKB SAFETY

FUNDAM

ENTALS

(CORE)

Updated to the 2015 Blueprint

417-724-8348 [email protected] For the Complete 2015 Workshop Schedule visit www.spansafetyworkshops.com

I VOLUME

2015

RKSHOPS ETY WO 65714 SPAN SAF St #111 • Nixa, MO rkshops.com Vernon ansafetywo 402 W. Mt • info@sp ops.com 724 -8348 afetyworksh Phone: 417www.spans

“SPAN® SAFETY WORKSHOPS ARE GUARANTEED!”

Reader Forum

Safety Management

What, Why & Who We Are

B

ravo to Matthew Deffebach, Katie Chatterton, Brenna Nava and Erin Shea for their article, “The I2P2 Debate: What California Case Law Tells Us About Effective Training in Injury and Illness Prevention Programs” (May 2014, pp. 52-58). They detailed a lot of great information. What is the takeaway from their research? If the government is empowered with a safety and health program management regulation, everything is a hazard, all of equal importance. Any adverse outcomes (e.g., injuries/ illnesses) are just because the employer (and perhaps the safety and health staff) failed to train well enough or perform some other aspect of the regulation well enough. The definition of effective for the safety and health management system is ever changing and at the whim of the government. The downstream consequences of that will fall most heavily on the safety and health staff. I’ve heard some say about ASSE’s government affairs initiatives, “If we are not at the table, then we will be on the menu.” With this regulation, safety and health professionals are not on the menu, rather we are the menu. Safety and health program management is the what, why and who we are. It is our value-add as professionals. Scenarios such as those detailed in this article adversely affect our professional image and well being. Tom Lawrence

Ballwin, MO

Health Hazards

Occupational Exposures to Mineral Fibers

F

rom a biological point of view, the Ebola breakout in Western Africa provides a context for the argument that an assessment of all human mineral fiber exposures can and must be

Professional Safety encourages readers to write to Reader Forum in re sponse to specific articles, editorials, letters, columns and news reports. The editors reserve the right to select which letters will appear and to edit letters for brevity and clarity. Send letters to: Reader Forum, Professional Safety, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL, 60018; professionalsafety @asse.org.


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

made. Certainly not analogous to the human-tohuman contact contagious aspects, but within the machinations of that contagion lay some important lessons regarding mineral fiber type, human exposure and ultimate outcome. As is readily known to the virologist, there are different levels of threat posed by Ebola at each step, by potency, exposure vector, latency and biological persistence. To successfully sequester such an outbreak, setting aside dose, varied types of disease causation, geographical, climate and other environmental concerns, one must take into account each subtlety of these four dynamics as specifically posed by Ebola. It does not hurt to know that the potency, exposure vector, latency and persitence for, lets say, avian influenza, is different than Ebola and that different methods of approach for containment of each virus type must be taken to limit or stop the spread of disease. So too it is with mineral fibers. Stressing once again that person-to-person biological contagion plays no part in human mineral fiber exposures and subsequent outcome, unless secondary viral or bacterial infections are accumulated by the host. It is important to recognize that the dynamics of the four components listed above for each mineral fiber type are different, just as they are between most viruses. Examples are readily available for each: 1) Christopher Wagner recognized as early as 1960 that the mineral fiber Crocidolite had a much greater potency in causing mesothelioma than did Chrysotile mineral fiber. He also found that Erionite mineral fiber had a much greater potency than did Crocidolite. Not even remotely considered minor differences in potency. 2) Early on, W.R. Grace employees tested the hang time in calm air for Tremolite mineral fiber (and loosely its associated analog fibers). I further tested this and found that by comparison to Chrysotile mineral fiber, Tremolite had a nearly insignificant period that it remained aloft in calm air. EPA employees in Libby Montana corresponded with me that “it (tremolite) falls like a rock from the air” as I had indicated. Subsequently, exposure vectors for those two types of fiber accumulation in the human lung, occur differently. 3) Latencies between fiber types have been hampered in determination by public policies, but appearance in the data indicates latency between fiber types to be varied as one might expect. 4) Biological persistence of Chrysotile within the lung is known to be orders of magnitude less than that for amphibole and perhaps other mineral fiber types. Why is this important in the context of the article, “Antigorite: Is It the Forgotten Asbestos?” which appeared in the August 2014 issue of Professional Safety (pp. 43-48)? The previous thinking

that disease caused by mineral fiber exposure was strictly confined to occupational and associated occupational activities has, I hope, been completely put to rest. Occupational protection programs in the U.S. have struggled mightily and often erroneously with protections for workers, almost exclusively concentrating on dose and hygiene. Although it is nearly impossible to accurately control dose of mineral fibers, such programs have met with some success in preventing disease. In occupational exposure scenarios it is not necessarily a bad thing to consider all mineral fibers as equal. However, now that we have seen that mineral fibers in a strictly environmental context can be responsible for a more than 50% death rate among a given population, we need to focus on which fiber types, which dynamics are in play. We can no longer afford to clump all possible fiber types together as an equal risk to human health. Not every fiber type can be controlled by the same

approach. As Ebola demonstrates, it would be the height of ignorance to do so with all viruses. Likewise, environmentally, it is localized human tragedy to do so with mineral fibers. It also bears mentioning that government agencies in the U.S. are currently attempting to sort this all out. We are currently asked to wait for perhaps decades while they do so. Decades may be an optimistic time schedule. Hopefully, I am not overusing the Ebola analogy by saying that we know right now what the most potent of mineral fibers are in environmental exposure scenarios. We would never wait to determine all the various dynamics associated with all the worlds viruses to act upon Ebola. Why then must we wait to act upon the most potent mineral fiber exposure scenarios that have come to light in America during the past 2 decades? Terry Trent

We can no longer afford to clump all possible fiber types together as an equal risk to human health.

Auburn, CA

Get Certified... Proven and Proud! Now more than ever, the right accredited certification makes an enormous difference in career advancements. Demonstrate your safety competency with our sought after safety, health and environmental certifications. Visit bcsp.org to learn more.

Advancing the Safety, Health and Environmental Professional Since 1969

2301 W. Bradley Avenue, Champaign, IL 61821 USA P: +1 217-359-9263 | F: +1 217-359-0055 E: [email protected]

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015

ProfessionalSafety 11

January 20-23 Savannah, GA OSH Standards for the Construction Industry. Georgia Tech OSHA Training Institute Education Center; (800) 6533629; www.pe.gatech.edu/occupational -safety-health-training. January 21 Webinar n Lockout/Tagout for Construction & Demolition Operations—Updates, Changes & How to Apply the ANSI A10.44 Standard. ASSE; (847) 6992929; www.asse.org/webinars. January 27 Princeton, NJ Combustible Dust Workshop: From Basics to Advanced. Chilworth Technology Inc.; (609) 799-4449; www .chilworth.com. January 27-29 Boston, MA Work, Health & Well-Being: Integrating Wellness & Occupational Health & Safety in the Workplace. Harvard School of Public Health; (617) 3848692; https://ecpe.sph.harvard.edu. January 27-30 Mesquite, TX SH&E Management. Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service; (800) 723-3811; www.teex.org/prt. January 27-30 Louisville, KY Electrical Safety Workshop 2015. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; (800) 701-4333; www.ewh .ieee.org/cmte/ias-esw. January 28-29 Miami, FL Change Agent Skills for Lean Implementation Leaders. Lean Enterprise Institute; (617) 871-2900; www.lean .org. January 28-29 Valley Forge, PA Maritime Electrical Safety. AVO Training Institute; (877) 594-3156; www .avotraining.com. February 1-6 Daytona Beach, FL 35th Annual Occupational Safety & Health Winter Institute. North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center; (888) 235-3320; http://osherc.sph.unc.edu. Send event announcements to [email protected]. n Current month advertiser 12 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/ERnESTEdiSOnHAYES

Events January February March

Webinar January 28

Raising Safety Mindfulness

Some believe that mindfulness is safety’s final frontier after leaders have done their utmost to help reduce risk through audits, engineering controls, clear policies, training and reinforcers. But trying to force what or how people think meets with resistance, and messages to “pay attention,” “think before you act” and “work safe” are not enough. This webinar will discuss proven approaches and strategies to elevate safety mindulness (perceptions, judgment, alertness and actions) within a range of workforces. ASSE; (847) 699-2929; www.asse .org/webinars February 2-6 Mechanicsburg, PA HazWOPER Site Worker Initial Training. Cocciardi and Associates Inc.; (800) 377-3024; http://cocciardi.com. February 3-6 Hot Springs, AR Advanced Incident Investigation. OSHA Training Institute Southwest Education Center; (800) 723-3811; www.teex.org/prt.

February 6-12 Las Vegas, NV n SeminarFest 2015. ASSE; (847) 6992929; www.asse.org. February 8-11 Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates n ASP/CSP Exam Preparation. Bowen EHS Inc.; (866) 264-5852; www.bowen ehs.com. February 9 Orlando, FL Forklift Operator. Safety Links Inc.; (800) 768-7036; www.safetylinks.net. February 9-10 Peoria, IL Basic Electricity for the Nonelectrician. American Trainco Inc.; (877) 978-7246; www.americantrainco.com. February 9-11 Las Vegas, NV Radiation Safety for Authorized Users & Supervisors. Dade Moeller; (509) 9460410; www.moellerinc.com/training. February 9-11 New Orleans, LA 2015 NFPA 101: Life Safety Code Essentials. NFPA; (800) 344-3555; www .nfpa.org. February 10-11 Franklin, PA Wind Energy Competent Climber. Miller Fall Protection; (855) 565-6722; www.millerfallprotection.com. February 12 Reno, NV Electrical Safety High-Voltage Qualfied Training. e-Hazard; (502) 498-7978; www.e-Hazard.com.

February 5 Changi, Singapore bizSAFE Convention 2015: A Safer & Healthier Workplace for Everyone. Singapore Workplace Safety and Health Conference; www.wshc.sg.

February 16 St. Louis, MO Bloodborne Pathogens Exposure Control for Healthcare Facilities. OSHA Training Institute Midwest Education Center; (800) 464-6874; http://ceet.slu.edu.

February 5 Webinar Understanding the New NFPA 70E (2015 edition) Electrical Safety/Arc Flash Requrements. Zoubek Consulting LLC; (619) 677-8682; www.zoubek consulting.com.

February 16-18 Warwick, RI Update for General Industry Outreach Trainers. Keene State College OSHA Education Center; (800) 449-6772; www.oshaedcenter.com.

February 5-6 Clearwater, FL How to Start, Build & Run a Successful Expert Witness Practice. SEAK Inc.; (508) 548-7023; www.seak.com.

February 16-19 Raleigh, NC Industrial Ergonomics Process. The Ergonomics Center of North Carolina; (800) 664-3746; www.theergonomics center.com.

February 6 League City, TX n Basic Competent Person Inspection. Scaffold Training Institute; (281) 3321613; www.scaffoldtraining.com.

February 17-19 Honolulu, HI SafeStart Certification. SafeStart; (800) 276-6190; www.safestart.com.

www.asse.org

February 18-19 Oakdale, PA Portable Instrument Technician-Level Training. Industrial Scientific Corp.; (800) 338-3287; www.indsci.com. February 18-20 Las Vegas, NV Office Ergonomics. Roy Matheson & Associates; (800) 443-7690; www.roy matheson.com. February 19-21 New Orleans, LA 2015 Annual Hearing Conference. National Hearing Conservation Association; (303) 224-9022; www.hearingcon servation.org.

March 5-6 Boston, MA 31st WCRI Annual Issues & Research Conference. Workers’ Compensation Research Institute; (617) 661-9274, ext. 235; www.wcrinet.org/conference.

March 16-19 Nashville, TN 18th Annual Applied Ergonomics Conference 2015. Applied Ergonomics Conference; (800) 494-0460; www.iie net2.org/ergo/conference.

March 16-18 Indianapolis, IN 2015 Indiana Safety & Health Conference & Expo. ASSE Central Indiana Chapter; (800) 824-6885; www.insafety conf.com.

March 23-26 Boston, MA AAOHN 2015 National Conference. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses; (770) 455-7757; www .aaohn.org.

It takes

February 23-25 Houston, TX n ASP Exam Preparation. SPAN International Training; (855) 357-7726; www.spansafetyworkshops.com. February 23-25 Phoenix, AZ 2015 Winter National Meeting. The Auditing Roundtable; (480) 659-3738; www.auditing-roundtable.org.

TO KAYAK THROUGH THE GRAND CANYON

February 24 Medford, OR Fall Protection Equipment Inspection. D2000 Safety; (800) 551-8763; www .d2000safety.com. February 24-26 Houston, TX Incident Investigation. DNV-GL Business Assurance; (877) 368-3530; www .dnvglcert.com.

GO THE DISTANCE IN YOUR CAREER IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME

February 24-26 San Diego, CA n Implementing Culture Change. Culture Change Consultants; (914) 315-6076; www.culturechange.com. February 26 Phoenix, AZ Fall Protection Competent Person. ehs International Inc.; (949) 540-6800; www.ehsinternational.org. March 2-5 Tuscaloosa, AL OSH Standards for Construction. OSHA Training Institute University of Alabama Education Center; (205) 3486330; http://continuingstudies.ua.edu. March 2-6 Nashville, TN PowerTest 2015. International Electrical Testing Association; (888) 300-6382; www.powertest.org/conference. March 2-6 Baton Rouge, LA Industrial Rescue I & II. Roco Rescue; (800) 647-7626; www.rocorescue.com.

ASP & CSP KICKOFF STUDY WORKSHOP Let us help you earn your certification IN JUST 3 DAYS, you can gain the knowledge and confidence you need to pass your certification exams. ASSE Certification Preparation Workshops are taught by the most experienced certification leaders, Langlois, Weigand & Associates, Inc. We are so confident that if you do not pass, you can retake the same workshop for FREE! Visit our website for details on our guarantee. ASP WORKSHOP

CSP WORKSHOP

MATH REVIEW

February 7-9

Las Vegas, NV

February 10-12

Las Vegas, NV

February 6

March 9-11

Pittsburgh, PA

March 12-14

Pittsburgh, PA

March 8

Las Vegas, NV Pittsburgh, PA

March 23-25

Des Plaines, IL

March 26-28

Des Plaines, IL

March 22

Des Plaines, IL

April 20-22

Jacksonville, FL

April 23-25

Jacksonville, FL

April 19

Jacksonville, FL

May 4-6

Cincinnati, OH

May 7-9

Cincinnati, OH

May 3

Cincinnati, OH

REGISTER TODAY!

Visit www.asse.org/workshop or call +1.847.699.2929

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Safety Matters DuPont Solicits Entries for 2015 Safety & Sustainability Awards

ASSE & Cintas Partner for 2nd Annual Safety Innovation Award For the second year, ASSE and Cintas are teaming up to find the world’s most innovative workplace safety solutions. Nominations are open for the 2015 Award for Innovation in Occupational Safety Management. The winner will receive $3,000, a recognition plaque, and travel and accommodations for Safety 2015 in Dallas, TX, this June. “When workers are engaged in developing a safe workplace culture, everyone wins,” says 2014-15 ASSE President Trish Ennis, CSP, ARM. “Last year’s award competition drew creative nominations from organizations spanning the globe, so we’re excited to see what safety ideas will be submitted this time around.” Entries should highlight a workplace challenge and a unique solution to the issue that was either

developed or implemented within the last 5 years. Benefits associated with the innovation may include elimination or reduction of hazards, improved safety knowledge or efficiency improvements. A panel of industry experts will consider the innovation’s safety and management benefits, and the potential for applying the innovation across multiple programs or sites. Both ASSE members and nonmembers are eligible for the award, and nominations can be submitted by safety managers or employees on behalf of themselves or another individual. Nominations must be received by March 31, 2015. Online submissions are preferred. For information, visit www.asse.org/ innovate.

DuPont is accepting applications for its 2015 safety and sustainability awards. The biannual competition invites entries from companies or organizations that can demonstrate significant achievements in safety, sustainability or operations excellence. “Over the last decade, the DuPont Safety and Sustainability Awards have become widely recognized among industrial companies as a benchmark for workplace safety and sustainability,” says James Weigand, president, DuPont Sustainable Solutions. “More importantly, they have helped to promote initiatives aimed at saving lives and protecting the environment.” Regional winners in each category will be announced in May 2015. The global winner will be announced in September 2015. Entries will be judged on elements such as management commitment, cultural evolution, performance improvement, innovation and stakeholder engagement. Applications are due Feb. 1, 2015. For information, visit www.dupont.com/ microsites/dss/dss-awards-2015/dssa -2015.html.

Hotlinks CPWR Center for Construction Research and Training www.cpwr.com DOL U.S. Department of Labor www.dol.gov DOT U.S. Department of Transportation www.dot.gov IOSH Institution of Occupational Safety and Health www.iosh.co.uk NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health www.cdc .gov/niosh OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration www.osha .gov


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Oil & Gas Industry Developing Alcohol-Drug Program Guide

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers and IPIECA, a global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues, through their joint Health Committee, are partnering with Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) to develop an alcohol and drug program guideline for oil and gas contractors. The goal is to help contractors simplify their programs and achieve contract compliance. According to the groups, the guideline will cover: •drug testing panel, along with frequency, type and testing matrixes; •alcohol testing frequency, type, testing matrixes and cut-offs; •definitions of safety sensitive, and covered employees and locations; •collector/collection credentials and process; •medication disclosure/fitness for duty for safety-sensitive workers; •medical review of test results; •laboratory qualifications; •reporting, recordkeeping and noncompliance requirements; •supervisor and employee training. To learn more about this guideline, contact DATIA’s Laura Shelton at [email protected].

©iStockphoto.com/mSLightBox

ASSE American Society of Safety Engineers www.asse.org

©iStockphoto.com/egdigitaL

10 Steps to a Safe Driving Program According to Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data, fatal transportation incidents decreased by 10% in 2013. However, they accounted for about two of five fatal work injuries in 2013. In addition, of the 1,740 transportation-related deaths this past year, nearly three of five involved motorized land vehicles. As Safety.BLR.com reports, although OSHA does not regulate driving across the board, the agency has guidelines to help reduce vehicle crashes and advises employers to create a safety program that saves lives and reduces risk of injuries, protects the organization’s human and financial resources, and guards against potential company and personal liabilities. Along these guidelines, OSHA also supports Network of Employers for Traffic Safety’s (www.trafficsafety.org) program, which is centered around 10 elements. 1) Senior management commitment and employee involvement. Senior management provides leadership, and establishes policies and safety culture. 2) Written policies and procedures. A clear, comprehensive and enforce-

able set of traffic safety policies should be the cornerstone of the driving safety program. 3) Driver agreements. Create a contract with employees who drive for work purposes in which drivers acknowledge awareness and understanding of the rules about driver performance, maintenance and reporting of moving violations. 4) Motor vehicle record checks. Check driving records of all employees who drive for work purposes, and screen those who have poor records to help avoid future problems. 5) Crash reporting and investigation. All incidents must be reported immediately. Policies and procedures must clearly guide drivers through responsibilities. 6) Select, maintain and routinely inspect company vehicles. 7) Disciplinary action. Use a policybased strategy to determine the course of action after a moving violation or preventable incident. 8) Reward/incentive program. Consider an incentive program that makes

safe driving an integral part of the business culture. 9) Driver training and communication. Continuously train employees on safe driving practices. 10) Regulatory compliance. Make sure drivers are aware of applicable federal, state and local regulations.

Take the shortest route to success — with CertiStep!

Passing a Health and Safety Certification Exam can be a long road if you’re not prepared.

Our success-guaranteed study method puts you in the driver’s seat. Pop in the CD and critical questions and answers are right at your ngertips. CertiStep gives you these advantages: save time and money studying where, when, and how you want diagnose how well you know each subject area focus on your weaker subject areas using keyword searches detailed explanations for all bodies of knowledge develop your computer testtaking skills as you learn

CertiStep Study Programs

Licenses:

! NEW

Individual

Site

$399 $299 $399 $349 $349 $299 $249 $249

$1099 $ 999 $1099 $1099 $ 999 $1099 $ 999 $1099

Certified Healthcare Facilities Manager STS-Cprep V2.0

$149

$ 999

Safety Trained Supervisor-Construction ! NEW

Take it out for a spin...

Order online at www.CertiStep.com

CSPprep V7.0 ASPprep V5.0 CIHprep V9.0 CHMMprep V5.0 CPEprep V2.0 OHSTprep V5.0 CHSTprep V2.0 CHFMprep V1.0

Take our FREE online practice quiz and you’ll get your test results immediately. Order your study program right away at www.CertiStep.com, or call us at 1-800-377-9717 for more information or to place your order. And remember the CertiStep Guarantee: If you don’t pass, we’ll refund your purchase price!

DataChem, developer of the interactive computer-based CertiStep method, is the market leader in exam cation preparation software.

www.asse.org

STS-GIprep V2.0

$149

$ 999

Safety Trained Supervisor-General Industry Pricing subject to change without notice.

Call about pricing on other licensing needs.

Exclusively from DataChem

Safety in Numbers:

Formulas, Examples and References for Occupational Safety Professionals Price: $89 184 page desk reference provides over 100 formulas and example problems in mathematics, physics, and engineering, as well as quick references to technical, legal, and managerial terms and

69 Milk Street, Suite 300 Westborough, MA 01581 JANUARY 2015


Safety Matters Safety Speaks: Dave Walline on Prevention Through Design Safety Speaks is ASSE’s podcast about the latest and greatest in occupational safety, covering contemporary issues in the world of OSH and providing insight from industry leaders. The guest on the latest episode is Dave Walline. He is president of Walline Consulting in Port St. Lucie, FL, and chair of ASSE’s Risk Assessment Committee. He is also author of “Prevention Through Design: Proven Solutions From the Field,” published in the November 2014 issue of Professional Safety. Listeners of the first podcast already know the pitch for prevention through design (PTD).

In short, it is designing safety elements into projects preemptively, rather than trying to address them reactively. It is a fairly straightforward concept to grasp, but execution in the real world is a completely different story. Walline says OSH professionals must be prepared to sell the concept of PTD to their management to have any hope of implementing it in a workplace. For that to happen, safety professionals need to start redefining their roles and, eventually, in some ways, start redefining their profession. Listen to this and other podcasts at www.asse.org/multi media. —TS

CPWR Introduces Spanish Resources hispanic construction workers are at higher risk of fatal injury than their non-hispanic counterparts. according the center for construction Research and training (cpWR), hispanic workers in the U.S. construction industry make up more than 20% of the workforce and approximately one-third of those workers only speak Spanish.

to help address this issue, cpWR has released several resources for Spanish speakers. Resources include hazard alert cards, three short safety videos, a Spanish-language day Laborers’ health and Safety Workbook, an accompanying trainer’s guide and more. Learn more at www.cpwr.com. —SL

DOL Renews Workplace Rights Agreements With Latin American Countries

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently renewed its partnership agreements with ambassadors representing Mexico, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The agreements entail DOL’s enforcement agencies (e.g., OSHA, Wage and Hour Division) continuing to collaborate with the embassies and consulates to provide information about U.S. labor laws that regulate safety, health, wages and working hours to workers from these countries. U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez says that the partnerships represent the “shared commitment to making sure that workers from these nations are able to exercise their rights.” DOL reports that these partnerships help the department enforce U.S. labor laws more effectively, particularly in high-risk and low-wage workplaces where violations might occur more frequently. To learn more about the partnerships, visit http://1.usa.gov/1GVdTlA. —CB

(L to R): Ambassador of Mexico Eduardo Medina Mora; Ambassador of the Dominican Republic Aníbal de Castro; Wage and Hour Division Deputy Administrator Laura Fortman; Ambassador of Nicaragua Francisco Campbell; Ambassador of El Salvador Francisco Altschul; U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez; Ambassador of Costa Rica Román Macaya Hayes; Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier; and OSHA Administrator David Michaels. 16 ProfessionalSafety JANUARY 2015 www.asse.org

The OSH Value Proposition: “Enable Success Without Loss”

In his guest blog for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Andrew Sharman, vice chair of the board for Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, offers his take on safety and risk. Sharman, who is also the author of From Accidents to Zero, says there is a “massive misconception” that OSH professionals are “risk averse, action-stopping do-gooders.” “If we are to truly do our job of protecting people, planet and profit, we must face toward risk, not away from it,” he writes. He also believes that fear has skewed perceptions of safety risks. “The modern mantra associated with these safety risks is always, ‘But what if?’” Sharman says. Instead, he contends that OSH professionals should be asking, “What if we could?” “The real value proposition for us as OSH professionals is our ability to take an inherently risky human endeavor and use our unique skill set to enable success without loss,” Sharman explains. “We engage employees and leaders in identifying actions that both decrease risk and increase the chance of success. We precisely define the risk problem, partner with our people to solve it and enable the satisfaction of organizational needs. We lead the effort to shift our corporate culture from polarized perspectives on risk to informed and balanced decision-making.” Read Sharman’s complete “Shark-Infested Safety: Reevaluating Risk and Finding Freedom From Fear” post at http://bit.ly/1zNzLRH. Sharman also spoke on this topic during TedXLausanne in early 2014. View that video at http:// youtu.be/B7-DQFvD5ck.

UL Offers Free Online Training Courses to Healthcare Organizations

UL Workplace Health & Safety is now providing free online training courses to healthcare organizations in the U.S. As concerns about infectious diseases and influenza continue to grow, UL hopes to share information that will help keep healthcare workers safe and healthy on the job. The courses cover infection control through hand washing, bloodborne pathogens, healthcare PPE and universal precautions, and are available free of charge to any healthcare organization that requests them. Visit www.ULWorkplace.com for more information. —SL

4Casselogo-1200dpi_vector-1c-outline.pdf

Expert ASSE/ANSI Panel Examines H2S in Oil & Gas Industry

Members of the committee that developed ANSI/ASSE Z390, Accepted Practices for Hydrogen Sulfide Safety Training Programs, presented at December’s OSHA Oil & Gas Safety Conference in Houston, TX. A standing-room-only crowd was on hand to hear the experts share their insight on best practices and processes that OSH professionals can use to improve H2S safety programs in the oil and gas industry. The group also addressed major concerns and issues related to H2S hazards and exposures in the industry. Panelists included moderator Frank Perry, Chuck Simpson, Dan Brinkman and Gary Childress. Learn more about the conference at www .oshasafetyconference.org/events/ugm/osha2014. —ST

1

1/20/2012

1:31:55 PM

ASSE Sets the Standard. We have a variety of standards for purchase that will improve productivity, increase efficiency, reduce cost and minimize risk. ANSI Secretariat for:

• A10 Construction & Demolition Operations • A1264 Protection of Floor & Wall Openings • Z9 Ventilation Systems • Z10 Safety & Health Management • Z15 Motor Vehicle Safety • Z88 Respiratory Protection • Z117 Confined Spaces • Z244 Control of Hazardous Energy – Lockout/Tagout & Alternative Methods • Z359 Fall Protection • Z390 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Training Programs • Z490 Safety, Health & Environmental Training • Z590 Competence & Certification in the Safety Profession and Prevention Through Design

U.S. Technical Advisory Group Administrator for: • Fall Protection • Safety & Health Management Systems • Risk Management/Assessment

Is Your Safety Program Mature?

Paul Esposito, CSP, CIH, vice president of ESIS Global Risk Control Services, is pulling double duty at SeminarFest 2015. He will give two presentations: “Achieving a Higher Level of Program Maturity” and “Auditing Safety and Health Management Systems.” Esposito details a five-level continuum to evaluate safety. The first two levels encompass a compliance approach—both reactive and proactive. “Many companies are either waiting for things to happen and just react and keep their fingers crossed, while other companies are much more proactive,” he says. The culture and human performance of how you design redundant controls to allow for the fact that human beings are going to make mistakes is level four. The fifth level is sustainability, which is the level many organizations are pursuing. “Many people put programs together at all these various levels,” Esposito explains. “What I have found with my research and what I’m going to do with the workshop is teach people that the true validation that you’re actually implementing that level is whether you have the right complement of leading and lagging metrics,” he says. “In the workshop, we’re going to help people explain and evaluate what level they think they might be at, using various safety programs as examples.” As Esposito notes, sustainability is the highest level on the continuum. “You want things to be sustainable so that if new leadership comes in, or a company buys it out, programs are integrated enough throughout the organization. It is now a business expectation that these things get done irrespective of the leadership that shows up,” he explains. It is important to get stakeholders such as operational groups, human resources and engineering departments involved in the continuum assessment because they can provide information on what level the organization is and how to get to the next level. “Typically, most people will start small,” Esposito explains. “I use the analogy ‘eat the elephant one bite at a time.’ What most successful groups do is start with one program, one department, one site, and they’ll begin to implement these improvements so they learn within the organization what’s successful and what may be more of a challenge.” Communicating the results is also important, and not just from upper management. “Communication is never a onetime event,” says Esposito. “It’s an ongoing involvement with stakeholders.” Visit www.seminarfest.org for complete details. —BH

For more information visit www.asse.org/standards or contact customer service at +1.847.699.2929

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Leading Thoughts

Toward Global-Class Safety By Robert Pater

Any measure of global class must incorporate both current movement markers and past performance indicators.

S

tatistically, every organization cannot perform in a superior manner. Many will be at the mean, a few will rise and others will stay flat. This is not haphazard, as there are reasons for different levels of performance. But, who does not want to be world-class, stand out from the crowd or have the satisfaction of knowing that their safety performance is par excellence, their staff members highly protected and their executives proud of their results? Setting sights on global-class safety is not for everyone. First, rising to the top of any field requires continuous and committed attention and effort. This weeds out many who do not have the energy or interest to progress beyond good enough. It may not be an actual priority for some leaders to aim for global-class safety; this shakes up an organization’s cultural classes and sets. Further, it raises expectations of quality, consistency and engagement against which all efforts, interventions and actions will be measured. Slightly better-than-average results seem great when people are used to less, while even strongerthan-industry performance is disappointing when people expect global class. Penetrating the Global-Class Safety Myths What if a company decides to make this journey toward global-class safety? No standard definition for global-class safety exists, so how can stellar performance be measured? Many default toward trailing indicators, such as “How many injuries (reportables or recordables) did we have last period?” However, many professionals realize that these can be manipulated when there are ulterior motives, and pressures to do so infect many companies. For example, published reports exist of companies lying and hiding, going so far as to count an incident-caused day in the hospital as modified work. Yet, leading indicators alone do not accurately chart performance. While such markers to provide on-the-way feedback, they basically reflect, “We are not there yet but are moving in the right direction.” Any measure of global class must incorporate both current movement markers and past performance indicators. It should also include a company’s day-to-day operations, as well as how it responds to adversity/incidents; this may be the ultimate reflection of its true safety culture. Consider also that companies in different countries often have varying expectations or standards of what constitutes an injury. Many multinational organizations also adopt OSHA-like reporting. So, it can be difficult to determine if one is comparing tangerines to tacos. Then, there is the issue of

consistency. Is a company global class if it shows stellar results, however measured, for 1 or 2 years, then falls off? Where are the dividing lines? Defining Global Class Following are 12 significant characteristics, actions and approaches of global-class safety performance organizations. Admittedly, they are somewhat arbitrary (e.g., is only 88% expressed engagement a disqualifier?) and are meant to serve as general guidelines. But, they offer a checklist for charting. 1) Trailing indicator results are in the top 2% in their sector, measured on dimensions of reportables/100 employees/year. Although reportables is a more vague measure than lost-time injuries (LTI), many global class companies tend to measure this because they do not have significant numbers of more severe LTIs. 2) At least 90% of workers say they are actively engaged in safety. 3) A minimum of 85% say they believe that management is sincerely concerned about workers’ personal safety. 4) The company continues to pilot new approaches and methods. These include refining continuing processes. 5) Focus is on both at-work and at-home safety, with training and meetings addressing each. 6) Senior managers consistently communicate about the company’s safety commitment. This includes high expectations of no-blame, closecall, near-miss reporting; personal control for safe decisions and actions from bottom to top; and perceptions that the organization is fully committed to safety being intrinsic to its overall mission. 7) Safety expectations and training are clearly incorporated into hiring and orientation. Safety is a factor in promotions and performance reviews. 8) Credit is given for forward-thinking safety suggestions and innovations, however small. 9) Safety conversations are two-way with minimal lecturing and maximum back-and-forth. 10) Safety committees are active, have budgets and receive training. They are expected to lead, rather than merely meet for meetings’ sake. 11) Curiosity is valued with continued attempts to fix what is not broken (credit here to Anil Mathur, CEO of Alaska Tanker Co., recognized by many organizations as the world’s safest and most environmentally responsible oil tanker company). 12) The company demonstrates nimbleness and defaults toward trying innovative approaches rather than resting on past performance. In diametrical contrast, a highly bureaucratic organization intrinsically emphasizes maximizing stability

Robert Pater, M.A., is managing director of SSA/MoveSMART (www.movesmart.com). Clients include ADT, Alcoa, Amtrak, Domtar, DuPont, Harley-Davidson, Honda, Johnson & Johnson, Marathon Oil, Mead Westvaco, Michelin/BF Goodrich, MSC Industrial Supply, Pitney Bowes, Textron, United Airlines, U.S. Steel, Xerox and more. He has presented at ASSE conferences and delivered webinars. His book, Leading From Within, has been published in five languages.


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

by slowing down change; such a culture augurs against attaining global-class performance. What Gets in the Way of Highest-Level Performance? Highest-level performance can be torpedoed by limited skill sets, strategy or self discipline, such as these seven blockages: 1) Self disqualifying in advance. The selffulfilling prophecy of believing it is impossible to attain stellar performance. This also operates within certain professional sports teams that seem destined to self implode, to be perpetual losers, no matter how much they change players or leaders. Of course, this is a mind-set problem. 2) Impatience. Expecting grand paybacks too soon leads some to quit before potential interventions can take place. Impatience can also show itself as jumping too far ahead, as in “We have to be world-class now!” This occurs when the company’s culture is at level 2 of 4 (see “Cultural Leadership: Stepping Up the 4 Levels,” in PS, April 2012), or not maintaining focus, exhibiting a flavor-of-the-month mentality. Best companies hone processes in depth rather than attempting to do many things superficially. Repetition and consistent practice create mastery.

3) Command and control. Some leaders cannot stop themselves from wanting to control others or micromanaging in ways that undercut the engagement and shared efforts required for globalclass safety performance. Such engagements are critical after right policies, procedures and process safety are in place. Ultimately, ownership of safety performance has to occur at the level of each worker’s life. Even when minimally observed at work and at home, every individual feels internally committed to be attentive, uses good judgment, then calls on and utilizes best safety methods and equipment, and supports coworkers’ safety. Command-and-control leadership blocks creative solutions and generates push back resulting in resistance and compliance, diverting the company away from the path of highest-level culture and performance. 4) Leadership insecurity. Change threatens to upset the cart, which some leaders may fear is already shaky. Doing the same things eventually shows diminishing returns. For example, people stop paying attention to the same safety topics, posters, videos and training communicated in the same way. Moving toward safety mastery requires taking a risk to try new things.

Visit www .asse.org/ psextra to read additional material mentioned in this article.

It’s one thing to talk safety culture. It’s another to create sustainable culture change! Culture Change Consultants Inc. The best long-term results. Discover how companies such as GE, PSE&G and MillerCoors transformed their safety cultures utilizing our proven methodology and tools. Apply the Culture Change process developed by Steven Simon, Ph.D., the “father of safety culture.”

Upcoming 3-Day Implementing Culture Change Courses San Diego, CA • San Diego, CA • San Diego, CA • San Diego, CA •

Feb. 24-26, 2015 May 12-14, 2015 Sept. 15-17, 2015 Nov. 17-19, 2015

Visit www.culturechange.com or call 914-315-6076 to learn more!

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Leading Thoughts

10 Keys to Global Class Safety Let’s assume that a company already has basic, critical safety groundwork in place: honed operating policies and procedures, communications, PPE, guidelines and training. How does it then ascend to the top of the charts? 1) Adopt a global-class mind-set. All leaders associate commitment with being best in class. They abandon the concept of a steady state and realize that ongoing improvements are essential to sustain current performance, much less ascend to higher planes. They frequently apply a quality mindset to safety and build best practices into everything rather than trying to deal with problems after the fact. Realizing that the strongest drive emanates from within, leaders eschew external incentives that have tangible value (e.g., buying safe actions). Rather, they may extend recognition but mainly encourage each person to be drawn to the personal benefits of safety. Leaders position safety, productivity, quality and satisfaction on par, avoiding strategies that put safety at odds with productivity. 2) Transfer skills. Leaders transfer skills and realize that only motivation, will or a strong, internal drive is not enough to achieve highest-level performance. They seek and disseminate more effective mental and physical methods for fulfilling tasks as efficiently and safely as possible. And, such world-class skills do exist. 3) Relentlessly invite engagement. High engagement levels are a hallmark of global-class organizations. Engagement creates energy and receptivity; boosts support; overcomes workermanager and worker-worker divisions; generates creative ideas; and furthers 20 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

overall safety performance and culture. It is essential to build engagement into every process, rather than have on-and-off campaigns or only applying these to select areas (e.g., safety committees.) For proven methods, see “Strategies for Leading Engagement,” in PS, May 2012. 4) Intervene from top-down to a scissors approach. It is more effective to cut through a piece of material with scissors than just one knife coming down. As cultures move toward global class, movement is from executives and other managers predominantly driving safety to their sharing leadership with line workers, who carry the baton of on-the-floor training and reinforcing best practices. (For more information, see my article, “Scissoring Through Barriers” at http://tinyurl.com/Pater Scissoring.) 5) Motivation becomes more personal and positive. Intel CEO Emeritus Andrew Grove wrote, “Fear never creates peak performance, only minimal performance.” Many decisions and actions that affect safety are made personally and often without external monitoring. Raising safety culture and performance toward global class requires moving away from old-style motivation of guilt, shame and punishment toward positively enlisting people. 6) Inspire energy beyond just replicating processes. Energy fuels movement toward next performance levels. Energy is also needed to sustain highest-level performance. This entails injecting new ways to require training. Sincere passion makes points. Conversely, remove points if your company does the same things the same way. 7) Shift from outside-in to insideout. Safety becomes internally driven. Emphasis is on stepping up from a rule-based culture in which workers are expected to understand, remember and apply an ever-increasing set of rules and procedures. As cultures move toward global class, employees are encouraged to think and understand more and memorize less. While there are always rules, policies and procedures, these are made as simple to recall and apply as possible; the aim is to help every employee make better individual decisions. Educating everyone on how to adjust to changing conditions tangibly backs this. There are fewer blanket catch phrases (“Lift with your legs,” “Keep your wrists straight”) and

www.asse.org

greater emphasis is placed on deeper understanding of principles involved in safely transferring potentially accumulating forces, as well as how to actually apply knowledge and skills to various tasks. Improving companies prefer to transfer principles and appropriate practices, rather than just handing down policies and procedures. 8) Lower radar, discern better. Global-class companies meticulously analyze job sites and work on hazard prevention and control. They shave down seemingly tolerable risks. This entails fine-tuning perceptions, or as Ron Bowles calls it, lowering “level of accepted risk.” The emphasis is on seeing potential problems at the earliest possible stages, then tuning this perception in an ongoing process in which everyone probes and is helped to adjust their underlying assumptions about what is safe. Better to make a modification when sensing lower back tension than waiting until after it evolves to disabling pain. 9) Elicit feedback and disconnects. Most organizations send mixed messages about safety. Proclamations and wishful thinking coexist with hard deadlines and peak work pressures. The more frequent and stronger these mixed messages, the greater the disconnection between workers and managers, which then devolves into distrust and low morale. As companies move toward global class, they put a premium on surfacing and reducing mixed messages that are readily hidden, but still affect performance. 10) Balance strategic approach. Best companies develop an ongoing bestof-both-worlds mind-set of protecting and preserving what is still energizing and working with a change orientation of progressing and propelling, injecting new methods, applications, skill sets and tool sets. Organizations stuck at lower levels are often off balance (typically too much on the “we’ve always done it this way” side). Conclusion While global-class safety may only be attainable for the most ardent and committed, most companies can still realize significant and lasting improvements toward highest levels of safety culture and performance by first understanding what it takes to progress, then implementing those strategies needed to move up.

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/uMBERTOPAnTALOnE

5) Not understanding the process of attaining relatively quick and sustaining change. For example, assuming that “I tell and they do” actually takes and lasts. Or, thinking that will alone is enough to create improvement, without backing this with needed skills and structure. 6) Not strategically identifying blockages to raising the culture. 7) Not seeing where the company should go or what global class looks like. While not every company can achieve global class, almost any organization can attain higher levels of safety culture with the right approach.

ASSE Connection

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/SHAnE_d_RYMER

Nominate a Colleague for the 2015 Triangle Award for Heroic Dedication

ASSE is accepting nominations for its third annual Triangle Award for Heroic Dedication to the OSH profession. The Triangle Award is given in honor of the 146 garment workers who died in the 1911 New York City Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The award is presented to an OSH professional who, in the course of going beyond his/her normal duties, either prevents or minimizes physical injury, loss of life or substantial property damage in a workplace at which s/he has complete or shared responsibility for the safety of the people and/ or security of the property. Nominations are due March 15, 2015. Visit www.asse.org/assets/1/7/ASSE_Triangle _Award_Candidate_Form1.pdf to download a nomination form.

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/PiCTAFOLiO

2014 Future Safety Leaders Video Recap The 10th annual Future Safety Leaders Conference (www.asse .org/membership/student_ fslc) brought together students from more than 40 universities nationwide in Schaumburg, IL, for a 2-day conference to help these future leaders of the OSH profession prepare to transition from school to the workplace. The event provides an outlet for

students to network with peers, OSH professionals and representatives from employers; engage in roundtable discussions; explore options for advanced degrees; and learn how to be effective leaders and communicators. Visit www.asse.org/multi media to view a video recap of the conference.

ASSE Expands Outreach to Latino/Hispanic Workforce According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fatal injury rate for Hispanic workers is higher than the national average for all U.S. workers. Preliminary data show that 797 Hispanic or Latino workers were killed by work-related injuries in 2013—more than 15 deaths a week, or two Latino workers killed every day of the year (the highest since 2008). ASSE recognizes the importance of changing these trends by reaching out to this at-risk population to educate and empower workers. As part of this effort, ASSE has launched the first Bilingual Spokespeople Bureau that comprises 11 ASSE members who are bilingual, bicultural and committed to reach out to the Hispanic market to reduce the number of occupational fatalities and injuries among Latino workers. These members will speak about the importance of workplace safety in Hispanic media outlets and will focus their attention in campaigns such as fall prevention and heat-related illness prevention, among others. Jose Velasquez, CSP, CMIOSH, says the initiative will help raise awareness. “We will become the voice that can help overcome the language barrier

between employers and the Latino workforce,” Valasquez says. Mario Varela says that as OSH professionals “it is incumbent upon us to give back to our profession, the industry and the community at large by helping wherever we can in educating [Hispanic] workers and their employers about OSH hazards, risks, protection and rights, just as we do with any other worker from any walk of life.” Since 2004, ASSE’s SPALW Common Interest Group ASSE Members of the Bilingual Spokespeople Bureau (www.asse.org/practice attend media training at ASSE headquarters. Front row specialties/spalw) has been (L to R): Zef Banda, Diana Cortez, Hector Escárcega, providing safety professionals Jerry Rivera and Angelica Nava. Back row (L to R): an arena to develop strategies Ernie García, Jose Velasquez and Mario Varela. for addressing issues related growing workforce.” As part of the efto the Latino workforce. “Throughout forts to reach out to the Hispanic workthe years SPALW has brought attenforce, ASSE is developing partnerships tion to the need to proactively address with other associations, organizations the high incidence of deaths, injuries and individuals that share similar goals and illnesses among Hispanic workto educate, create awareness and take ers,” says ASSE President Trish Ennis, proactive steps to address issues faced CSP, ARM. “This new step will give by the Latino workforce. the Society an opportunity to have a profound impact on the future of this www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015 ProfessionalSafety 21


Safety Conversations Catching Drift & Weak Signals By Rosa Antonia Carrillo & Neil Samuels

D

uring the authors’ many years of work to improve safety, they have interviewed hundreds of employees from all levels in many organizations. Yet, one interaction in particular stands out. After a fatality at a Georgia plant, a large group of employees and supervisors gathered to provide insight into the incident’s root causes. Despite IN BRIEF being pushed to identify other •Drift and weak signals (clues to possibilities, they remained potential incidents) are often hidden. adamant that the root cause Even when known, strong socioculwas a lack of trust and open tural barriers prevent people from communication. The group retalking about them. ported that it had long tried to •This article explores research that bring the potential dangers of supports the need to encourage, equip that situation to management, and coach managers and supervisors but “they just didn’t listen.” on the art of conversation with their IN BRIEF The authors have spent most employees as theofmost •This is a sample the influential of their careers helping people form of communication. abstract text. listen to each other because •The is research areas include social •This a sample of the they have come to agree with neuroscience, abstract text. relationship psycholthose plant employees. Often, ogy, complexity, drift, weak signals, information to prevent a failinformation management through reure is available, but managelational coordination, and the role of ment does not understand it leaders in managing and influencing or employees do not discuss behavior. The authors combine these it because they are afraid or concepts into a direct approach to they feel it will not make a difmanaging the human/organizational ference. Unless managers can factors of safety performance. conduct and encourage the right conversations across all organization levels, preventable fatalities and incidents will continue. This state of affairs exists partly because incident analysis and corrective actions focus on regulations, technology, policy and procedure, and the idea that human error is largely responsible for incidents. These are premises with which not all thought leadRosa Antonia Carrillo, MSOD, is president of Carrillo & Associates Inc., specializing in safety leadership consulting. Her clients include AES, NRG, SCE, GE, Honeywell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and World Bank. Carrillo has published articles in Professional Safety and Journal of Safety Research. Neil Samuels, MSOD, president of Profound Conversations Inc., helps leaders rediscover their strengths, clarify their commitments, and change their organizations. He devoted 27 years of his career to Amoco/BP, 10 as a geologist and 17 as an internal consultant. In his fi-


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

ers agree (Dekker, 2006; Hollnagel, Woods & Levenson, 2006; Reason, 1997). In contrast, evidence shows that the analysis of complex incidents must emphasize an understanding of human and systems behavior, and that subsequent corrective actions would rely heavily on a specific set of skills and attitudes that create mindful conversations. As Mark Twain said, “We must stop all this communication and start having a conversation.” The idea that certain types of conversations are crucial to incident prevention is part of relationship-based safety (Carrillo, 2012) and the application of relationship psychology, an offshoot of complexity theory, to safety (Carrillo, 2011). These studies address questions such as, Why are there still incidents due to people do not following procedure? Why do we still struggle with getting management to listen to employees despite learning from the Columbia and Challenger disasters? Why, despite stated goals such as no incidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment, do all three continue to occur? This article aims to convince the reader that conversation is a necessary approach to address these questions. First presented is the concept of polarity: two apparently conflicting goals that are both necessary for success. For example, employees can either meet the numbers or follow all the safety procedures. To dissipate this myth, management would have to make time for the many conversations needed to effectively assess risk and clarify priorities. Instead, to create an illusion of clarity, most people respond with the either/or mentality that incident prevention requires always putting safety first. With so much emphasis being constantly placed on production, it makes sense to say “safety first” as a balance, but this can create a different set of problems later. nal internal role, Samuels worked in London for 4 years as manager of organization development for Europe, leading a team of consultants serving 30,000 employees in 13 countries. In 2006, he founded Profound Conversations. Clients have included Rolls Royce, GlaxoSmithKline, Celebrity Cruise Lines, BP, U.S. Geological Survey and Kimberly Clark. Samuels has presented and published in the management, education and organization development fields, and he served as adjunct faculty at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management.

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/kALi ninE LLC

The second perspective examines how relationships, feelings and emotions are the primary influences on human behavior. Nearly 40 years ago, Graen (1976) presented evidence that the relationship between supervisors and subordinates affects the subordinates’ responsibility, decision influence, access to resources and performance. More recently, neuroscience research has shown that most of the influences on safety performance rest in this invisible realm because people’s emotions, beliefs, thoughts, decisions and, therefore, actions are influenced by personal relationships with others (Cozolino, 2014; Rock, 2009; Schwartz, Gaito & Lennick, 2011). This research supports the conclusion that strengthening relationships between leaders and followers improves performance. Gittell’s (2009) work on relational coordination has taken this concept further by showing how relationships across functions and levels of hierarchy create the network of accountability for safety that so many managers desire. Third, this article examines possibilities for managing drift and the importance of building sensitivity to weak signals to allow timely corrective actions (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2005). The underlying premise is that the information needed to avert failure is available all around, and that people are the best sensors to recognize and interpret its meaning. Two challenges prevent access to this information: 1) most people lack the ability to effectively recognize early signals of drift into failure (Dekker, 2011); and 2) few managers can create the climate for open conversation because culturally they are trained to give information (answers) rather than ask questions (Schein, 2013). Schein suggests that managers adopt an approach of humble inquiry to encourage employees to bring forth information. Finally, the authors offer specific actions leaders can take to put these concepts into practice to develop a culture of accountability and make a difference in their organization’s safety performance. The Polarity Principle in Safety Management: Moving From Either/Or to Both/And One common approach to managing drift and raising the level of trust and/or open communication is to promote safety as a priority over production. Unfortunately, based on feedback from supervisor and employee interviews, saying “safety is first” does not address the reality of conflicting priorities that employees and supervisors often manage. This dilemma is an example of how to create a safety polarity rather than managing performance (Carrillo, 2005, 2011). The concept of polarity management has gained increasing attention (Collins & Porras, 2002; John-

son, 1992; Koestenbaum, 1978; 2002). Today’s executives face a serious dilemma caused by the perceived polarity of people versus profit. They are sensitive to the negative impact that fatalities, serious injuries and environmental damage have on company image and profits. These negative impacts must be avoided while still meeting shareholder profit expectations. Collins and Porras (2002) use the term paradox, describing it as the “tyranny of the or.” A paradox or polarity is a pair of interdependent goals that need each other over time to create and sustain success. When the focus is on one aspect, to the neglect of the other, the result is suboptimal performance. However, when an organization leverages them both as a system, it is better able to achieve goals. Other polarities can be change or stability; low cost or high quality; planning or opportunism. Collins and Porras (2002) suggest replacing the either/or thinking with both/and thinking. Many agree, but it is much easier said than done. In safety, many executives struggle with how to communicate the importance of both safety and production goals while upholding the ethical standard of caring for people first. A misstep in this area can reduce employee engagement and management credibility. So which is more important, achieving zero fatalities or delivering the numbers? This is a false choice. Some organizations avoid this apparent conflict by saying “safety is a value” instead of “safety first.” Does this address the underlying conflicts that people face as they evaluate and take risks in their daily work? As a manager once told the authors: “You will get scolded for safety violations and for excessive energy costs, but you will get fired for missing productivity targets.” Polarities are a result of how the human brain works. We can focus on only one aspect at a time (Koestenbaum, 1978). This represents a significant barrier to communication unless the manager is aware of it. When a leader talks about production, and does not specifically mention safety, the listener may assume that safety is not as important because his/her attention has been focused on a different aspect of the polarity. www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015

Unless managers can conduct and encourage the right conversations across all organization levels, preventable fatalities and incidents will continue.


People continually communicate and interact, and in those interactions create a common understanding of reality, both as individuals and as a group.

Case Study: Polarity An example of polarity arose during an investigation to learn why the entire safety committee of a pharmaceutical facility resigned in 1 day. The team leader explained that after a chemist was injured, the director ended his report by telling everyone to focus on the work because much time had been lost. According to the team leader, the director “did not care about people so why bother serving on the safety committee?” This after the director had spent the earlier part of the meeting talking about his concern for people (Carrillo, 2006). To move from either/or to both/and requires the leader to 1) become aware of the polarity; 2) emphasize both aspects of that polarity; and 3) always end with what one wants in the foreground (Carrillo, 2011, 2012; Collins & Porras, 2002; Johnson, 1992; Koestenbaum, 1991). Managing polarity also requires aligning the reward system to recognize both. Without such alignment, organizations can easily (and unintentionally) reinforce undesired behaviors (Kerr, 1995). Kerr (2014) raises this issue with regard to the recent GM ignition switch safety issues. He asks: “Does GM’s reward system dispense incentives for cost controls even to the detriment of product safety? Does it discourage employees from acting on their awareness of problems?” Based on a report by former federal prosecutor Anton Valukas, he suspects the answer to both questions is yes. Although managers’ bonuses are based partly on vehicle quality improvements, and safety is supposed to be paramount, cost is ‘everything’ at GM, and the company’s atmosphere probably discouraged individuals from raising safety concerns. Earlier this summer, a former GM manager described a workplace in which the mention of any problems was unacceptable.

Figure 1

The Iceberg Model

Influences on safety performance that lie below the waterline. Solutions: Technical Behavior observation More rules More audits

Visible: Profit Deadlines Technology Regulations Measures Behaviors

Invisible: Thoughts Emotions Beliefs Relationships


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

The Iceberg Metaphor: Powerful Influences on Safety Performance Lie Below the Waterline The earliest warning signs of breakdown in the safety management systems start below the waterline. They are invisible because they are either hidden from sight, unnoticed or people are reluctant to speak about them. Addressing weak signals (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2005) and drift (Dekker, 2011; Snook, 2002) is the most proactive approach to higher safety performance. Adapting Hall’s (1976) culture iceberg metaphor (Figure 1), we can see the traditional, visible, tangible approaches to measure and address safety sit above the waterline. Below lie the invisible, tacit or intangible influences that may often be neglected because they are difficult to address and measure. The Relational Coordination Survey (RCS) is a tool to measure these aspects of organizational life. Above the waterline sit the phenomena one sees, hears and touches such as behaviors, symbols and signs (e.g., hold the handrail); policies and guidelines [Shell’s 12 Life-Saving Rules (Shell, 2014)]; and programs and espoused values (e.g., safety comes first). The focus of these safety efforts relies on behavior observation, engineering controls and procedures/standards. Are these effective? Clearly they have been, as safety has dramatically improved over the past few decades. But they are clearly insufficient, as the number of fatal work injuries has not been significantly reduced between 1992 and 2012 (BLS, 2012). For example, after the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion, BP redoubled its focus on processes and policy by implementing an operating management system (OMS). This system was an attempt to control various situations through policy, technology and procedure, but it did little to address the underlying social aspects of safety. Of the 48 subelements in the OMS, only two dealt even remotely with communication and culture, and neither of those mentioned relationships in any way (BP International Ltd., 2008). Just 5 years later, the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred. Again, BP focused above the waterline and created an entirely new organization focused on safety and operational risk. This group generated new requirements with which businesses had to comply and audited that compliance. However, little effort was made to address what lay below the surface (BP, 2011). Why this continued emphasis on what is above the waterline? Because people in this organization (like most) focused where they feel comfortable. It is hard to go below the waterline because it is messy, and few people are trained to face and address conflict, resentment or other strong emotions. The scientific method relies on data that can be empirically tested—emotions are difficult to measure and track to outcomes. Yet, humans intuitively know that emotions, beliefs and relationships play a key role in how well people work together, and the power of relationships has begun to be documented through research.

The Power of Relationships & Conversations Relationships begin at birth. Without physical contact from caregivers, infants suffer failure to thrive syndrome despite receiving adequate nourishment (McLean & Price, 2011). The result may not be quite so extreme in adults, but the quality of relationships has a tremendous impact on life (Brooks, 2011; Cozolino, 2014; Gergen, 2009). Because people are hardwired for relationships, we cooperate to survive and thrive. This makes us interdependent and reliant on the quality of information received from each other (Rock, 2009). In organizations, people continually communicate and interact, and in those interactions create a common understanding of reality, both as individuals and as a group (Gergen, 2009). Someone wishing to change the current understanding within a particular group must first become part of that network. That means having conversations with people. One cannot lead by sitting in an office or in meetings that do not include the people who report to him/her or whom one affects. This all points to the power of conversation, a social, unforced, unplanned collaborative activity in which people jointly make sense of what is going on (Stacey, 2010). It is through this emergent collaborative sense making that people continuously shape their reality and are being shaped by it (Shaw, 2002). Thus, more than anything else, the conversations that happen in an organization produce current results. Neuroscience Research: Why Relationships Matter Recent neuroscience research shows the significant impact of conversations and relationships and their link to management (Cozolino, 2014; Rock, 2009; Schwartz, Gaito & Lennick, 2011). Rock (2009) discusses five particular attributes that affect the brain’s threat/reward center and produce the same effects as shown on functional magnetic resonance imaging as physical pain or financial reward. All five—status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness (SCARF)—reflect the nature and quality of relationships. The implications for this approach to safety are many. If a worker feels put down (loss of status), unsure of what to do or what is happening (uncertain), micromanaged (autonomy), ostracized (relatedness) or mistreated (fairness), his/her brain reacts as if s/he had been slapped in the face. The typical human reaction to such threats is either fight or flight. And since physical contact is frowned on in most workplaces, employees disengage. In this state of mind they are unlikely to put any of the company’s goals first, including safety. The corollary is that when people feel respected and valued as team members, when they do their job their way, and they and their teammates are treated fairly, the same reward centers of their brains light up as if they received raises. Employees in this state of mind are much more likely to act in positive ways. Other research has shown that when a brain’s reward centers are being activated, the worker is smarter, physically and emotionally stronger, and

more innovative (Fredrickson, 1998). Imagine the impact that would have on safety in the plant. How can one build strong communication that rewards rather than threatens? Think about the relationship between a shift supervisor and his/ her team. Is s/he busy taking care of administrative burdens and sending e-mails to the team at the end of the day, or is s/he walking the floor meeting them in their workspace? In some places, a manager walking the floor is concerning due to past conversations. “What’s wrong now?” is a typical response. Employees feel threatened by a manager’s presence rather than reassured. Changing those conversations can affect this perceived equality status, thus opening the channels of communication. When s/he does meet them, is s/he genuinely curious about what they are doing, what they have noticed about the safety of their own and their teammates’ jobs and is s/he noticing and rewarding their safe working practices? If s/he does this right (and is genuine about trying) remarkable things can happen. Case Study: SCARF in Practice One example that demonstrates the power of applying SCARF principles to safety improvement is from the vice president of safety for a large North American-based industrial minerals company. This company has struggled to deal with its most frequent (yet less serious) injuries: slips/trips/falls at ground level, hand/finger injuries and overexertion injuries. Though not life-threatening, these injuries are a concern, as they consistently appear in the safety performance data. In addition, company sites tend to become overly focused on prevention of these injuries. What most concerns the vice president of safety, however, are the hazards that may induce life-altering injuries and potential fatalities. Given this company’s work environment with its prevalence of high voltage, high pressure, high temperature, high horsepower and large mobile equipment, the company needed to ensure that all sites maintain their focus on the top safety risks and ensured that every employee elevates his/her own personal safety guard to recognize and respect all hazards. Rather than address this issue at the executive level and roll-out directives to the organization as a series of new policies, procedures and engineering standards, the company took a different approach that captured the upside of SCARF and, thus, fully engaged people in the solutions. The company reached out to all plant and mine managers plus the safety leader at each site and asked them to identify what they believed were the top hazards that could cause life-altering injuries or a potential fatality at their respective sites. The company combined all the responses into a master list totaling 40 hazards. The list was sent back to the sites to rank and identify the most significant hazards across the entire company. Nine items rose to the top with a notable gap between those and item number 10. Examples of the high hazard, top safety risks identified included: www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015

Someone wishing to change the current understanding within a particular group must first become part of that network. That means having conversations with people.


•work performance in vertical mine shafts; •energy isolation (e.g., lockout/tagout); •working at heights; •interface between mobile equipment and pedestrian workers. With the top hazards identified, the company asked the sites to assemble individual teams to address each hazard. Nine teams were organized (one team for each hazard) consisting of 6 to 12 members per team; a total of more than 80 employees across the nine teams. Team membership consisted of frontline workers and supervisors from multiple sites who were experienced in conducting work activities associated with the top hazards. From June 2013 through June 2014, on a rotational basis, the nine teams met for a weeklong back-to-the-drawing-board type hazard analysis. The result was the development and distribution to all sites of a policy, procedures and standards specific to each top hazard that not only complied with applicable regulatory requirements, but contained best practices and mitigation procedures that exceeded the regulatory requirements. Most notably, through the teams’ hazard analyses and their conversations, many of the risks and exposures within each of the nine hazards were eliminated. For example, for some tasks that required fall protection, mechanical or structural controls were installed; this eliminated the need for employees to conduct the tasks at elevated heights (i.e., the worker can now complete the task from ground level with no need to don fall protection gear). As the implementation of this initiative progresses, the company continues to increase its organizational confidence in preventing possible life-altering injuries and potential fatalities. Trust & Cross Levels of Organizational Research What organizational cross-level dynamics offer further insight into the use of conversation as an early warning system to prevent failure? The opening story of this article mentions a dialogue where employees believed that lack of trust and open communication were the root causes of a fatality. Until now, the focus has been the many challenges of creating a culture of open communication from a leadership perspective (for both managers and safety professionals). The authors have proposed that communication is affected by and affects the quality of the relationship between leaders and followers, ultimately impacting trust, respect and mutual obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Trust is recognized as a potentially important factor in safety performance (Carrillo-Simon, 1996; Conchie & Donald, 2006, 2008; Schein, 2013). While this article has focused on the relationship between leader and follower, studying cross-levels offers further insights about the dynamics influencing relationships and trust (Klein, Dansereau & Hall, 1994). For example, while studying trust, Conchie and Donald (2006) found that attitudes toward offshore management were the strongest safety performance predictor at an industry level. At a facility level, however, safety performance was 26 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

best predicted by attitudes toward contractors and colleagues. These findings suggest that for optimal efficacy, safety initiatives should target attitudes toward specific groups. Furthermore, trust is not static; it can grow or contract based on the actions of individuals, groups or organizations (Koza & Lewin, 1998). Trust is bidirectional and coevolutionary (Currall & Inkpen, 2006). While organizational or higher management actions typically influence trust levels, individuals such as whistleblowers can have a dramatic impact on the organization. This idea is central to our concept of educating every individual on how to communicate in a way that creates, maintains or restores trust. Because organizational levels affect each other, loss of trust in one can affect another. Conversely, a strong trusting relationship between two managers could transfer to their groups. This interaction and growth in trust at the interpersonal, intergroup and interorganizational levels over time is what Currall and Inkpen (2006) call the coevolution of trust. The implications may be that the solutions to improving communication lie as much in the interrelationships between levels as with that between individuals or groups. If so, the dialogues and conversations being advocated should take place across functional boundaries and hierarchical levels. Schein (2013) observes that trust in the workplace means some degree of personal relationship that will lead to more open communication, especially from employee to boss. Can the boss trust the subordinate to speak up if the boss is about to make a mistake? This level of trust is difficult to achieve, yet that is what is needed. Schein holds that this level of trust can only be achieved if the boss is willing to get to know his/her followers more personally and creates a climate in which it is psychologically safe to speak up. Relational Coordination: Measuring the Quality of Relationships & Communication Everyone knows intuitively that more communication is crucial to success. This often translates into more meetings. The theory of relational coordination (RC) has produced considerable insight into what makes a meaningful exchange of information, which can help determine how to improve communication. This research also shows that organizational practices such as leadership, rewards, accountability, recruitment, training and information systems drive the quality of information exchange that ultimately affects quality and efficiency. RC includes seven dimensions that characterize the communication between members of highperformance organizations (Table 1). RC is a scientifically proven theory of the relational dynamics behind effective communication tested in complex environments such as airlines and hospitals (Gittell, 2003, 2009). RC is conceptually connected to the LeaderMember Exchange Theory of Leadership (LMX). A groundbreaking study (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991, 1995) documented both the natural development of the relationship between man-

Table 1

ager and follower, and the tendency of managers to quickly decide whom to trust or listen to. Once these in-groups and out-groups form, they are not conscious and are difficult to change, creating strong barriers to the free flow of information and diverse perspectives. Gittell’s research incorporated these relational principles and the idea of social networks. She developed a survey tool to measure RC, which has been used to pinpoint communication breakdowns and how to overcome them. The tool, found at www.rcrc.brandeis.edu, requires little technology or administrative burden and provides specific and actionable data. Table 1 shows an adapted version of the survey to safety. The first three dimensions describe the context that gives meaning to the information (i.e., shared goals, shared knowledge, mutual respect). The next three relate to the qualities of viable information (i.e., frequency, accuracy, timeliness). The last dimension, problem solving, refers to maintaining a focus on the problem, rather than blaming individuals. These dimensions facilitate the transfer of knowledge as well as influence the decision-making process. Application of RC to Safety Management As Stacey (2007) and Shaw (2002) suggest, think of the organization as people in constant communication and interaction, influencing planned outcomes in often unpredictable ways. That is why policies, procedures and standards, which are static and quickly become irrelevant if not discussed regularly, are insufficient to control outcomes. Instead people rely on their own knowledge and experience (tribal knowledge) and conversations with others in the here and now. How do OSH professionals engage people in the right conversations relevant to risk assessment and safe action? One path offered by RC research is to first identify the key players involved in a core process and explore where and how they are interdependent. Then, create a conversation where they evaluate the effectiveness of their communication and collaboration as it relates to the operation’s risks and hazards. Questions discussed during this phase include, How does my work affect yours? How does yours affect mine? Are we dropping the ball? Do you feel I have your back? Using the seven RC dimensions in an anonymous survey and conversation guide will reveal where and how the interdependence is breaking down. One potential outcome is that participants identify who needs to be included in specific conversations and what type of information needs to be exchanged. In the past, people may have felt meetings were a waste of time, but now they look forward to these new gatherings because it helps them do their work more effectively, more safely and with less stress. The Role of Leaders in Creating Conversations High-quality conversation is critical to creating relationships of trust, respect and open communi-

Dimensions of the Relational Coordination Survey RC dimension

Description of interaction with groups/roles involved in a process Shared goals Do people in these groups/roles share goals in addressing safety concerns in the work process? Shared knowledge Do people in these groups/roles know about the work each person does to address safety concerns in the work process? Mutual respect Do people in these groups/roles respect each other’s work to address safety concerns in the work process? Frequent How frequently do people in each of these communication groups/roles communicate with each other about safety concerns in the work process? Timely Do people in these groups/roles communicate with communication each other in a timely way about safety concerns in the work process? Accurate Do people in these groups/roles communicate with communication each other accurately about safety concerns in the work process? Problem-‐solving When there is a problem with safety concerns in communication the work process, do people in these groups/roles blame others or work together to solve the problem?

cation that are necessary to surface information hidden below the waterline. These are the often-unvoiced concerns/issues that could lead to failures. Thus, relationships (or as one company calls it, social safety) are the critical elements that create a safe and productive workplace. What can leaders do to enhance them? It requires a significant change in the leadership style from one of control to one of collaboration. This implies that a manager’s key role is as a creator of conversations. Whether engaging in their own conversations or enabling others’, leaders should remember the SCARF model and that every conversation catalyzes either the human brain’s threat or reward response (sibebar at right). Genuine praise lights up the reward centers, so leaders should spend more time catching people doing things correctly rather than being focused on finding fault. Holding conversations for business context, thoroughly explaining the rationale for change and actively involving staff can help create a sense of certainty. Empowering teams to make choices and find their own ways of working safely and delivering business results creates a great sense of autonomy. Including people in the decision-making process and helping integrate new members into teams helps build relatedness. Transparency, treating everyone similarly and doing the right thing helps generate fairness. Acting in this manner and creating the kind of environment where others do likewise engages employees. www.asse.org

SCARF Definitions & Supporting Actions Status

•Treat others with respect. •Ask questions—listen. •Ask for help, especially down through hierarchical levels. Certainty

•Share information, especially during times of change. •Broadly involve others in planning and implementation of changes. Autonomy

•Let others make as many decisions about their work as possible. •Focus on the what not the how. Relatedness

•Build trust—be inclusive. •Get to know people. Fairness

•Avoid favoritism. •Favor transparency.

JANUARY 2015


What difference might a leader’s focus on social interaction around safety make?

Case History: Missing Opportunity for Conversation What difference might a leader’s focus on social interaction around safety make? Let’s consider the final moments of the BP Macondo oil well disaster and make an educated guess. Following is an excerpt from a New York Times article that was based on interviews with 21 crew members from the drilling contractor and on sworn testimony and written statements from nearly all of the other 94 people who escaped the rig. Their accounts, along with thousands of documents describing the rig’s maintenance and operations, made it possible to piece together the Deepwater Horizon’s last hours. This short story illustrates the quality (or lack thereof) of the relationship between the senior staff of Transocean (the drilling contractor) and BP. To set the scene, Caleb Holloway, who worked the drilling floor has just been called down to Jimmy Harrell’s office (the senior-most Transocean leader on the rig): “All right,” Harrell began. “Close the door.” Harrell handed him a box. Inside was a handsome silver watch—a reward for spotting a worn bolt on the derrick. “You did a really good derrick inspection,” Harrell said. The gesture was typical of the potent safety culture on the Horizon, where before every job, no matter how routine, crewmembers were required to write out a plan identifying all potential hazards. Despite the long hours and harsh conditions, injuries were remarkably rare—so rare that two BP executives and two senior Transocean officials had flown out earlier in the day to praise the crew’s safety performance. (Note the focus on above the waterline solutions.) But the men were also there to discuss the Horizon’s crowded schedule. Along with finishing the Macondo, the rig had to complete several repairs before beginning two other high-priority projects for BP. The executives were keen to keep the Horizon on track. In e-mails, BP managers—whose bonuses were heavily based on saving money and beating deadlines—kept asking when the well would be finished. Holloway returned to work, and he and the other floor hands got busy cleaning the drilling floor. They avoided the drill shack, though. Lately, there had been too much stress there. (Emphasis added.) Holloway could tell when the BP company men got on Revette’s (the Transocean driller) nerves: he would rub his head a certain way. This had happened a lot on the Macondo. The Horizon might have been Transocean’s rig, but it was BP’s well, and it was obvious that the guys in the shack felt that the BP men were breathing down their necks. “You could just tell,” Holloway said.

What kind of relationship existed between senior Transocean and BP personnel? Was there enough trust, respect and open communication to call a conversation when Revette’s weak signal was broadcast (the rubbing of his head)? How might things have unfolded differently had a senior leader from either company brought together the key players and created a conversation about that very point? 28 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

What Is Drift? Is it Manageable? Drifting from procedure is inevitable, mostly invisible and can have deadly consequences, especially in high-hazard environments. It is yet another piece of evidence to encourage investment below the waterline for incident prevention. The investment is in creating the opportunity for conversations about drift and weak signals. Practical drift, a term coined by Snook (2002), summarizes how goal conflicts, multiple dynamic interactions between systems, short- and longterm feedback loops, and standards for performance affect the consistent implementation of standard operating procedures. Dekker (2011) shortened the term to drift incorporating the dynamics of complexity science. Snook and Dekker have observed that the usual incident investigation process, which ends in a long list of corrective activities, rarely lowers serious injuries and fatalities. Dekker (2011) and Connor (2012) observe that drift is always easy to see in hindsight. However, hindsight does not predict future drift. In fact, studies have found that hindsight bias is the greatest obstacle to evaluating the performance of humans in complex systems after bad outcomes. (Dekker, 2007; Hugh & Dekker, 2009; Woods & Cook, 1994) Weick and Sutcliffe (2005) introduced the concept of weak signals. They found that the biggest difference between highly reliable organizations (HRO) and other organizations was that the former had a tendency to detect the significance of small signs or weak signal and respond strongly when needed. Early drift is a form of weak signals. If it is inevitable how can it be managed? For Dekker (2011), drifting into failure is not so much about equipment breakdowns. It is about an organization not adapting and coping effectively with the complexity of its environment. Dekker (2011), and Weick and Sutcliffe (2005) advise tapping into the intelligence and observations of the workforce; however, this is a significant challenge as seen in the following case study. Case Study: Two Power Utilities Address Drift Two utilities attacked drift: one identifed unbreakable rules, the other identified rules to live by. The idea is to get employee (i.e., union) buy-in to a few rules that everyone agreed to never drift from rather than to include every safety procedure. There had to be consequences for violations, so disciplinary actions were outlined. In the first case, the union abandoned the unbreakable rules following the first disciplinary case. In the second experience, the attempt, though more successful, still created backlash as reported by an internal consultant: The rules-to-live-by approach demands real attention as a cultural issue. While it is still in the early stages of implementation, there have been positive and negative cultural impacts. The positive impact is that the program is credited in part with strengthening the norm to confront peers in the presence of unsafe acts and conditions. On the negative side, it is also credited by many with:

1) dampening near miss reporting; 2) reducing the flow of information from craft to supervision; and, 3) fueling mistrust. In particular, union workers reported not speaking to their supervisors so that they would not get punished as well.

The consultant recommended chartering a cross-functional, multilevel team with a high-level sponsor, to address the unintended cultural consequences. Per the consultant (personal communication, 2014), this step was never taken. Case Study: Positive Conversations to Catch Drift In contrast, Gantt (2014) describes his experience using conversations to catch drift by asking questions such as: 1) What procedures are available/written for the plant shutdow? 2) Which were successfully followed, and why? 3) Which were not followed, and why not? 4) What was the outcome or potential outcome of following/not following the procedure? 5) Do any procedures need to be added? Gantt explains: We basically went through questions like these to identify what happened, what should have happened (per procedures, rules, planning processes), then where we found gaps, we talked about why those gaps existed and the best way to bridge those gaps. For example, we found one right thing to be that someone did an excellent, systematic job ensuring that the logistics of a particular task were taken care of and communicating those logistical requirements to the team. When we explored how others could emulate this we identified the need for a focused checklist that could be used as a planning and communication tool (used in the daily planning meetings they have for the project managers and engineers). In effect, we identified a procedure that should be followed for future shutdowns.

Barriers As these cases show, having people talk openly about drift in their work can be highly beneficial. But tremendous barriers prevent creating a climate with the requisite level of trust and open communication necessary for doing so. Mistakes are seen as failures. Weak signals often show up as small mistakes. People hesitate to bring them up, both their own and others’. Fear of losing face, getting in trouble or being ostracized for incompetence are among the primary drivers for this behavior. Incident root-cause analysis inevitably points to human error, and even when done with the best of intentions to avoid blaming, leaves those involved feeling shamed. After a fatality that happened several continents away, one senior executive sought psychological counseling and ultimately resigned because the guilt was overwhelming (personal communiation between author and executive). No valuable lessons are learned when mistakes are viewed as failure.

Managers and supervisors are seen as experts. Frontline employees are most likely to spot weak signals, but information has trouble travelling up the chain of command. Supervisors and managers are not trained to ask questions; they learn to have answers, give orders and be responsible for controlling the organization. When employees are not asked questions in a climate of humble inquiry, they are unlikely to give information that might insult or anger someone in a higher position. Even if information is offered, managers and supervisors might not listen, which is a response that eventually shuts down communication. The illusion of control. An organization that is overconfident based on its past success or its management systems may disregard many weak signals (Weick & Sutcliff, 2005). This barrier is closely related to the manager as expert leadership model. The myth that all outcomes can be controlled or predicted has been questioned by researchers who have applied complexity theory to safety systems (Carrillo, 2011; Dekker, 2011; Hollnagel, et al., 2006; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2005). Organizations are no longer viewed as machines that can be engineered and designed for incident prevention; they are viewed more as complex living systems. Weick and Sutcliffe (2005) point out that successful safety management systems rely most heavily on creating superior communication and collaboration that supports the free flow of information throughout an organization. Again, in a command-and-control culture, managers and supervisors are unwilling to give up power. This leads back to fear of making mistakes and the dire consequences at stake for the leader if employees are empowered and fail. Silos and suppressed collaboration. This barrier prevents weak signals from being communicated for several reasons. Without a trusting relationship between team members and between different teams and functions, information will likely not be shared. Furthermore, even if shared, it is unlikely to be heard because of the belief that, “They don’t understand our work, so how can they give us valid feedback?” Fear of giving and receiving feedback. Communicating weak signals carries great personal risk. It would be easy to be wrong, then be accused of being chicken little. Past negative experiences with receiving and giving feedback often make workers cringe when they hear someone has feedback, as it hardly seems to be good. Behavior observations programs have focused on this tool to increase the use of safe behaviors. The literature offers many stories about pencil whipping observation forms and failed efforts. Success stories also exist that describe cultures in which trust, open communication, autonomy and responsive leadership are prominent. The sharing of weak signals would probably need an even more supportive environment. Once recognized, drift could be a weak signal of impending failure or an indication of a more effective way of working. Engaging people in an inquiry to explore how they came to believe that not following procedure makes more sense could lead www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015

Having people talk openly about drift in their work can be highly beneficial.


to a more profound sense of engagement in their work. Leaders are key to ensuring a successful inquiry, in part by knowing whom to bring into the conversation to help reveal hidden issues. Rather than focus on titles, the leader must consider who brings the necessary information and perspectives. However, remember that many cultural barriers hinder an open discussion on drift. Employees may feel unsafe admitting a drift from procedure. Assuming a role of asking questions with genuine curiosity may trigger fears of loss in power or status for a manager or supervisor. A leader’s level of trust in his/her employees as well as his/her ability to create relationships will influence the outcomes. When a leader shows a consistent willingness to listen without blame fixing, people are more likely to talk about and learn from drift. One cannot manage by sitting behind a desk or through a computer. Managers must get comfortable with social interaction.

A leader’s level of trust in his/her workers as well as his/ her ability to create relationships will influence the outcomes.

Putting It Into Practice No evidence has been found that policies, rules or demands to work more safely fuel employee engagement. Demanding strict adherence to policy with the threat of discipline tends to activate the threat response leading to compliance (at best) and more likely to malicious compliance, which is even worse (compliance to your face, defiance behind your back). Given that these approaches to change are insufficient, this article has offered the concept

Figure 2

Relationship-Based Change Model

Constant assessment of the quality of communication between interactive roles and fuctions.

1. Dissatisfaction/ aspiration 6. Perpetual assessment

2. Alignment of leadership team

5. Coaching and observation

3. Assessment (RC survey) 4. Dialogue and conversation


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

of educating organizational members in the art of mindful safety conversations to save lives and prevent injuries (Figure 2). Mindful conversations are a powerful tool for incident prevention, but they need a productive safety culture to take hold and someone to decide change is needed. Step 1: As the model shows, such desire for change comes from one of two sources, desperation (e.g., rash of incidents) or aspiration (e.g., We are good, and we could be even better). Step 2: Having made the decision to act, the next step is to get true alignment among the site or company leaders on how they would like to improve safety performance, their goals and the philosophy on how they want to lead the change. Step 3: Use the RC survey to assess and improve the relationships in the organization. Step 4: Through high-engagement dialogue and problem-solving conversations, the organizational gaps are addressed. This is significantly different than creating a list of corrective actions for more training, JSAs or other one-way communications. Step 5: As part of this approach, managers and supervisors play the role of coaches continually holding their own mindful conversations and supporting others as they learn this new skill set. Step 6: Change is the only constant. The entire organization must understand that they will be in a state of perpetual assessment, continually examining the quality of their relationships. The next step is to determine whether the culture is ready to support safety conversations? Use the following list with the leadership team (or other individuals and groups) to quickly gauge views around the culture’s readiness. How can leaders take this focus on relationships and new thinking about their role to develop a culture of accountability and make a difference in safety performance? Here are specific suggestions: •Recognize and name the polarities/paradoxes present and realize they are natural and not a problem to be solved (e.g., live with contradiction). Explain them to the organization to help everyone understand that both sides of the polarity bring value. The key is getting the best of both while minimizing the downside that comes from focusing too much on either one. •Keep the SCARF model in mind to remain consciously aware of the impact of all interactions. Use that awareness to calibrate words and actions. Notice and label reactions in terms of SCARF and use that knowledge to mitigate the threat response (e.g., “It is only my brain reacting; I can intervene”). •Make resources (e.g., time and space) available to allow for more natural conversations. •Bring anxiety, dependency, fight or flight, cliques or subversion to the surface so that these issues can be discussed and resolved. Deal with conflict explicitly. •Remain open to new or contradictory information rather than relying on predictive planning. •Do not mistake meetings, e-mails or announce ments with communication.

•Role model cocreative conversations where differing perspectives are valued. This means suspending judgment and listening deeply to others until they know that site managers understand what they are saying and why. Be genuinely curious and responsive. These new behaviors underpin the cultural and transformational change at both the personal and organizational levels. Conclusion Better OSH performance stems from more meaningful conversations about how to manage safety challenges. If we thought of organizations as people in constant communication and interaction, influencing planned outcomes in often unpredictable ways, how would we manage differently? How would we engage people in the right conversations relevant to risk assessment and safe action? In a high-risk quickly changing environment, quality conversation is critical to create the relationships of trust, respect and open communication that are necessary to surface information hidden below the waterline. While effective safety management systems are part of every successful organization, the most successful ones also pay attention to creating superior communication and collaboration that support the free-flow of information. Absent a trusting relationship among team members and between different teams, there is little chance that information will be shared. If relationships, feelings and emotions are the primary influences on human behavior, companies must equip managers and employees with the skills to build and maintain effective working relationships, and repair them if needed. Beyond the usual listening and inquiry skills, employees must understand concepts such as polarity and SCARF so they can comprehend how the human brain interprets messages. OSH managers must promote humble inquiry and the perspective that every individual in the organization can contribute information vital to incident prevention. Creating such relationships between leaders and followers, then among all employees ultimately impacts trust, respect and personal accountability. Developing this organizational capability is essential to effectively manage drift and increase sensitivity to weak signals. Catching drift and weak signals is difficult because they often involve emotional and relational conflicts, hence the proposal to focus on improving social interactions to raise awareness of safety issues. The iceberg, humble inquiry and SCARF models offer leaders an approach to this difficult task. Mindful conversations are a powerful tool for incident prevention, but they require a productive safety culture to take hold and a strong leader/sponsor. A socially reinforced approach using conversation and relationships cannot succeed within a managerial climate of command and control. People will not freely contribute their ideas and observations if they fear retribution or do not feel valued. Thus, the

leader as creator of conversations is an important role in creating a climate for open communication. The curriculum to prepare managers and employees to create this culture of open communication would include some classroom education in managing polarity, how to maintain mutual respect, how to give performance feedback, and the role of emotions and feelings in communication. The most impactful learning, however, would take place during the implementation of the relationship-based change model. Once fear of making mistakes is diminished, people are able to experiment with solutions and learn from them continuously. Approaching safety in this manner helps organizational members form new opinions on what is right and wrong, safe and unsafe, productive and nonproductive, and it enables everyone to more actively support each other’s safe work. It helps break down silos and create an environment in which everyone knows that someone has their back so that drift can be addressed openly and in a timely manner. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, positive relationships of trust, respect and open communication enable the organization to adeptly deal with the unexpected events that lead to fatalities and serious injury as well as environmental and reputational damage. There is no way around it. OSH professional must get out from behind the desk and interact with people to influence their choices. The wave of the future is relationship-based safety. PS

When a leader shows a consistent willingness to listen without blame fixing, people are more likely to talk about and learn from drift.

References Barstow, D., Rohde, D. & Saul. S. (2010, Dec. 5). Deepwater Horizon’s final hours. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26spill .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Bly, M. (2011). BP safety and operational risk update . (2011). Retrieved from www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/ pdf/investors/Safety_Operational_Risk_update_ct_2011 .pdf BP International Ltd. (2008). BP operating management system framework. Retrieved from http://ecbaku .com/file/hse/OMS_Framework.pdf Brooks, D. (2012). The social animal: The hidden sources of love, character and achievement. New York, NY: Random House. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2012). BLS statistics. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf Carrillo, R.A. (2004, July). Breaking the cycle of mistrust to build a positive safety culture. Occupational Hazards, 66(7), 45. Carrillo, R.A. (2006). Unpublished internal investigation of chemical fire incident. Carrillo, R.A. (2011). Complexity and safety. NSC Journal of Safety Research, 42(4), 293-300. Carrillo, R.A. (2012). Relationship-Based safety: Moving beyond culture and behavior. Professional Safety, 57(12), 35-45. Carrillo-Simon, R.A. (1996). The trust factor in safety performance. Professional Safety, 41(10), 28-33. Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Conchie, S.M. & Donald, I.J. (2006, Oct.). The role of www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


distrust in offshore safety performance. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1151-1159. Conchie, S.M. & Donald, I.J. (2008, Jan.). The functions and development of safety-specific trust and distrust. Safety Science, 46(1), 92-103. Connor, L. (2012). Drift into failure by Sidney Dekker. [Blog post]. Retrieved from www.safetymattersblog .com/2012/12/drift-into-failure-by-sydney-dekker.html Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Currall, S. & Inkpen, A.C. (2006). On the complexity of organizational trust: A multilevel coevolutionary perspective and guidelines for future research. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B. & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Dekker, S. (2007). Resilience engineering: Chronicling the emergence of confused consensus. In E. Hollnagel, D. Woods & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 77-92). London, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing. Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into failure: From hunting broken compenents to understanding complex systems. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Fredrickson, B. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319. Gantt, R. (2014). Safety compliance management. Retrieved from www.scm-safety.com Gergen, K. (2009, Feb.) An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Sage Publications. Gittell, J.H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines way: Using the power of relationships to achieve high performance. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Gittell, J.H. (2009). High performance healthcare: Using the power of relationships to achieve quality, efficiency and resilience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Graen, G.B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991a). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributions: Toward a theory of leadermaking. Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 33-48. Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991b). Partnershipmaking applies equally well to teammate-sponsor teammate-competence network and teammate-teammate relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationshipbased approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multidomain perspective. Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 33-48. Graem, G., Novak, M. & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D. & Levenson, N.G. (Eds.). (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. London, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing. Hugh, T.B. & Dekker, S.W.A. (2009). Hindsight bias and outcome bias in the social construction of medical


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

negligence: A review. Journal of Law and Medicine, 16, 846-857. Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F. & Hall, R.J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229. Kerr, S. (1995, Feb.). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 7-14. Kerr, S. (2014). Do your company’s incentives reward bad behavior? Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/ 2014/08/do-your-companys-incentives-reward-bad -behavior Koestenbaum, P. (1978). The new image of the person: The theory and practice of clinical philosophy. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Pub Group. Koestenbaum, P. (2002). Leadership: The inner side of greatness, a philosophy for leaders (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Koza, M.P. & Lewin, A.Y. (1998). The coevolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255-264. Mayer, R., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354. McLean, H.S. & Price D.T. (2011). Failure to thrive. In R.M. Kliegman, B.F. Stanton, J.W. St. Geme, et. al, (Eds.), Nelson textbook of pediatrics (19th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. (2011). Deepwater: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. Retrieved from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-OILCOM MISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risk of organizational accidents. London, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing. Rock, D. (2009). Managing with the brain in mind. Retrieved from www.strategy-business.com/ article/09306?pg=all Schein, E. (2013). Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. San Francisco, CA: BarrettKoehler. Schwartz, J., Gaito, P. & Lennick, D. (2011). That’s the way we (used to) do things around here. Retrieved from www.strategy-business.com/article/11109?pg=all Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations: A complexity approach to change. New York, NY: Routledge. Shell. (2014). Strengthening our safety culture. Retrieved from www.shell.com/global/environment -society/safety/culture.html Stacey, R.D. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stacey, R.D. (2010). Complexity and organizational reality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Weick, K.E. & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2005). Managing the unexpected. Retrieved from http://high-reliability.org/ files/Managing_the_Unexpected.pdf Woods, D.D. & Cook, R.I. (1994). Perspectives on human error: Hindsight biases and local rationality. Retrieved from www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/acc _invest_march2010/speakers/Perspectives%20on%20 Human%20Error.pdf


Aging Workers & Ergonomics A Fresh Perspective By Robert R. Fox, George E. Brogmus and Wayne S. Maynard

T

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/kuZMA

he graying of the workforce in the U.S. and in other developed countries is a well-recognized fact. People are living longer and electing to stay in the workforce beyond the typical retirement age. In 2010, persons age 55 and older made up nearly 20% of the entire U.S. workforce. In the European Union, nearly one-quarter of the workforce is age 50 or older (Vendra & Valenduc, 2012). In the U.S., more than 13% of those age 65 and older are still working in some capacity. The U.S. General Accounting Office (2001) estimates that by the year 2015 the proportion of workers over age 55 will have nearly doubled since 1990. Some of this increase is due to the baby boomer population reaching retirement age. In addition, in the U.S., older workers are postponing retirement due to changes in the Social Security retirement age, the need for increased income to pay medical and other expenses, the desire to maintain certain health insurance benefits and a decrease in retirement savings and/

Robert (Bob) R. Fox, Ph.D., CPE, has worked in General Motors North American and global ergonomics activities since 1993. He has worked with divisions, plants and the UAW-GM joint ergonomics program to address proactive ergonomics concerns, and develop and issue ergonomics guidelines and evaluation tools and methods. Fox chairs the U.S. Technical Advisory Group to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for anthropometry and biomechanics, and participates on various work groups for ANSI and ISO standards and technical reports on ergonomics. He holds a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Texas Tech University. George E. Brogmus, M.S., CPE, is technical director, ergonomics, Liberty Mutual Insurance Risk Control Services, Burbank, CA. He has conducted research, written articles, and developed consulting tools and materials in the areas of back pain reduction, the aging workforce, upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders, the impact of work scheduling on injury risk, same-level falls control and biomechanical

or pension amounts. Workers also may postpone retirement because they are in good health and enjoy the social benefits and intellectual challenges of work (AARP, 2005). This article explores aspects and implications of the aging workforce, including an examination of some physical changes associated IN BRIEF with aging and how •The number and proportion of older meaningful they may workers is increasing. Objectively be for work perfor- assessing the magnitude of this mance. Recent data increase and the implications to on age and injury occupational safety is crucial to rates and costs are effective responses by ergonomists discussed and partic- and OSH professionals. ular areas of concern •Most age-related performance are highlighted. The declines are not work- or injuryrole of ergonomics relevant. in safeguarding older •Injuries to workers age 65 and workers is addressed older have favorable rates and costs as are other global de- compared to most other age ranges. mographics that may •Relevant concerns for workers age be of concern to future 65 and older include same-level safety and ergonomics falls and fatal vehicle crashes. practitioners. analysis of lifting. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and an M.S. in Human Factors from University of Southern California. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Public Health at UCLA. Wayne S. Maynard, CSP, CPE, ALCM, is product director for the workers’ compensation line of business with Liberty Mutual Insurance Risk Control Services. Located at the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety in Hopkinton, MA, Maynard focuses on ergonomics and tribology (slips, trips and falls). He has written numerous articles and been a frequent presenter at industry and safety conferences on slip, trip and fall prevention and ergonomics, and he belongs to several technical committees on ergonomics, pedestrian walkway safety and footwear. He holds a B.A. in Zoology from the University of Maine, Orono. Maynard is a professional member of ASSE’s Greater Boston Chapter.

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


The litany of changes associated with aging have raised questions about or fostered negative perceptions about the capabilities of older workers.

What Constitutes an Aging Worker? Sobriquets such as old, aging or young defy easy definition and are often contextual or relative. Kroemer (2006) provides a characterization by age as follows: a middle-aged person becomes an older person at age 40 or 45; elderly at about age 65; old at age 75; and very old if older than age 85. He notes that no definite boundaries exist that determine when a young person turns middle age or eventually turns elderly or old. Age categories are often defined relative to various changes associated with the aging process. Depending on the capacities or capabilities affected, the impact of aging on some aspects of work performance may start as early as the late 30s. Many researchers, particularly in studies of manual work, identify age effects on work activities as starting at about age 45 to 50 in some persons. The U.N. and World Health Organization do not have an official criterion for being of “old” age, but the groups tend to use age 60 or older when referring to the older population, but that criterion can change depending on the country and issues of interest (www .who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en). AARP allows membership for persons 50 years or older, while the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to age discrimination to anyone age 40 or older (www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html). Aging: Physical, Cognitive & Health-Related Changes Following is a brief review of the various physical, cognitive and perceptual changes commonly associated with aging (adopted from Åstrand & Rodhal, 1986; Fisk, Rogers, Charness, et al., 2009; Kroemer, 2006; Shepard, 1974; Snook, 1993; Wegman & McGee, 2004): •Strength. Strength can be categorized and defined in many ways. Furthermore, different kinds of strength depend on the measurement method and equipment used (e.g., static, dynamic, isoinertial, isokinetic). Much of the strength data used in ergonomics for task design are based on static strength measurement protocols during which a subject exerts a volitional maximum effort against an anchored load cell for generally 1 to 3 seconds. Many sources report static strength as peaking in the early to mid 20s/early 30s, then decreasing slowly into the 40s, with a more rapid change after the 50s. About 25% of strength is lost over the adult lifespan. This is at best a simplification as significant variations exist across individuals. Exercise, habitual activity and genetic endowment all play a role in how much or how little strength changes with age. •Physical changes to the spine. Signs include shrinkage of the intervertebral disks, reduction in the range of spinal motion, narrowing of the facet joints, and a reduced ability to bear loads and absorb shock. An inch of height may be lost from age 20 to age 60. •Aerobic capacity. This characteristic shows a mean decrease with age of about 25% over the adult life span. Various links in the cardiovascular system weaken with age: maximum heart rate decreases; heart stroke volume and lung volume reduce; and


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

tolerance to external heat loads decreases. Some of these changes may not necessarily be strictly age related. Again, habitual activity, exercise and genetic endowment may all play a part. •Flexibility, dexterity, range of motion. Joint flexibility and range of motion show decreases with age. The neck and the trunk show the most decrease. While these findings are largely from cross-sectional population studies, changes in active workers due to the effects of age lack documentation. •Perceptual/visual. The lens of the eye becomes more opaque, and people become more vulnerable to glare and need more light for adequate visual conditions. Also, onset of presbyopia occurs with age and is commonly seen after age 40. These changes are perhaps the most common and the least variable of all changes generally associated with aging. •Cognitive/information processing. As people age, reaction time slows (up to 50%) for many types of tests. Information processing, including short- and long-term memory, is not as efficient as in younger persons. Older people may require up to 50% more training time to learn new skills, although some studies argue that for work-related knowledge the opposite is true. The relevance of some of these findings to work-related tasks has not been clearly shown. •Self-reported health condition. According to the 2013 National Health Interview Survey (CDC, 2014), only 44.2% of persons age 65 and older report excellent or very good health, compared to 64.5% for adults age 18 to 64. •Chronic health conditions. CDC (Ward & Schiller, 2013) reports that more than 60% of persons age 65 and older have at least two of 10 leading chronic medical conditions (hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, hepatitis, weak or failing kidneys, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma). This compares to fewer than 35% of persons age 45 to 64 with two or more chronic conditions and fewer than 10% of those age 18 to 44. These chronic health conditions are often accompanied by medications that can affect mobility, balance, cognitive performance and safety. Age & Work Performance: Putting Age-Related Changes in Perspective The litany of changes, both physical and cognitive, associated with aging have raised questions about or fostered negative perceptions about the capabilities of older workers, particularly those in industrial jobs. Other negative perceptions that exist among employers about older workers are based in part on a superficial understanding of the biological changes associated with aging. These include: •Older workers have more health problems that inhibit their work. •Hiring older workers means increased hiring costs due to training and benefits (e.g., healthcare insurance). •Older workers have reduced physical stamina and less ability to learn new skills, thereby reducing their productivity.

Figure 1

While measurable physical changes occur with age, the relationship between these changes and the ability to perform physical and mental work is neither simple nor direct. Age & Physical Work Capacity Looking specifically at manual materials handling research, the apparent decline in physical capabilities between ages 50 and 60 does not appear to lead to reduced manual lifting capabilities. Mital, Nicholson and Ayoub (1997) note that while individuals’ physical capabilities decline with age, the decline is not observed in the manual lifting capability. Ayoub and Mital (1989) reviewed several studies that indicated that between ages 18 and 61, age had no effect on the manual lifting capacity of workers. Mital, et al. (1997), speculate that older workers compensate for the physical declines through improved skills and neuromuscular coordination. These studies are cross-sectional studies on age groups and did not follow individuals longitudinally to track changes or declines over time. However, the implications are that working populations seem to represent a group that performs similarly regardless of age. Age & Learning Research has shown that loss of cognitive function is negligible in persons younger than age 70 (Fisk, et al., 2009). Verbal communication and tacit knowledge (experiential) remain stable or actually improve with age, and older workers are more motivated to exceed expectations than younger workers (AARP, 2005). Age & Productivity In many jobs, experience, quality and learned efficiencies make older workers more productive than younger workers. Older workers are less likely to miss work due to noninjury reasons than younger workers (e.g., family obligations). Also, older workers develop compensatory strategies (time-acquired skills) that make them as effective as or, often, more effective than younger workers for many kinds of tasks. Sometimes, a trade-off results in higher quality work at lower speed from older workers. It is also known that context experience compensates for auditory processing decrements. In other words, older workers can compensate for poorer hearing by having a larger database of words and phrases, and the experience to discern the more likely content. When it comes to actual job performance, every aspect improves as people age (AARP, 2005). For older workers, it is often true that professionalism, loyalty, written communication skills, analytical skills and business knowledge are higher than in younger workers (AARP, 2005). The combination of greater accuracy, creativity, dependability and better spot judgment by older workers can increase, not decrease, productivity. Age & Worker Health: Comorbidities & Workers’ Compensation Claims/Costs Individual worker health can contribute to workplace injury and workers’ compensation claims cost

Rate of Injuries & Illnesses With Days Away From Work by Age Range 140

120 100

110.9

108.9

16-‐19

20-‐24

105.4

111.2

121.6

114.3 89.8

80 60 40 20 0

25-‐34

35-‐44

45-‐54

55-‐64

65 and over

Note. 2012 injury and illness cases with days away from work per 10,000 full time employees. Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics “Profiles” generated from http://data.bls.gov/gqt/InitialPage on Dec. 10, 2014, based on updated, corrected 2012 data issued Nov. 14, 2014.

as evidenced in these three recent studies. A National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) research brief (Laws & Colon, 2012) reports that workers’ compensation claimants with a corresponding comorbidity diagnosis (including obesity) are typically older than the average claimant. A comorbidity diagnosis was defined as medical transactions incurred and recorded through the workers’ compensation system with a recorded ICD9 code indicating a specified comorbidity. Claims with comorbidity diagnoses had about twice the medical costs of comparable claims without comorbidity diagnoses. Older claimants with comorbidity diagnoses tended to have higher medical costs than comparable claims for younger claimants (Laws & Colon, 2012). Another NCCI study (Laws & Schmid, 2011) reports that the obese diagnoses were 5 times more expensive than their nonobese counterparts. Longitudinal data studies demonstrating a strong association between obesity and occupational injury over time are rare. However, a Liberty Mutual study (Lin, Verma & Courtney, 2013) provides compelling evidence that obesity plays a role, not only as a comorbidity making post-injury outcomes more complex, but also as a contributor to injury risk in the first place.

Workers age 65 and older have a much lower rate of injuries with days away from work than the rest of the workforce. However, the length of disability for older workers tends to be longer and they experience a much higher fatality rate than younger workers.

Age & Injury Rates Interesting relationships between age, injury rates and injury costs are seen in two different sources of injury data: workers’ compensation claims data published by NCCI and OSHA incident and severity data published by Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS does not collect injury cost data but NCCI does so from 43 states, not including California, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Figure 1 shows the 2012 rate of injuries with days away from work by age range (BLS, 2014a). Workers age 65 and older have a much lower rate of injuwww.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Figure 2

Number of Median Days Away From Work by Age Range 16

14 12 10

9

8 6

4

4

11

13

14

6

5

2 0

16-‐19

20-‐24

25-‐34

35-‐44

45-‐54

55-‐64

65 and over

Note. 2012 median days away from work, private industry and government. Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics “Multi-Screen” data search for nonfatal cases involving days away from work: Selected characteristics (2011 forward), generated from www.bls.gov/iif/#data on Dec. 10, 2014, based on updated, corrected 2012 data issued Nov. 14, 2014. Older workers have the highest median number of days away from work by age range. One would think this would result in higher workers’ compensation indemnity (replacement wages) losses, but it does not.


ries with days away from work than the rest of the workforce. However, the length of disability for older workers tends to be longer and they experience a much higher fatality rate than younger workers. Figure 2 shows the 2012 median number of days away from work by age range (BLS, 2014b). Older workers have the highest median number of days away from work by age range. One would think this would result in higher workers’ compensation indemnity (replacement wages) losses, but it does not. According to NCCI, indemnity severity increases steadily with age through age group 45 to 49 (Figure 3). It then stays relatively flat through age group 60 to 64, after which it declines (by roughly 20%) for age 65 and older. The primary reason the indemnity payments are low for workers age 65 and older, despite the longer median days away from work, is because indemnity payments are based on average weekly wage, which reaches a maximum when a worker reaches his/ her early 50s, then declines gradually through age group 60 to 64. It then plummets, by some 30%, for workers age 65 and older (Wolf, 2010). Figure 4 shows the average medical costs for NCCI data for the years 2000 to 2006 by age. The 65 and older cohort has the highest average medical costs, which is in line with the known higher severity (median days away from work) to older workers. However, the net total average cost of claims to workers age 65 and older is still lower than all the age ranges over 44 years old. This is despite the older worker claims that include costs for fatal injuries, which are the highest rate of all age ranges for workers age 65 and older. Figure 5 (p. 38) shows the 2013 rate of fatalities by age range (preliminary data). The majority of these fatalities are due to transportation-related events and falls. Some studies have reported higher costs for older workers. One study showed that the cost per lost-time workers’ compensation claim for workers age 45 to 64 was more than twice that of workJANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

ers age 20 to 34; the most notable differences in diagnoses involved injuries to the rotator cuff and knees as well as lumbosacral neuritis or lower back nerve pain (Restrepo & Shuford, 2011). This led to speculation that for any specific diagnosis, older workers are more likely to sustain higher-cost permanent injuries than younger workers. However, a 2012 follow-up study found this to not be the case (Restrepo & Shuford, 2012). While older workers are more likely to have more costly diagnoses than younger workers, the cost of those diagnoses are similar. In another study, review of published epidemiological literature on the causes and types of injuries and their related costs for the construction industry with respect to age showed that workers age 50 and older had a lower frequency of workplace injuries than younger workers although the older workers had higher injury costs (Schwatka, Butler & Rosecrance, 2012). One aspect influencing the complexity of the severity (median days away from work) and cost of injuries to workers age 65 and older may be due to the cause category of injuries. Workers age 65 and older experience a much higher proportion of same-level falls than other age ranges (Figure 6, p. 39), and these injuries may take longer to heal and cost more, on average, than musculoskeletal disorders (mostly back pain) that drive the costs in most of the other age ranges. Up to about age 60, manual materials handling accounts for the majority of injury costs; after age 60 this shifts to same-level falls. This was previously reported by Brogmus and Maynard (2008) and Wolf (2010). For older workers, fall injuries are more serious and result in greater disability (Restrepo, Sobel & Shuford, 2006). Some researchers have questioned the higher median disability (Figure 2) based on speculation that some data for the oldest workers may be inflated due to a larger portion of older workers retiring from work during their disability. Wolf’s (2010) data make it clear, however, that lower wages for workers age 65 and older account for the much lower indemnity costs. The definition of what constitutes an older worker will largely determine the conclusion on average costs. Growing evidence suggests that an aging workforce has a far less negative effect on workers’ compensation claim costs than might have been thought (Restrepo & Shuford, 2012). Another issue is that the oldest workers (age 65 and older) not only have a lower rate of injuries than all other age ranges and a lower average cost than many age ranges, but they are also a relatively small proportion of the overall workforce (about 5% in 2012). The end result is that workers’ compensation losses due to workers age 65 and older make up less than 4% of the total workers’ compensation losses, even considering the monetary cost of work-related fatalities. Recent studies (e.g., Wolf, 2010) show higher medical claim costs for the 65 and older age group, although, due to the lower indemnity costs and the small portion of the workforce made up by this co-

Figure 3

hort, some (e.g., Spiers, 2013) say that the suggestion that an aging workforce is a driving factor in increased employee injury costs is overstated. That said, overall concerns for the aging workforce should be heightened, not lessened, if for no other reason than the noted high fatality rate and higher median days away from work. These facts are clear for the oldest workers (age 65 and older): 1) Falls/slips/trips are by far the greatest cause of injury. 2) They have a lower rate of injury with days away from work than any other age range. 3) They have a longer median days of disability than younger workers. 4) Their injuries cost less, on average, than all workers age 45 to 64. 5) Their fatality rate is much higher than all other age ranges. 6) Their overall costs to industry are less than 4% of all incurred workers’ compensation costs. Putting It All in Perspective Several points regarding the nature of the physical and cognitive changes and the research that has established them are important: 1) Many of the declining physical capacities cited are typically based on studies of maximum capacities and not the submaximal level at which nearly all industrial physical work is performed. While these studies have important implications, submaximal work in real-world industrial environments may involve many additional factors that will affect a person’s working capacity. 2) Similarly, many laboratory-based tests on visual and perceptual abilities are narrowly focused and do not necessarily reflect work performance in

Average Indemnity Paid per Claim $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0

$8,850 $8,900 $8,450 $8,200 $8,000 $7,550 $6,900 $6,850

$7,150

$5,600

$4,050

$2,400

All < 20 20-‐24 25-‐29 30-‐34 35-‐39 40-‐44 45-‐49 50-‐54 55-‐59 60-‐64 65 & claims over

Note. Average indemnity paid per claim by age range, 2000-2006, not adjusted for inflation. Data from “Claims Characteristics of Workers Aged 65 and Older” (NCCI Research Brief) (p. 16), by M.H. Wolf, January 2010, Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings Inc. Data were estimated graphically using www .sketchandcalc.com.

more complex and variable tasks. Many are suggestive in their results and not absolute statements across all conditions. 3) There is wide variation in the population with respect to the effects of aging and physical capabilities. In most cases, factors such as exercise and regular or habitual activity can slow or moderate some of the decline in physical capacities. Declines in physical strength may be more closely related to disuse than to chronological age. An experienced industrial working population may well show a pattern of conditioning as a result of many years of physical work. As a result, the strength and working capacities of that population may be maintained as they age. Other factors can mitigate aging effects as well. Figure 4 •Healthy worker effect. Workers who continue in physically intensive tasks generally have the physical ca$14,000 pability to do so as they age. Those who do not have the $11,650 $12,000 $11,150 $11,200 physical capability (at any age) $10,550 $10,200 $9,900 have left the harder jobs. $10,000 $9,200 $9,200 $8,600 •Work smarter not harder. $7,450 Some researchers (e.g., Mital, $8,000 $6,750 et al., 1997) suggest that older $6,000 workers tend to work smarter $5,200 in that they use their skills and $4,000 conduct their work in ways that serve to safeguard their $2,000 physical capacities. •Seniority. Harder jobs that $0 are less desirable are often All < 20 20-‐24 25-‐29 30-‐34 35-‐39 40-‐44 45-‐49 50-‐54 55-‐59 60-‐64 65 and claims over assigned to lower seniority/ younger workers. Note. Average medical paid per claim by age range, 2000-2006, not adjusted Interestingly, results of exfor inflation. Data from “Claims Characteristics of Workers Aged 65 and tensive surveys of perceptions Older” (NCCI Research Brief) (p. 21), by M.H. Wolf, January 2010, Boca of working conditions in the Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings Inc. Data were estimated graphically using www European Union suggest that .sketchandcalc.com. the quality of employment for

Average Medical Paid per Claim

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015

Indemnity severity (Figure 3) increases steadily with age through age group 45 to 49, then stays relatively flat through age group 60 to 64, after which it declines for age 65 and older. The 65 and older cohort has the highest average medical costs. However, the net total average cost of claims to workers age 65 and older is still lower than all the age ranges over 44 years old (Figure 4).


consider the older worker, including guidelines for manual materials handling, repetitive motion and control/display selection. Organizations concerned with the safety of older workers should continue to 10 evaluate their losses and focus prevention efforts 8.8 on those exposures that produce the highest num9 ber, cost and rate of injuries. 8 Regarding physical work, such as manual materi7 als handling, some authors caution against assigning older workers to physically demanding tasks. 6 For example, Mital, et al. (1997), out of concern for 5 the age-related decline in the spine’s load-bearing 3.9 capacity, caution that older workers, particularly 4 3.3 those older than age 50, should not be assigned to 2.7 3 2.4 2.4 2.1 “physically demanding jobs.” Given the persistent 2 findings that manual handling capability of older workers remains largely comparable with younger 1 workers, what constitutes a physically demanding 0 job may be unclear. 18-‐19 20-‐24 25-‐34 35-‐44 45-‐54 55-‐64 65 and over However, if manual handling and other physiNote. 2013 fatalities per 100,000 equivalent full time workers, private industry cal jobs are designed to be within the capability and government. Data from “Fatal Occupational Injuries, Total Hours Worked of most of the workforce and if hazards are adand Rates of Fatal Occupational Injuries by Selected Worker Characteristics, dressed, then those jobs present an elevated injury Occupations and Industries, Civilian Workers, 2013 (preliminary data), by risk to be effectively engineered out. In addition Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/ to workplace and task design, training workers, cfoi_rates_2013hb.pdf. supervisors and engineers to identify and correct injury hazards in the workplace is paramount. The The majority of the the over-50 age group was no worse and may be net effect is that the entire workforce, both older fatalities in 2013 better than the under-30 age group (Vendra & Va- and younger workers, is better protected. were due to translenduc, 2012). Because same-level falls are a leading cause of loss portation-related among all workers, especially older workers, orgaevents and falls. Areas of Concern for Older Workers nizations should strengthen efforts to prevent falls. While older workers’ capabilities are comparable Reducing slips, trips and falls (STFs) is an achievable (and in some cases, superior) to younger workers, goal for any organization. Company leaders should some areas are of concern. As noted, same-level recognize that with an aging workforce, controlling falls account for a significantly higher proportion of slip and fall risks is increasingly important. Fundaworkers’ compensation costs among older work- mentals of reducing slips and falls should include: ers as compared to younger workers. As such, they 1) Maintain slip-resistant flooring in top condishould be a primary focus of aging-worker safety. tion. One reason same-level falls drive older worker inju2) Eliminate tripping hazards. ry costs is the natural migration (and attrition) from 3) Control contaminants. strenuous jobs to less strenuous jobs as one ages. 4) Implement effective spill and routine cleaning Other reasons that same-level falls are a greater methods. problem for older workers may include several 5) Mandate slip-resistant footwear. age-related physical as well as cognitive factors in6) Ensure proper stairway design. cluding: 7) Use appropriate mats. •perception of slipperiness; Sufficient lighting inside and outside the facil•visual detection of hazards may be inferior in ity is also important as lighting is critical for comolder workers; fortable reading and visually detecting hazards. •slower dark adaptation; Guidelines for visual presentation of information •increased glare sensitivity; include increasing level of illumination to greater •decreased color sensitivity; than 100 cd/m2 light reflected from reading sur•reaction time decrements; faces (such as white paper) and reducing direct and •decreased balance control. reflected glare by positioning light sources as far These same factors may influence the high fatal- away as practical from the operator’s line of sight ity rate of workers age 65 and older, namely those (Fisk, et al., 2009). IES (1993) guidelines for lighting due to falls and driving-related crashes. With falls state, “What might be bright enough for a healthy and vehicle crashes, workers age 65 and older have 30-year-old is not close to being adequate for an a higher likelihood of fatality compared to younger aged individual with impaired vision.” age ranges. U.S. Access Board research (Jenness & Singer, 2006) indicates that the safety yellow color is so saThe Role of Ergonomics lient that it is highly visible even to those with very Ergonomics is fundamentally the design of jobs low vision. Contrast sensitivity (including contrasts to fit workers—all workers. Most guidelines already in color) decline, on average, with age (Czaja & 38 ProfessionalSafety JANUARY 2015 www.asse.org

Figure 5

Fatality Rate by Age Range

Guion, 1990). This is important to remember when selecting colors for detectable warnings of items such as height transitions typical of curbs, steps and stairways including landings. Evaluate Training Methods All workers can benefit from an examination of training methods. It may be possible to allot more time for training/retraining and for practicing learned skills in an error-tolerant environment. This process equips the workforce to adapt better to changing work situations. Self-paced instruction (e.g. computer-based training) is preferred over lecture, as is self-paced training preferred over machine-paced on-the-job training because it allows a worker to start slower or slow down if needed. Recorded training presentations are preferred over demonstrations because recordings can be reviewed as many times as needed. Written instructions are always more effective than lectures since trainees can review them as needed (AARP, 2005). Workforce Demographics & Secular Change The OSH profession must also consider broader age and demographics concerns. Workforce demographics and how they change in various ways over time is a concern. These can include changes to the ethnic and gender composition as well as changes to the worker population itself, including cultural outlook, physical fitness and work capacity. All of these factors should be of long-term interest to ergonomists, both nationally and globally. Recent research has raised some interesting questions about generational changes and work capacities. Several psychophysical studies conducted since 2008 by Liberty Mutual Insurance and others on lifting, lowering, carrying, pushing and pulling have found a significant decrease in maximum acceptable weights of lift (MAW) compared to the 1991 Liberty Mutual guideline. In one study by Ciriello, Dempsey, Maikala, et al. (2008), the MAW for male lifting, lowering and carrying averaged only 69% of the 1991 values. Similar decreases were found for females, although interestingly, the female maximum acceptable forces for pushing and pulling increased as a percentage of the male values (Ciriello, Maikala, Dempsey, et al., 2011). Singh, Park and Levy (2009) speculate on the reasons for the decline, noting that the subject selection criteria may have been less stringent or that the findings may represent a reduced psychophysical set point for such tasks, although the small number of studies conducted to date all confirm the decline. The authors also noted that the current studies lacked maximum voluntary contraction strength data and body composition data to allow comparisons with the earlier studies. While the studies noted that the anthropometric measurements of the recent, 1991 and pre-1991 studies were similar, they noted that body weight was significantly higher. While firm conclusions cannot be drawn from these few studies given limited sample sizes, recruitment and selection criteria, they suggest demographic trends that merit additional study.

Figure 6

Share of Claims by Cause 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

65 and over All ages

Note. Percent of claims by cause, 2000-2006, not adjusted for inflation. Data from “Claims Characteristics of Workers Aged 65 and Older” (NCCI Research Brief) (p. 3), by M.H. Wolf, January 2010, Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings Inc. Data were estimated graphically using www.sketchandcalc.com.

A study on the age-related difference of extremity joint torque (EJT) of healthy Japanese adults age 20 to 79 found that young Japanese women (age 20 to 29) had significantly lower EJT for a variety of upper and lower extremity joints than older Japanese women including those 60 to 69 years of age (Hisamoto, Higuchi & Miura, 2005). The authors attribute the phenomena to the lack of physical activity in younger women and speculate that the younger female generation will lack the reserves of strength possessed by today’s elderly once they, in turn, become elderly. A German study on cross-section anthropometric surveys of more than 59,000 male and female children age 3 to 18 found significant changes in skeletal robustness for several skeletal features (elbow breadth and pelvic breadth) related to everyday physical activity since 1980 (Scheffler & Hermanussen, 2014). The researchers conclude that a reduction in physical activity and the amount of walking were responsible for the changes. While tempting to speculate that an increasingly sedentary lifestyle is responsible wholly or in part for the decline in physical work capabilities, comprehensive hard data are lacking. One secular trend that is a cause for public health concern, and that shows a relationship to physical activity and fitness, is the increase in body weight. This is not just a problem in the U.S. and developed countries, but also an increasingly global issue. From 1980 to 2008, worldwide obesity rates almost doubled according to World Health Organization. In 2008, more than 1.4 billion adults age 20 and older were overweight, with 200 million men and nearly 300 million women classified as obese. As such, more of the world’s population is now classified as overweight and obese than undernourished (Kenny, 2012). The causes are complex, but they are linked to rising agricultural productivity, increases in inwww.asse.org

JANUARY 2015

Workers age 65 and older experience a much higher proportion of same-level falls than other age ranges. These injuries may take longer to heal and cost more, on average, than musculoskeletal disorders that drive the costs in most of the other age ranges.


Concerns for the aging workforce should be heightened, if for no other reason than the high fatality rate and higher median days away from work.

come, availability of processed foods and the shift of labor from agricultural to more sedentary service occupations. While comprehensive data on the relationship between obesity and work capacity is generally lacking, some studies (e.g., Singh, et al., 2009) show little or no effect on maximum acceptable manual handling workloads of obese workers compared to nonobese workers. While obesity may or may not be a factor in workload capability, it shows a clear relationship to several chronic health concerns such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer. As such it remains a major health cost concern for individuals, employers, healthcare providers and national health authorities. Success Is Achievable Interventions to address an aging workforce can span everything from hiring practices to retirement plans, and often involve multiple simultaneous interventions. When multiple interventions are implemented, it is difficult to discern what aspect was most impactful. Consequently, documentation of intervention successes aimed specifically at aging worker concerns is scarce in the peer-reviewed literature (Crawford, Graveling, Cowie, et al., 2010). Fortunately, interventions aimed at all workers will also benefit older workers, and many ergonomic interventions (Westgaard & Winkel, 1997) and case studies (Goggins, Spielholz & Nothstein, 2008) document reductions in injury metrics on the order of 20% to 100%. Even more specific to the older workers are interventions to reduce same-level slips and falls. In the best published example of a comprehensive falls control program (Bell, Collins, Wolf, et al., 2008), researchers found that during the intervention period at three hospitals, older workers increased in prevalence and that “older workers (both males and females) suffered higher rates of STF injuries than younger workers.” The intervention included: •analysis of injury records to identify common causes of STFs; •on-site hazard assessments; •changes to housekeeping procedures /products; •introduction of STF preventive products and procedures; •general awareness campaigns; •programs for external ice and snow removal; •flooring changes; •mandatory slip-resistant footwear for certain employee subgroups. Due to these controls, STF-related workers’ compensation claims dropped 58%. Due to the high rates from older workers and the growing proportion of older workers at these hospitals, Bell, et al. (2008), conclude, “Having an aggressive STF prevention program in place may be particularly useful in containing STF injury claim rates as worker populations increase in age.” Conclusion OSH professionals and practicing ergonomists must be aware of the capabilities and limitations of


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

the workforce(s) with which s/he must work. Age can be a factor but not necessarily in the stereotypical ways many people think. Employers, practicing ergonomists and OSH professionals should takeaway several key points: 1) Identify and change any unfounded negative perspectives about older workers. These are unproductive and can shift the focus from responsible risk-reduction to blaming and fostering selffulfilling expectations of longer disability. See older workers for what they are—stewards of accumulated wisdom and skill, a group that generates the lowest rates of serious injuries, and mentors who set the example of life-long productivity. 2) Do data analysis homework. Analyze workforce demographics and losses and compare them to national or local geographic data. An older worker problem is unlikely compared to the secular trends, but such analysis can reveal productive intervention directions. Focus on risks that drive loss and are age-independent. 3) Engage workers in wellness programs that target obesity and encourage healthy behaviors. Such programs can produce an additional protective safety benefit and contribute to positive workplace safety results. 4) Develop sound ergonomics and safety practices, as these benefit all workers regardless of age. 5) Train workers, supervisors and engineers to recognize, communicate and eliminate occupational injury hazards. Proper job training and retraining will help to maintain worker productivity and engagement. 6) Allow workers to share input into work design and organization. 7) Strengthen efforts to reduce falls, including the elimination of slipping/tripping hazards, proper stairway design, and use of proper mats and footwear. 8) Because of the high transportation-related fatality rate of older workers, examine and strengthen crash-reduction policies to ensure that all workers who may drive on company time, including drivers age 65 and older, are not at higher crash risk due to capability or past driving record. 9) Provide proper lighting in all work areas and install signage that meets guidelines for size, contrast and color use. 10) When workers are injured, keep in personal contact and aggressively pursue their return to work as soon as possible. PS References AARP. (2005). The business case for workers 50+: Planning for tomorrow’s talent needs in today’s competitive environment. Washington, DC: Towers Perrin. Åstrand, P.O. & Rodhal, K. (1986). Textbook of work physiology: Physiological bases of exercise (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Ayoub, M.M. & Mital, A. (1989). Manual material handling. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Bell, J.L., Collins, J.W., Wolf, L., et al. (2008). Evaluation of a comprehensive slip, trip and fall prevention program for hospital employees. Ergonomics, 51(12), 1906-1925.

Bentzen, B.L., Nolin, T.L. & Easton, R.D. (1994). Detectable warning surfaces: Color, contrast and reflectance. Retrieved from http://accessforblind.org/publica tions/USDOT/dws-ccr.pdf Brogmus, G.E. & Maynard, W.S. (2008). Hope, tactics and strategies for an aging workforce. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Applied Ergonomics Conference and Expo, March 11-13, Orlando, FL. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2014a). BLS profiles generated from http://data.bls.gov/gqt/InitialPage Dec. 10, 2014, based on updated, corrected 2012 data issued Nov. 14, 2014. BLS. (2014b). BLS multiscreen data search for nonfatal cases involving days away from work: Selected characteristics (2011 forward), generated from www.bls.gov/ iif/#data Dec. 10, 2014, based on updated, corrected 2012 data issued Nov. 14, 2014. BLS. (2014c). Fatal occupational injuries, total hours worked, and rates of fatal occupational injuries by selected worker characteristics, occupations, and industries, civilian workers, 2013p (preliminary data). Retrieved from www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2013hb.pdf CDC. (2014). Early release of selected estimates based on data from the National Health Interview Survey, 2013. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/early release/earlyrelease201406_11.pdf Ciriello, V.M., Dempsey, P.G., Maikala, R.V. et al. (2008). Secular changes in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces over 20 years for male industrial workers. Ergonomics, 51(5), 593-601. Ciriello, V.M., Maikala, R.V., Dempsey, P.G., et al. (2011). Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after 20 years. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 84(5), 569-575. Crawford, J.O., Graveling, R.A., Cowie, H., et al. (2010). The health safety and health promotion needs of older workers. Occupational Medicine, 60(3), 184-192. Czaja, S.J. & Guion, R.M. (1990). Human factors research needs for an aging population. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., Charness, N., et al. (2009). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Goggins, R.W., Spielholz, P. & Nothstein, G.L. (2008). Estimating the effectiveness of ergonomics interventions through case studies: Implications for predictive costbenefit analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 39(3), 339-344. Hisamoto, S., Higuchi, M. & Miura, N. (2005). Agerelated differences of extremity joint torque of healthy Japanese. Gerontechnology, 4(1), 27-45. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES). (1993). IES lighting handbook (8th ed.). New York, NY: Author. Jenness, J. & Singer, J. (2006). Visual detection of detectable warning materials by pedestrians with visual impairments. Washington, DC: U.S. Access Board. Kenny, C. (2012, June 4). The global obesity bomb. Business Week. Retrieved www.businessweek.com/ articles/2012-06-04/the-global-obesity-bomb Kroemer, K.H.E. (2006). “Extra-Ordinary” ergonomics: How to accommodate small and big persons, the disabled and elderly, expectant mothers and children. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Laws, C. & Colon, D. (2012, Oct.). Comorbidities in workers’ compensation (NCCI Research Brief). Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings. Laws, C. & Schmid, F. (2011, Winter). Reserving in the age of obesity. Casualty Actuarial Society E-Forum, 2, 1-29. Lin, T.C., Verma, S.K. & Courtney, T.K. (2013). Does

obesity contribute to nonfatal occupational injury? Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Scandinavian Journal of Environmental Health, 39(3), 268-275. Mital, A., Nicholson, A.S. & Ayoub, M.M. (1997). A guide to manual materials handling (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Taylor & Francis. Pransky, G.S., Benjamin, K.L., Savageau, J.A., et al. (2005). Outcomes in work-related injuries: A comparison of older and younger workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 47(2), 104-112. Reade, N. (2013, Aug./Sept.). The surprising truth about older workers: Myths and perceptions. AARP The Magazine. Retrieved from www.aarp.org/work/job-hunt ing/info-07-2013/older-workers-more-valuable.4.html Restrepo, T. & Shuford, H. (2011, Dec.). Workers’ compensation and the aging workforce (NCCI Research Brief). Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings. Restrepo, T. & Shuford, H. (2012, Oct.). Workers’ compensation and the aging workforce: Is 35 the new “older” worker? (NCCI Research Brief). Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings. Restrepo, T., Sobel, S. & Shuford, H. (2006, Dec.). Age as a driver of frequency and severity (NCCI Research Brief). Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings. Scheffler, C. & Hermanussen, M. (2014). Is there an influence of modern lifestyle on skeletal build? American Journal of Human Biology, 26(5), 590-597. Schwatka, N.V., Butler, L.M. & Rosecrance, J.R. (2012). An aging workforce and injury in the construction industry. Epidemiological Reviews, 34, 156-167. Shepard, R.J. (1974). Men at work: Applications of ergonomics to performance and design. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Singh, D., Park, W. & Levy, M.S. (2009). Obesity does not reduce maximum acceptable weights of lift. Applied Ergonomics, 20(1), 1-7. Snook, S.H. (1993). The practical application of ergonomics principles. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety—Australia and New Zealand, 9(6), 555-563. Spiers, B. (2013, April). A safety tsunami: The baby boomer effect on workers’ compensation. Retrieved from www.lockton.com/Resource_/PageResource/MKT/Spiers _Aging%20Workforce_Apr13.pdf U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2001). Older workers: Demographic trends pose challenges for employers and workers. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/new .items/d0285.pdf Vendra, P. & Valenduc, G. (2012). Occupations and aging at work: An analysis of the findings of the Fifth European Working Conditions Survey. Brussels, Belgium: European Trade Union Institute. Ward, B.W. & Schiller, J.S. (2013). Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among U.S. adults: Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Preventing Chronic Disease. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/ pcd10.120203 Wegman, D.H. & McGee, J.P. (2004). Health and safety needs of older workers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Westgaard, R.H. & Winkel, J. (1997). Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20(6), 463-500. Wolf, M.H. (2010, Jan.). Claims characteristics of workers aged 65 and older (NCCI Research Brief). Boca Raton, FL: NCCI Holdings. World Health Organization. (2013). Obesity and overweight (Fact Sheet N311). Retrieved from www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Program Development Peer-Reviewed

Preventing Major Losses Changing OSH Paradigms & Practices By James M. Keane

preventing employee fatalities (emphasis added), injuries and illnesses through the ongoing planning, implementation, integration and control of four interdependent elements: management leadership and employee involvement; work site analysis; hazard prevention and control; and safety and health training.

James M. Keane, M.S., ASHM, is the managing director and principal consultant of Safety Associates of the South-USA LLC in Cumming, GA. He has more than 30 years’ industrial and manufacturing experience coupled with more than 5 years of academic and government service research and development experiences. Keane holds a B.S. and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Tennessee. He is a member of ASSE’s Georgia Chapter and the Institute for Safety and Health Management.


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Many industries and businesses have robust systems and tools to identify and mitigate hazards that may contribute to major losses. However, an organization that celebrates yearly declines in recordable injury rates and large numbers of work hours without a lost-time injury while also continuing to experience workplace fatalities, permanently disabling injuries/illnesses or major monetary losses of property and materials should consider this statement: “Our current safety systems are designed to deliver exactly what we are getting. If we want a different result, a better result, we must change the process.” To achieve such change, the first step is to alter how and what people think about major losses (e.g., fatalities, permanently disabling injuries/illnesses, major monetary losses of materials, equipment or property). The OSH profession needs to develop a tool set that focuses on low-probability/ high-severity events. These tools must extend beyond typical physical conditions to work practices and process safety aspects. The Real Problems The jobs of leaders and OSH professionals would be much easier if there were simple answers and a simple solution to the sources and causes of major losses in the workplace. But, there are not. The causes, precursors and variables that contribute to a major loss are complex. They may have existed since the facility and its equipment were designed, or were built and installed. They may be deeply rooted within an organization’s culture. They also may be inadvertently reinforced by invalid assumptions, paradigms and practices held by employees, business leaders and even OSH professionals. When asked what safety metrics they measure, most OSH professionals will indicate one or more of the following: •total recordable incident rate (TRIR); •days away from work or restricted time (DART); •lost-time incident rate (LTIR); •process safety incident severity rate; •severity rate.

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/BuRAk CAkMAk

O

ver time, industry as a whole has done a tremendous job improving its recordable injury rates, lost-time incidence rates and injury severity rates. These efforts are significant and worthy of recognition. However, many business leaders and employees still subscribe to the belief that by reducing recordable injury rates or lost-time incidence rates, they are also reducing the chances that a fatality or other major loss will occur. This belief, or normalcy bias, is IN BRIEF not supported by the loss facts from in•Personal, business leader- dustry (Table 1). As Petersen (2001) says, ship and industry paradigms “Circumstances that produce the severe and practices contribute to accident are different than those that prothe continued loss of life duce the minor accident.” Manuele (2005, and permanently disabling 2008) and others have urged business injuries and illnesses being leaders and OSH professionals to recogexperienced in the U.S. and nize that reducing the frequency of minor other industrialized nations. incidents will not equivalently reduce the •To improve these results, occurrence of major loss incidents. OSH professionals must OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Prochallenge current safety grams (VPP) application challenges this paradigms and practices, normalcy bias with this statement (found change long-held beliefs in the definitions included with the appliand do things differently. cation): Initiating a concerted effort Safety and health management system. to prevent major losses is For the purposes of VPP, a method of one step in that process.

These are all trailing or lagging indicators that re- most safety professionals recognize that no single flect an organization’s safety history, up to a point. method or set of methods can likely identify 100% Many safety practitioners have noted flaws of these of hazards. Hazard identification is a continual and types of indicators and are challenging the valid- ongoing search. ity of relying solely on such measures. Although some businesses and site locations track leading Changing the Process “Current safety systems are designed to deliver indicators such as action item completion percentage, management of change checks or inspections exactly what we are getting.” This statement is akin completed, they may not be measuring those that to the famous quote (often attributed to Albert Einstein), “Insanity is doing the same thing over and could signal that a major loss is looming. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that 4,383 workers died in 2012 from occupational injuries. This Table 1 is the lowest annual total since the census was first conducted in 1992. That is equivalent to a rate of 3.2 fatalities per 100,000 workers in the U.S. In the U.K. and in Australia, the fatality rates are significantly lower, 0.5 and 1.9, respectively (BLS, 2012; Australia Workplace Fatalities per Safety and Compensation Council, 2012; HSE, 2013) Country (time frame) fatalities 100,000 workers (Table 1). Why is this the case? Although each counU.K. (2012/2013, provisional) 148 0.5 try tallies its statistics differently, these global counAustralia (2012) 198 1.7 terparts have a greater focus on hazard recognition U.S. (2012, preliminary) 4,383 3.2 and identification, and require risk assessment in All private sector -‐ private industry, workplaces. Statistics related to fatal illnesses and construction and agriculture permanently disabling injuries are another stark reCanada (2012) 977 5.0 minder that more must be done (Table 2). Mexico (2004) -‐-‐-‐ 9.0 Let’s consider an example. One company’s hisChina (2009) 83,196 10.4 torical fatality rate is 3.3 per 100,000 and its annual rate for permanently disabling injuries is 9.9 per South Korea (2012) 1,134 12.0 100,000. Both measures are close to industry av erage. However, this organization has operations Note. Total number of fatalities in Mexico for 2004 not available. Fatalities in numerous locations worldwide. In total, the related to injuries. Illness related fatalities are excluded. Data adapted from company’s average rates are actually better than various sources including Health and Safety Executive, U.S. Bureau of Labor the aggregate averages of the countries in which it Statistics, Australia Safety and Compensation Council, and International operates. Are those results good enough? Within Labor Organization. this company, the odds are that 1 of about 30,000 employees will die on the job within the next 12 months, Table 2 and 1 in 10,000 will suffer a total and permanently disabling injury in that same time period. When it comes to losing a life, a limb or livelihood, those are poor odds. An organization must anIllness fatality rates Permanently disabling swer two questions: Country (estimated) injury rates (estimated) 1) Will current safety U.K. 93.4 t imes t he f atal i njury cannot be determined management system and rate ≈ 4 7 p er 1 00,000 safety processes prevent a faAustralia 29.8 times the fatal injury ≈ 4.0 per 100,000 workers tality, disabling injury or marate ≈ 51 per 100,000 (with a rising trend) jor property loss? 2) Have safety processes U.S. 12.2 times the fatal injury ≈ 7.7 per 100,000 workers and tools identified all workrate ≈ 39 per 100,000 (permanent and total place hazards? disability) Many business leaders will ≈ 38.2 per 100,000 workers quickly respond “yes” and (permanent partial disability) cite their lagging indicators as proof that their systems, proNote. Data adapted from various sources including Health and Safety Execucesses and tools are doing the tive, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Australia Safety and Compensation job. Most safety professionals Council, International Labor Organization, National Council on Compensation will respond “no.” Why are Insurance and “Global Trend According to Estimated Number of Occupational the answers different? It is a Accidents and Fatal Work-Related Diseases at Region and Country Level,” by matter of what each group P. Hämäläinen, K.L. Saarela and J. Takala, 2008, Journal of Safety Research believes about safety status 40, pp. 2125-2139. and processes. Even then, www.asse.org JANUARY 2015 ProfessionalSafety 43

Comparison of National Level Worker Fatality Rates

Comparison of National Level Worker Illness Fatality & Disabling Injury Rates

OSH pro fessionals must pres ent credible, convincing evidence that some beliefs about safety are based on incomplete information, speculation, fads, unre peatable research, and false per ceptions and information.

over again, and expecting different results.” Or, as Mark Twain said, “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you always got.” The OSH profession must look beyond current methods and processes, and embrace change. How can safety systems and processes be made more robust and more comprehensive? How can the knowledge level within a business team be broadened to prevent major losses? The first step is to educate business leaders and team members on the true nature of the organization’s major hazards and risks. Without a change in core beliefs, different results cannot occur. Therefore, OSH professionals must present credible, convincing evidence that some beliefs about safety are based on incomplete information, speculation, fads, unrepeatable research, and false perceptions and information. OSH professionals must recognize that the nonsafety-trained personnel only know what they have primarily experienced or read with respect to safety—their socalled experience basket. Each experience basket is unique based on one’s background, training, social network and more. A structured effort to prevent major losses is a true opportunity to educate and engage nonsafety personnel, and provide them with safety risk management skills and additional life skills. Preventing Major Losses A preventing-major-losses (PML) process enables an active approach to understanding how to assess hazards using descriptive language, and it can provide direction for allocating limited resources. Let’s discuss the key elements for an effective PML process. Identify Major Hazards Major hazards, the scenarios that can and will occur leading to a major loss, may not necessarily have warning signs. These hazards may have existed since the site was opened or they may have been designed into the process, machinery or site itself. To identify them, one must use basic loss causation models such as PEME (people, equipment, machinery, environment) and understand the intersecting relationship among these factors. This step should also include basic fire and explosion models such as the fire triangle, dust explosion pentagon and failure causation examples for pressure and fired vessels. Examine Human Error An organization must also review human error. The OSH profession has perpetuated Heinrich’s (1941) research that 88% of losses are caused by human failure, and as a result it is instilled into most safety processes. But one must ask, What is human error, and what are its causes? Manuele (2003, 2008) considers human errors to be system failures, and Reason and Hobbs (2003) call them consequences, not just causes. Dekker (2006) also offers insight into understanding human error, particularly the need to


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

look deeper at systems and processes and to search beyond human error for loss causation. To achieve this, OSH professionals can apply Clemens’s (2000) approach of clearly stating the source, mechanism and outcome for each hazard scenario identified. When the most credible outcome for a hazard scenario is a fatality or other major loss, one is departing from traditional hazard identification models that are typified by a broad, general list of things that may cause harm. Understand Why Losses Occur If an organization does not understand why losses occur, how can it prevent them? Many can recall Reason’s (1990) swiss cheese model that illustrates why protective barriers, or safeguards, are not perfect (Figure 1). Within the PML process, team members must predict what can allow or cause deficiencies in safeguards to emerge or line up. Observations and findings should not be based on what should be in place or how a task or activity should be completed, but on actual operating conditions and practices. Safety team members must think outside current safety inspection paradigms to see the possibilities. Safety culture is another consideration. Many point toward culture as a source of losses, so team members should review the safety culture continuum, its levels and characteristics. One effective model is the Energy Institute’s (1999) Hearts and Minds Program, which is based on research on safety and behavior at several U.K. universities. This culture continuum ladder contains five distinct levels of OSH cultural development that may exist within a plant site or a business unit or an entire enterprise: •Pathological: “Who cares as long as we are not caught?” •Reactive: “Safety is important; we do a lot every time we have an incident.” •Calculative: “We have systems in place to manage all hazards.” •Proactive: “Safety leadership and values drive continuous improvement.” •Generative: “OSH is how we do business around here.” Therefore, the safety team must ask, “Which of these five statements best reflects our culture?” Apply the Hierarchy of Controls Unlike safety professionals, most business leaders and nonsafety personnel are not familiar with the hierarchy of controls or its application. In a PML process, team members define a range for the effectiveness for each level of control. For example, a team might reference the ranges developed by WorkSafe ACT (2014) to reinforce why engineering/ physical controls are more effective than administrative/behavioral controls, especially when faced with hazard scenarios that could take a life or limb. WorkSafe ACT: Hierarchy of Controls & PML

Elimination of the hazard. Examples include the proper disposal of surplus or retired equip-

Figure 1

Swiss Cheese Model

ment that contains substances such as asbestos, and removal of excess quantities of chemicals accumulated over time in a facility. The elimination of hazards is 100% effective. •Substitution of the hazard. Examples include the replacement of solvent-based printing inks with water-based inks, of asbestos insulation or fire-proof materials with synthetic fibers, and the use of titanium dioxide white pigment instead of lead white. The effectiveness of substitution is wholly dependent on the replacement selected. •Engineering controls. Examples include installing machine guards at hazardous locations, adding local exhaust ventilation over a process area that releases noxious fumes, and fitting a muffler on a noisy exhaust. The effectiveness of engineering solutions ranges from 70% to 90%. •Administrative controls. Examples include training and education, job rotation, planning, scheduling certain jobs outside normal working hours to reduce general exposure, early reporting of signs and symptoms, and instructions and warnings. The effectiveness of administrative controls ranges from 10% to 50%. (Also, to maintain their effectiveness, administrative controls typically require significant resources over long periods of time.) •PPE. Examples include safety glasses and goggles, earmuffs and earplugs, hard hats, steeltoe footwear, gloves, respiratory protection and aprons. The effectiveness of PPE in realistic work situations does not exceed 20%. While there is no set scale or measure for control effectiveness, these suggestions represent a reasonable range. Of course, a site can implement short-term solutions that combine several controls while longer-term engineering solutions are developed and implemented to mitigate the risk to an as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) level. Identify Sources of Major Loss Major hazards may be surrounded by guarding, isolating techniques, layers of administrative controls and possibly PPE. In some cases, however, a major hazard may go unrecognized by workers

who are directly exposed to it (e.g., entrapment in equipment, falls). Identifying these hazards can seem a daunting challenge, but a PML strategy offers a specific, focused and disciplined process. It emphasizes triggers that research has identified as the sources and precursors of actual major losses at that site and within that industry. A trained and engaged team can then focus strictly on exposures that can credibly lead to a fatality, permanently disabling injury/illness, or significant monetary loss of materials, equipment or property. This disciplined approach helps the team avoid being overwhelmed by the number of hazards present, and enables them to concentrate on separating the significant few from the trivial with respect to major loss sources and their precursors. For general industry applications, the PML process entails identifying 11 trigger groups, each of which contains multiple other triggers. 1) Travel/mobile equipment. Actions and interaction of workers and assets with moving mobile equipment and transportation elements. 2) Work at heights. 3) Exposure to uncontrolled energy sources. Worker and asset exposure to a specific set of energy sources. 4) Work arrangements. Isolated workplaces, exposure to various work sites and work in highnoise environments. 5) Confined space operations. Confined space entry, rescue and associated operations. 6) Hazardous materials. Egress, reactivity and exposure to various classes of materials. 7) Process modifications. Process control norms, process safety devices and management of change. 8) Equipment control modifications. Equipment controls (electrical, pneumatic and other sources) and management of change. 9) New equipment. Recognizing the lack of operating experience, inadequacies of training and the lack of hazard identification associated with any new installation. 10) Psychosocial. Recognizing that stress, working conditions, workplace violence, substance abuse and similar factors affect workers. 11) Environment. Recognizing the power of nature and proactively identifying and preparing protections for workers and property. As an example, the travel/mobile equipment trigger group could include: 1.a. Operation of and interaction between pedestrians and vehicles 1.a.i. Powered industrial trucks (inside and outside facility) www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Risk Assessment Once a major loss hazard scenario is identified, a risk assessment is performed. Many risk assessment tools, methods and processes are available, but the selected approach should follow a validated or recognized method while meeting company needs. The process must be trainable and it must provide consistent results within a site location and relatively consistent measures between different sites. A graphical approach such as that suggested in ANSI/ASSE Z10-2012 is recommended even though it may be easier at times to convince leadership of the magnitude of a risk by using a quantitative approach. In adapting the Z10 model for a PML effort, note that the focus on major hazards and their potential higher-order severity will use only the left half of the matrix (Figure 2) for initial With 11 groups and multiple triggers within PML risk assessment. each, the team could easily identify more than 100 The scope of the PML risk analysis is limited individual triggers. To facilitate the process, the to major losses with credible high severity. The trigger groups can be summarized and provided to risk assessment matrix has two dimensions, sethe team as a one-page list, a spreadsheet or simiverity and likelihood of occurrence or exposure, lar for easy access and reference. with descriptive words such as fatality, disability, As noted, this is a departure from the typical likely, probable, sometime, etc., as the keywords hazard identification process. If teams try to idento choose from. But before these can be used, all tify and assess anything and everything that could involved must understand what these descripcause harm or a loss, they will be quickly overtions mean and how to correctly select from these whelmed and the process may fail. Instead, when words. Otherwise, the risk assessment process can trained to look specifically for the sources of major become biased or produce skewed and possibly inlosses, team members consciously ignore lowerconsistent results. level hazards. For example, most people will assess a hazard scenario’s severity based on their personal experience and knowledge from Figure 2 reading loss reports or other literature. However, as noted, each person’s ex Severity of injury or illness consequence and remedial action perience basket is unique. Therefore, to CRITICAL provide some consistency, it is important Employee amputations, CATASTROPHIC to determine the most credible severity Employee fatalities, partial/total loss of (outcome) for the hazard scenarios, not sight or hearing, general public Hierarchy of general public fatalities or serious the worst conceivable. controls injuries requiring Likelihood of injuries, loss of Potential effect To assist in this process, OSH profesphysician MARGINAL NEGLIGIBLE OCCURRENCE or materials/property on likelihood of treatment, loss of Minor injury, lost First aid or minor EXPOSURE in excess of USD $2 sionals can reference the Abbreviated occurrence or exposure materials/property workday incident medical treatment for selected unit of million, Injury Scale (AIS; Association for the Ad(general from USD $500,000 time or activity environmental tendencies, not vancement of Automotive Medicine, to $2 million, damage recovery absolutes) environmental greater than 2 2008). Knowing the types of injuries that damage recovery years, government are truly considered life threatening and agency involvement from 1 to 2 years, national media those that are deemed untreatable/unsurattention vivable or disabling can help team memFrequent MEDIUM Likely to occur HIGH HIGH SERIOUS bers improve the quality and consistency Take remedial repeatedly, Operation not Operation not High priority No controls action at of decisions regarding outcomes. Table 3 probability greater permissible permissible remedial action appropriate time than 90% highlights a few injuries that are considProbable MEDIUM ered unsurvivable according to AIS. Other Likely to occur HIGH HIGH SERIOUS Take remedial several times, Operation not Operation not High priority resources include the TNO (1992) Green action at Use of PPE or probability range permissible permissible remedial action appropriate time administrative Book, which provides methods for deter60% to 90% controls and Occasional mining the possible damage to people and their LOW MEDIUM HIGH SERIOUS Likely to occur combinations Risk acceptable: Take remedial objects that result from releases of hazardOperation not High priority sometime, remedial action action at permissible remedial action probability range ous materials. discretionary appropriate time 15% to 60% This same approach may also be used Remote MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW SERIOUS Not likely to occur, Take remedial Take remedial Risk acceptable: Control for the other dimension of likelihood of High priority combinations probability range action at action at remedial action remedial action occurrence or exposure. Some consider 1% to 15% appropriate time appropriate time discretionary this to be the Achilles heel of any risk Improbable MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW Engineering Very unlikely, less Take remedial Risk acceptable: Risk acceptable: Risk acceptable: assessment because the level chosen is controls/ than a 1% action at remedial action remedial action remedial action solutions considered a guess at best. Therefore, in probability appropriate time discretionary discretionary discretionary addition to various references in the lit46 ProfessionalSafety JANUARY 2015 www.asse.org 1.a.ii. Vehicular traffic (auto, truck) on facility grounds 1.b. Vehicle loading and unloading (trucks, railcars) 1.b.i. Loading docks 1.b.ii. Rail sidings 1.b.iii. Bulk storage loading/unloading sites 1.c. Transport of unsecured loads 1.d. Business-required travel using commercial vehicles (K-C vehicle, plane, train, taxi, bus) 1.e. Business-required travel using noncommercial vehicle (personal vehicle, powered land vehicle, helicopter, boat) 1.f. Operation of specialized mobile equipment (log loaders or other transport vehicle less than 5 tons) 1.g. Commercial traffic near facility

Risk Assessment Matrix for PML

erature, the hierarchy of controls itself is used to better define and address the levels in this dimension. The results are incorporated into the matrix in Figure 2. Within the PML risk assessment process, the team should also address instances of exposure to multiple hazards for the same group of workers or property. Many risk assessment tools are effective for evaluating individual hazard exposures, but today’s work environments are rarely so simple.

Table 3

Unsurvivable Injuries, Partial List AIS score (listed in injury severity score assignment format)

Taking Action No process is complete unless action is taken. As Winston Churchill said: To look is one thing. To see what you look at is another. To understand what you see is another. To learn from what you understand is something else. But to act on what you learn is all that really matters.

Head and neck (including C1 to C7)

6: Currently untreatable, unsurvivable Brain stem (hypothalamus, medulla, midbrain, pons) Laceration, massive destruction (crush type injury), penetrating injury, transection pFCI = 1 Carotid artery, internal Bilateral laceration pFCI = 1 Cervical spine cord, C-‐3 and above Contusion or laceration with complete cord syndrome (quadriplegia or paraplegia with no sensation or motor function), not further specified, with/without fracture, dislocation or both pFCI = 1 Head i) crush injury: massive destruction of skull, brain and intracranial contents ii) decapitation pFCI = 1 Body second-‐degree or third-‐degree burn Partial or full thickness, including incineration > 90% total body surface area Whole body (explosion type injury) Massive, multiple organ injury to brain, thorax and/or abdomen with loss of one or more limbs and/or decapitation

This means doing more than conducting an inspection or preparing recommendations for upper management. The key is to take the correct actions in the correct order to best reduce the risk levels to ALARP. The selected actions and solutions also must be balanced against External the costs of attaining that lower risk level. In some cases, the cost to achieve ALARP may be disproportionate to the benefits attained. Note. Adapted from Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005 Update 2008, by Association for the The PML process should define speAdvancement of Automotive Medicine, 2008, Barrington, IL: Author. cific cutoff points for risk levels and required action planning, as well as implementation time frames for each level. For example, Figure 2 contains clear guid- the new concepts and truths. One exercise should ance about when a facility should stop operations be an actual limited scope practice PML inspection. due to an unacceptable risk level. This element can Once a core team has been trained, a site can also provide guidance on different mitigation tech- implement the process in several ways. Any impleniques and approaches to affect each term on the mentation plan will be dictated by the operation’s risk level matrix. size, its management system, employee knowledge and safety education level, and various other factors. Following is a brief example of how one Practical Application of a PML Process The first step for installing PML into an orga- business unit within a Fortune 500 company has nization is recognizing that the process can be an implemented PML. The business unit has multiple manufacturing effective countermeasure to the problem of major locations across North America and Europe. Its losses in the workplace. Second, the leadership safety leadership team recognized that a PML proteam must fully support the approach and be encess offered a systematic approach to identifying gaged in it. The third step is education and training. Team hazards that could result in major losses. To gain members must understand the key concepts and support, leaders received an executive summary thought process behind them. They must also know that explained the PML process, its benefits and its how to use the concepts in the work environment. resource requirements. Next, a PML training session was held at one loThe initial training session should include the hostcation in Europe and another in the U.S. for the ing site’s leadership team, engineers, safety team initial core teams. Safety leaders and other busimembers and informal shop floor leaders. This training should comply with ANSI Z490.1-2009, ness and site resources came together for an interCriteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health active, thought-provoking training session. Each and Environmental Training, to ensure that it is ef- session included practical examples, hands-on apfective. Class time should include interactive group plication of the new concepts and a competency exercises during which participants can practice check. Individuals who successfully completed the www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Census of fatal occupational injuries: Current and revised data. Retrieved from Risk cannot be justified www.bls.gov/iif/oshc Unacceptable save in extraordinary foi1.htm#2012 region circumstances Cantrell, S. & Clemens, P. (2009, Nov.). Finding all the Tolerable only if risk reduction hazards. Professional is impracticable or if its cost is Safety, 54(11), 32-35. grossly disproportionate to the Clemens, P.L. improvement gained Tolerable ALARP region (2000). System safety scrapbook (7th ed.). Risk is taken only if a Tullahoma, TN: benefit is required Jacobs Sverdrup. Dekker, S. (2006). Tolerable if cost of reduction would The field guide to unexceed the improvement derstanding human error. Farnham, U.K.: Necessary to maintain assurance that Broadly acceptable region Ashgate Publishing. risk remains at this level Energy Institute. (1999). Hearts and minds program. Retrieved from www .eimicrosites.org/ heartsandminds Hämäläinen, P., Leena Saarela, K. & Takala, J. session and received an acceptable score on the competency examination were certified to lead and (2009). Global trend according to estimated number of occupational accidents and fatal work-related diseases participate in the PML process. Currently, the unit’s safety leadership supports at region and country level. Journal of Safety Research, PML rollout at all manufacturing facilities on a 40(2),125-139. Health & Safety Executive (HSE). (2013). Fatal injury schedule that is advantageous for each location. To statistics: Summary for 2012/13. Retrieved from www date, feedback has been positive, particularly with .hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm regard to the identification of hazards that had not Heinrich, H.W. (1941). Industrial accident prevention: been documented using other methods. A scientific approach. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. Hilson, D. (2005). Describing probability: The limitaConclusion To achieve needed changes in safety manage- tions of natural language. Retrieved from www.risk ment, OSH professionals must alter how and what -doctor.com/pdf-files/emeamay05.pdf International Labor Organization. (2007). Report of stapeople think about major losses (e.g, fatalities, pertistics, 1996-2005. Retrieved from http://laborsta.ilo.org manently disabling injuries/illnesses, major monKorea OSHA. (2011). 2012 statistics. Retrieved from etary losses of materials, equipment or property). http://bit.ly/1zckyGt A structured effort to prevent major losses is a true Manuele, F.A. (2003). On the practice of safety (3rd opportunity to educate and engage non-safety ed.). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. personnel, and provide them with safety risk manManuele, F.A. (2008). Advanced safety management agement skills and additional life skills. PS focusing on Z10 and serious injury prevention. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience. National Council on Compensation Insurance. (2006). 2005-2006 frequency by injury type. Boca Raton, References FL: Author. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Petersen, D. (2001). Safety management: A human apMedicine. (2008). Abbreviated injury scale 2005 (update proach (3rd ed.). Des Plaines, IL: ASSE. 2008). Barrington, IL: Author. Phimister, J.R., Bier, V.M. & Kunreuther, H.C. (Eds.) Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards in (2004). Accident precursor analysis and management. Canada. (2012). National work injury, disease and fatalWashington, DC: The National Academies Press. ity statistics summary. Retrieved from www.awcbc Reason, J.T. (1990). Human error. Oxford, U.K.: Cam.org/en/nationalworkinjuriesstatisticsprogramnwisp bridge University Press. .asp#request Reason, J. & Hobbs, A. (2003). Managing maintenance Australia Safety & Compensation Council. (2012). error: A practical guide. Farnham, U.K: Ashgate Publishing. Notified fatalities monthly report December 2012. ReTNO. (1992). Green book: Methods for the determination trieved from www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/ of possible damage. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Author. about/Publications/Documents/555/NotifiableFatalities WorkSafe ACT. (2014). Do a risk assessment. ReReportDec2012.pdf trieved from www.worksafe.act.gov.au/page/view/1039 Bird, F. & Germain, G. (1996). Practical loss control leadership (Revised ed.). Atlanta, GA: Det Norske Veritas.

Figure 3

ALARP Model


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Standards Insider

Walking/Working Surfaces

W

ayne Maynard is product director for workers’ compensation at Liberty Mutual Insurance and a member of the committee revising the ANSI/ASSE A1264.1 Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces & Their Access; Workplace Floor, Wall & Roof Openings; Stairs & Guardrails Systems standard. “The scope of A1264.1 pretty much says it all,” Maynard says. “It protects persons from dangers associated with falling from elevated walking and work surfaces and falling from elevated walking and work surfaces such as floor, roof or wall openings, platforms, runways, ramps, fixed stairs or roofs in normal, temporary and emergency conditions. That covers just about every industrial workplace out there.”

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/M-iMAGEPHOTOGRAPHY

Practical Application OSH professionals use the standard to evaluate existing fall protection controls from elevated walking and work surfaces. According to Maynard, the best way to use the standard is to assess current risk of falls posed by elevated surfaces, determine whether current fall protection controls are sufficient to significantly reduce or eliminate the exposure and, if not, implement the controls described in the standard. “The content of the standard is fairly wellaccepted,” he explains. The bulk of the work of updating the standard involved crystallizing fundamental best practices, modernizing those points and making the standard more accessible for practitioners. Maynard says the new layout of the standard will feature increased specificity and a more logical layout flow. “The revision that we’re working on is quite significant,” he says. “The content is presented in a more logical, orderly fashion and provides more direct assistance to those who are looking for the elimination or reduction of elevation fall risk. I think overall it is going to be a much better standard than the previous version.” Addressing the Overlooked Maynard says few standards address specialized workplace stairway design. He notes that while it is common practice to rely on OSHA standards for guidance, those standards are generally difficult and time-consuming to revise and promulgate. In contrast, ANSI standards are voluntary guidelines and represent the most current information on a topic, Maynard says. While there is an OSHA walking/working standard, A1264.1 represents the cutting edge of thought on the topic, Maynard says. It is also one of the few standards that

addresses specialized workplace stairway design, particularly in industrial contexts. Many standards on stairway design are relative to egress stairs such as the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, the International Building Code, and other applicable building codes, regulations, standards or ordinances such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and ANSI-accessibility design standards. These standards are fairly consistent on stairway slope, riser and tread dimensions. They can vary on when a handrail is needed (one-, two- or three-step stairs), number of handrails and when an intermediate handrail is needed. Per Maynard, the only well-known industrial workplace stair design standards are OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D, 1910.24 Fixed Industrial Stairs, and ANSI A1264.1 section on fixed stairs for access. The latter includes spiral stairs, guardrail and handrail requirements, and intermediate handrail guidance. “In an industrial workplace you would have stairway systems that might be designed to access a mezzanine, for example, or access some sort of elevated platform,” Maynard says. “This is the most current information available on the topic. This is the most updated consensus from stakeholders.”

Wayne Maynard

The Value of Perspective The committee tasked with revising the standard is “an outstanding cross section of users of this standard,” Maynard says, noting that the committee includes safety professionals and a ADA Americans With Disabilities Act wide array of industry stakewww.ada.gov holders. Having an expansive set of perspectives working on ANSI American National Standards the standard is key to the final Institute www.ansi.org product being well rounded, Maynard says. “This standard, ASSE American Society of Safety in my view, probably has Engineers www.asse.org more cross-sectional input into its content than others in NFPA National Fire Protection the past; in that regard I think Association www.nfpa.org it is a great revision,” he says.

Hotlinks

Wayne Maynard, CSP, CPE, ALCM, is product director for workers’ compensation at Liberty Mutual Insurance and a member of the committee revising the ANSI/ASSE A1264.1 standard, which addresses workplace walking/working surfaces and their access, as well as workplace floor, wall and roof openings and stairs and guardrails systems. Maynard is a proferssional memer of ASSE’s Greater Boston Chapter.

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration www.osha .gov

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Best Practices

Injury Management

Making a Difference One Life at a Time By B.J. (Bonnie) Heinrich

I

njuries occur in the workplace as evidenced by the number of injuries reported to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) each year. In 2012, BLS reported 4,628 fatal occupational injuries. OSH professionals must seriously aim to make a difference in the work environment one injury at a time, potentially saving one life at a time.

A work site can impact the course of an injury and the recovery of the employee when a nonfatal injury involving days away from work occurs. In 2012, BLS reported 443,560 sprains, strains and tears; 97,540 bruises and contusions; and 130,900 injuries resulting in soreness and pain to unspecified parts. An employer can be proactive in making a difference in how these injuries affect the employee and the company. It is not that injuries are inevitable, rather, injuries are preventable. Yet, in the absence of prevention, workplace injuries will occur. An employer’s, manager’s or supervisor’s response to that injury influences the recovery time for the injured employee, lost wages and the employee’s self-worth/self-esteem. As a by-product of all of these, it affects the workers’ compensation claim costs. It is all about taking each injury at a time, as if it were one life.

outcome of the injury. First, the person in charge should remain calm and realize that it is not life threatening. Overtreated Cases In today’s society, patience is a lost virtue. We are not patient for the grocery store checkout line, not for the commute that is hindered by a crash, and we certainly are not patient when it comes to medical care. We need to see a physician for every scrape and bump, and if we see a physician, we assume we will be given a prescription. As reported in the media, overtreatment of simple viruses with unnecessary prescriptions has been known to create a superbug resistant to many antibiotics, causing resistance to medications and creating new strains of viruses that do not respond to antibiotics. The right treatment at the right time is critical. Once Lost Time Starts, It Is Difficult to Stop Imagine that you have just injured your back at work and the treating physician orders time away from work. As a result, you think your boss may be mad at you and that your peers will have to pick up the slack. You have nothing but time to think about how everyone could be mad at you. You get a sick feeling when you think about returning to work because your coworkers may resent you for getting injured. Your back pain becomes worse, and now the pain includes your left hip. You are anxious and depressed. After 3 months, you are not even sure who is still employed at the work site. Once an employee is off work, the cycle is hard to break. The longer the time away, the harder it is to get the employee back to work. If an employee is off for more than 6 months, s/he is unlikely to return. The psyche of an injured employee is difficult to overcome. The psychosocial factors that affect the employee’s ability to return to work are plagued with depression, frustration, thoughts of discrimination and perceived delays in workers’ compensation care. The best way to break the cycle is to not let it start. These strategies can help halt the potential of lost work days: •Upon hire/orientation, inform employees that a quick return to work for

Appropriate Care at the Appropriate Time The first response to an initial injury is usually the pivoting action that directs the rest of the claim. Many times, the leader at the work location is the first one to react to an injury. The successful treatment of an injury includes steps that are most effective when all occur in the appropriate order. First, the person in charge must determine if it is a life-threatening emergency. The words life threatening are key. If it is life threatening, the emergency medical services (EMS) system should be activated immediately. All reports and high-level management notifications should wait until after EMS is activated. Once EMS is activated and the employee is being tended to by the appropriate medical professionals, all other company notifications can be made. Should the injury or illness not be life threatening, other actions can take place that may drastically affect the 50 ProfessionalSafety JANUARY 2015 www.asse.org

occupational injuries is the organization’s goal. •Educate the treating clinic before an injury, and inform it of the company’s willingness to make reasonable accommodations. •Ensure that the treating physician knows returning to work is an option. •Train managers who are responsible for interacting with an injured employee on what the first response steps are when an injury occurs. •If the employee is given any restrictions, accommodate those restrictions. •If the employee is off work, designate someone from the site, preferably someone who is compassionate, to call the employee at home at least weekly. Compassionate Care Treat others with dignity and respect. This may be challenging in the workplace when you feel someone may not be telling the truth about an injury. Take an employee at face value with regard to his/her pain and injury. Use an internal investigation to confirm compensability. Lack of Compassion May Lead to Legal Representation When an employee feels that s/he is not taken seriously concerning an injury, s/he may turn to the legal community for assistance. When an injured employee is at home recovering, s/he might be exposed to TV commercials that advertise employees being mistreated by their companies. They also see how much money the attorneys claim to get for their clients. When an employee retains an attorney, the claim proceeds slowly. Everything has to be communicated from his/her attorney to the insurance carrier’s attorney. Don’t let a lack of compassion be the deciding factor for an employee seeking legal representation. It is a lose-lose situation. Suppose an employee claims a workrelated injury. However, you suspect the injury occured away from the job. You want to say something, but you know better. How do you show this person compassion? How can you act like you want to accommodate any restrictions the doctor may give? This employee is ruining the safety record

that everyone else has worked so hard to gain. How do you keep your emotions in check? Keep personal suspicions to yourself when talking to the employee about the injury. Show compassion because regardless of how the incident really occurred, this is an injured person. Let the investigation prove any discrepancies, and communicate to the insurance adjuster, not the employee, any concerns about a claim. When a manager verbalizes to the employee or others such frustrations or doubts concerning an injury, this adds to the employee’s frustration and may accelerate his/her path to an attorney.

ment to help facilitate the recovery (e.g., over-the-counter anti-inflammatories). Ongoing follow-up also means that if the employee has a clinic visit and the physician orders restrictions, s/he must follow up with the physician until s/he has no restrictions. Until the physician is satisfied that the employee is at a full-duty release and no further medical follow-up is

The Journey of Injury Management Prepare Before an Injury Occurs It is important to prepare for injuries. This involves choosing the right occupational clinic, preferrably one that has board-certified occupational health physicians, as they understand the importance of a quick return to work as well as the use of conservative care. In addition, every employee should know the company’s injury management process and what steps they are to follow, starting with immediately reporting an injury. First Aid vs. 9-1-1 When initiating an injury management program, you will likely ask, How do you determine when you should call 9-1-1 versus when to use first aid? This can be answered by considering what you would do if the injury occurred at your home. If it were a less-severe injury, such as a sore ankle, what would you do? Would you take your loved one immediately to the physician or would you wait and see if the ankle was still sore in the morning? Remember, use the right treatment at the right time. Ongoing Follow-Up An injury continues until the person reaches his/her preinjury state or until maximum medical improvement is achieved. In the sore ankle example, check up on the employee in the morning or have him/her report to the office before going to the assigned workstation. Continue this until the employee no longer has any pain, discomfort or concern. Of course, the employee will need to be using conservative treat-

needed, s/he is to be under medical treatment. As the employer, continue to ensure that the employee attends all follow-ups, even if feeling better. Contact During Lost Time Maintaining weekly contact with the employee while s/he is away from work for an occupational injury keeps that employee engaged. The contact need

Innovation. Get recognized for your innovation and creativity in managing safety in the workplace. Sponsored by Cintas, ASSE’s 2nd annual Award for Innovation in Occupational Safety Management will be presented at Safety 2015, in Dallas, TX. Keeping workers safe requires solutions that feature a dynamic mix of sound science, proven engineering principles and

If you want

strong interpersonal skills. The award recognizes those

something

innovative solutions. The recipient will receive a plaque

new, you

and cash prize of $3,000.

have to stop doing something old. Peter Drucker

Submissions begin December 2014. http://sgiz.mobi/s3/Safety-2015-Innovation-Award-Application A S

S

E

®

SAFETY MANAGEMENT INNOVATION AWARD SPONSORED BY

www.asse.org

JANUARY 2015


Best Practices

Medical Treatment Approval: Employee Advocate Sometimes the injured employee must wait for approval on surgery or physical therapy. If this is relayed to the site, the company representative handling the workers’ compensation claims must be notified. The employee must be informed about actions being taken to ensure proper care. The company will need to be the advocate for the employee to ensure that s/he receives medical care in a timely manner. Closing a Claim (Case) From the initial reporting of the injury to the closure of the workers’ compensation claim, “the right treatment at the right time” is the motto. If the employee suffers a strain/sprain, the right treatment at the right time might be conservative over-the-counter first-aid treatment. Site representatives must be knowledgeable about first aid and over-the-counter medications or have a medical resource available to discuss this option with the employee. If the employee needs more significant medical care (e.g., MRI, surgery, physical therapy) then the site must ensure that these items are approved quickly so the employee can begin the treatment and recovery process. Immediate Investigation The site should perform an investigation as soon as possible. First, use OSHA’s recordability determination tree to determine whether it is an OSHA-recordable incident. The investigation should include a handwritten, signed statement from the employee. Other pertinent data such as whether the employee was scheduled to perform the work being done at the time of injury must be included. Were the 52 ProfessionalSafety

JANUARY 2015

proper PPE being used? Was the employee following the correct procedures while performing the task? Witness statements from coworkers and supervisors must also be included. A reenactment of the event(s) can be revealing for those involved, including the injured employee. Then, the person responsible for the investigation should collate all data into a summary with a determination of corrective actions to be implemented. Escort to Clinic To ensure that the injured employee receives the appropriate treatment at the appropriate time, it is often common practice to escort him/her to the clinic for an initial evaluation. This is also an opportunity to provide the clinic with the billing information for the workers’ compensation carrier so that the employee does not receive any medical billing. Escorting the employee will also allow the company to verify any restrictions the employee may receive or if it is off-work notice, to remind the physician that the company will make accommodations for any modified duty the physician feels is appropriate.

ees. Thus, the safety manager must be the employee’s advocate. The employee must let his/her employer know if a referral to a specialist or physical therapy is being requested. Follow up immediately with the insurance carrier to let its staff know to expect the referral. This also lets the carrier know that you are aware and on top of the case. Follow up with the insurance carrier every 2 to 3 days until the treatment is authorized or denied. Keep Employee Informed This is a lot of information for the employee to deal with along with the injury itself. As information is gathered from the insurance carrier regarding approvals or a request is submitted to the adjuster for approval, communicate this to the employee. Once the employee knows that you are his/her advocate, s/he will readily communicate with you. Getting the employee the right care at the right time is a win-win situation for everyone. Conclusion Injuries are avoidable with a strong plan for prevention. This takes time to develop, overcoming obstacles and changing longstanding workplace cultures. As you strive to prevent all injuries, endeavor to implement a comprehensive injury management program. Provide employees with the appropriate care at the appropriate time, and ensure compassionate care and aggressive injury management. Ensuring a closure of the case can make all the difference, one life at a time.

Employee Follow-Up The injured employee must communicate with the work site after every doctor visit. This is usually communicated on a document from the doctor’s office that states when the employee can return to work, any restrictions on the employee and the date of the next follow-up visit. Even if the employee is off work, s/ he is responsible for ensuring that the company receives the documentation indicating his/her work status after each doctor visit. The injury is the employee’s injury, and s/he must take responsibility for his/her medical care.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013). Injuries, illnesses and fatalities. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/iif/data.htm CDC. (2013). Making healthcare safer: Stop infections from lethal CRE germs now. CDC Vital Signs. OSHA. (2001). Recording criteria. (29 CFR 1904.4). Retrieved from www.osha.gov/ pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_ table=STANDARDS&p_id=9635 Shaw, W.S., Robertson, M.M., Pranksy, G., et al. (2003). Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 129-142.

Advocating for the Employee With the Insurance Carrier Workers’ compensation carriers can delay approving treatment for employ-

B.J. (Bonnie) Heinrich, RN, COHN-S/CM, STS, is a workers’ compenstation manager for URS. She is a professional member of ASSE’s Central Texas Chapter and a member of the Healthcare Practice Specialty.

www.asse.org

References

©iSTOCkPHOTO.COM/RuSTYCLOud

not be a lengthy conversation, rather a simple, genuine inquiry as to how the employee is feeling. The work site representative should also note that s/he looks forward to the injured employee returning to work. S/he may end the conversation by asking if the injured employee needs help with anything regarding the workers’ compensation claim. If so, follow up with the insurance carrier or workers’ compensation manager. Then, relay the information back to the employee in a timely manner.

Product Pulse

FR Apparel

Arm Protection

The 5.11 Polartec FR Crew features no-melt and no-drip performance. Product is constructed from a blend of yarns with moisture-wicking ability to keep user cool and comfortable. Product also features flat-lock seams to prevent chafing and pen pockets on left sleeve. www.polartec.com

Wells Lamont Industrial introduces its KRG sleeve. Product provides ANSI Level 4 cut resistance and flame resistance. Reusable sleeve is made from Kevlar and other high-performance materials to provide comfort and protection. Product is available with or without a thumbhole. www.wellslamontindustrial.com

Fall Harness

Honeywell introduces its Miller AirCore Wind Energy harness designed to provide fall protection, comfort and productivity. Harness reportedly reduces fatigue for all-day endurance. Product is equipped with removable lumbar wear pad, removable belt with tool loops, cam buckle and oversized identification tag. www.millerfall protection.com

Electrical Socket

Safer Socket from TwinStar International aims to prevent electrical fires. Product plugs into an existing outlet and continually monitors the temperature of the plug with five tiny thermostats housed inside. It automatically shuts off

the plugged-in appliance if an unsafe rise in temperature is detected. LED lights glow green when unit is plugged in and energized. A red light illuminates when overheating occurs. www.safersocket.com

Cleaning Towelette

Allegro Industries’ respirator cleaning pad is a 5x8 in. towelette designed for use on rubber respirator masks and other PPE. Product is individually packaged in foil and contains 70% isopropanol. Product’s box can be used as a wall-mounted dispenser. www.allegro safety.com

Table Saw

SawStop’s Jobsite Saw’s detection technology stops and drops the blade in less than 5 milliseconds when blade detects contact with skin. Product features oneturn elevation, pedal release, accessory storage drawer, tool-free zero-clearance insert, T-style fence with an ergonomic lock and improved accuracy. www.sawstop.com/jobsite

Safety Cabinet

JOBOX’s fire-resistant safety cabinets feature double wall construction, durable powder-coat paint and 2.5-in. thick doors. Cabinet also features bolster system, which allows user to easily level cabinet. Base footprint extends beyond the width of the cabinet to improve stability. Cabinet’s continuous staked piano hinges enhance durability and security; ultra-heavy duty, fully enclosed staggering mechanisms ensure that door closes in correct sequence; and slanted shelves guide spills safely to the rear, funneling any liquids into a leak-proof sump in cabinet base. www.deltastorage.com www.asse.org

Publication of this material does not constitute endorsement by ASSE.

To submit a product for this section, send an e-mail to profes [email protected]. Be sure to include product and contact information, along with a high-resolution product photo.

JANUARY 2015


Product Pulse

Hand Pump

Holmatro compact hand pump drives various hydraulic rescue tools during operations such as emergency response. Made of high-grade aluminum and a fiberglass-reinforced handle, product is lightweight and easy to carry. Features include push-and-unlock system for immediate release of handle, soft-grip operation, hydraulic oillevel indicator and built-in funnel. www.holmatro.com

Disposable Glove

West Chester Protective Gear has expanded its line of disposable gloves. Line includes nitrileand latex-based gloves suitable for food service, general household industries and light manufactuing industries. Product also provides barrier against bacteria, oils and cleaning chemicals. www.westchester gear .com

Fall Protection

FallTech’s Rotating Multi-Use Anchor is ideal for use with expansion bolts, concrete screws or grade-8 steel bolts, and it provides custom anchorage solutions for concrete and steel applications. Product is available with or without fasteners; can be used for temporary and permanent applications, as well as vertical or overhead applications; and mounts to concrete or steel. In addition, product is equipped with reusable zinc-plated stainless steel anchor plate with integral D-ring. www.falltech.com

Insulated Sock

KEEN’s Utility’s DuraZone sock is constructed of breathable wool for extra protection against cold temperatures. Dyneema fibers are blended into the heel and toe areas, and provide comfort and durability. KEEN’s Wunderseam feature provides a seamless toe in the flex zone to avoid bunching and discomfort. www.keen utility .com

Spill Containment

The Trap Pac Pro from Andax Industries LLC holds two complete spill systems in one color-coded heavy-duty case. One side contains an oil-based spill pack that reportedly has enough sorbents for a 10-gallon spill. The other side holds a reusable 100-gallon tank trap containment pool for oil, diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid. Matching color-coded equipment labels can be used to identify possible leak sources. www.andax.com

Slip & Fall Prevention

J.J. Keller & Associates introduces its online training program Slips and Trips for Construction. Program helps employees recognize and avoid slip-and-trip hazards, and teaches them proper measures to ensure safety. Video focuses on measures such as proper footwear, safe walking practices, housekeeping, maintenance, workplace design and best practices. www.jjkeller.com


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Marketplace

Positions Available

Professional Directory

PAT ALLEN ASSOCIATES Inc.® The premier specialized nationwide safety recruiters

INSURANCE

•Loss Control Consultants •Fire Protection, B&M Engineers Visit our website to view current opportunities:

www.patallen.com

Go Digital Did you know PS is available in a digital edition? Get your issues on the go. Log in to www.asse.org, click on “update information” under Account details and click the electronic delivery option.

Advertisers’ Index • www.asse.org/links Website

Applications International

C2, 7

www.ApplicationsInternational.com

Board of Certified Safety Professionals

11

www.bcsp.org

Bowen EHS

17

www.BowenEHS.com

Complete Equity Markets

C4

www.cemins.com/asse.html

Culture Change Consultants

19

www.culturechange.com

Datachem Software Inc.

15

www.CertiStep.com

Driver’s Alert

3

www.driversalert.com/prosafety

JDS Products Inc.

19

http://jdsproducts.com

Scaffold Training Institute

19

www.scaffoldtraining.com

Shirley Parsons

5

www.shirleyparsons.com

SPAN International Training

9

www.spansafetyworkshops.com

ASSE Innovation Award

51

http://sgiz.mobi/s3/Safety-2015 -Innovation-Award-Application

ASSE Job Board

C3

http://jobs.asse.org

Safety 2015

1

www.safety2015.org

Advertising policy

(914) 447-0673 [email protected]

LOSS CONTROL JOBS ARE BACK!!

NATIONWIDE CASUALTY • FIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION • ENVIRONMENTAL MULTI-LINE Pearl Casey: (866) 720-7620

[email protected] [email protected]

Page

www.asse.org/workshop

Jennifer Allen

Todd Mitchell: (800) 886-1562, ext 109

Advertiser

ASSE Continuing Education Workshops 13

Pat Allen (914) 232-1545 [email protected]

TODD MITCHELL ASSOCIATES, INC.

“EXPOSING

TALENT”

Nationwide Recruitment and Placement Specialists for Safety, Health, Environmental and Ergonomics Professionals

Laura Petraitis-Doll [email protected]

15774 S. LaGrange Rd., #301• Orland Park, IL 60462 Office: (708) 478-3894 •www.lsdoll.com

Paul Shrenker Associates, Inc.

. . . Whereas there is evidence that products used in safety and health programs, or by the public in general, may in themselves present hazards; and Whereas, commercial advertising of products may not depict the procedures or requirements for their safe use, or may depict their use in some unsafe manner . . . the Board of Directors of ASSE directs staff to see that advertising in official Society publications is warranted and certified by the advertiser prior to publication, to assure that products show evidence of having been reviewed or examined for safety and health problems, and that no unsafe use and/or procedures are shown and/or described in the advertising. Such requirements and acceptance of advertising by ASSE shall not be considered an endorsement or approval in any way of such products for any purpose. ASSE may reject or refuse any advertisement for any reason ASSE deems proper.

19+ years’ experience recruiting and placing all career levels of SH&E professionals. If you’re an SH&E professional looking for your next career opportunity, please call us anytime!

Paul Shrenker 413-267-4271 [email protected] www.psassociatesinc.com

2 ProfessionalSafety NOVEMBER 2013 www.asse.org www.asse.org JANUARY 2015 ProfessionalSafety 55

Etc. Etc. Etc.

L

ast year, Oxford Dictionaries selected vape as its Word of the Year 2014. The word came into common use thanks to the popularity of electronic cigarettes; it means “to inhale and exhale the vapor produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device.” Like any competition, there were some serious contenders for the top spot. Take a look: •Bae (noun): used as a term of endearment for one’s romantic partner. •Budtender (noun): a person whose job is to serve customers in a cannabis dispensary or shop. •Contactless (adjective): relating to or involving technologies that allow a smart card, mobile phone, etc., to contact wirelessly to an electronic reader, typically to make a payment. •Indyref (noun): an abbreviation of ‘”independence referendum,” in reference to the referendum on Scottish independence, held in Scotland on Sept. 18, 2014. •Normcore (noun): a trend in which ordinary, unfashionable clothing is worn as a deliberate fashion statement. •Slacktivism (noun): informal actions taken online to support a political or social cause requiring little time or involvement (such as signing an online petition). Now for your challenge: Try to use at least one of these runner-up words in a conversation today.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com

“I like the word indolence. It makes my laziness seem classy.” Bern Williams

Who Knew?

Thanks to folks who clearly have a keen interest in the English language, we know that: •Forty is the only number whose letters are in alphabetical order. •One is the only number whose letters are in reverse alphabetical order. •Four has four letters; it’s the only number in English in which the number of letters in the name equals the number itself. •The word typewriter is the only 10-letter word using the top row of keys on a keyboard. •In most dictionaries, hydroxyzine is the only word that includes the letters XYZ in order. If you have a cartoon, anecdote, joke or interesting safety item you’d like to submit for publication on this page, send your contribution to [email protected]. Submissions will not be returned.


JANUARY 2015

www.asse.org

Doug Larson

What I Meant to Say

B

ack in 1775, playwright Richard Sheridan created a character, Mrs. Malaprop, for his play, The Rivals. Mrs. Malaprop proved to be an audience favorite, drawing huge laughs for lines such as “He is the very pineapple of politeness” (pinnacle) and “She’s as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of Nile” (alligator). Politicians often find themselves mocked for similar malapropisms. Here’s one from former Chicago mayor Richard Daley: “The police are not here to create disorder, they’re here to preserve disorder.” George W. Bush once said, “I don’t have to accept their tenants. I was trying to convince those college students to accept my tenants.” He was so famous for such language misuses that pundits coined the term Bushisms just to keep track. As Chazz (played by Will Ferrell) says in Blades of Glory, “Mind-bottling, isn’t it?” Oh, wait, that’s actually an eggcorn. Read more about those at http://bit.ly/1wTJjJc.

JANUARY Safety Photo of the Month

What in the Word?

“If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers.”

“Whoa! Is this a cool kaleidoscope or what?” Photo from Clark Vermillion, Columbia-Willamette Chapter

YOUR IDEAL CANDIDATE IS JUST A CLICK AWAY! Use ASSE’s Job Board To Find Qualified OSH Professionals For Your Open Positions • • • • •

Reach targeted and qualified candidates. Easy-to-use job posting and resume searching capabilities. Only pay for resumes of interested candidates. Access to job board networks for broader job distribution to qualified candidates. Applicant tracking and management capabilities.

New Year Special!

Jobs.asse.org

From now until January 31 you can purchase a 3-pack of jobs for $675, a savings of over 20%. Use code 15ASSE at checkout.

POWERED BY