Safe Workplace and Safety News

The 2009 data on the top ten violations of OSHA standards, as well as the top ten OSHA fines in 2009 is available in a new report from Graphic Products. Use this link to get your free copy: Top Ten OSHA Serious Violations.

But... what was the underlying cause?

A new study released today by VitalSmarts found that five threats to workers’ safety are commonly left undiscussed and lead to avoidable injury or fatalities.

The study, named Silent Danger: The Five Crucial Conversations that Drive Workplace Safety, surveyed more than 1,600 frontline workers, managers, and safety directors across 30 safety-conscious organizations in 2009.

According to the data, 93 percent of employees say their company is currently at risk and nearly half are aware of an injury or death caused by one of five avoidable workplace dangers. However, despite being aware of these five threats, only one in four employees speaks up and tries to correct unsafe conditions.

"Silent Danger shows the tragic secret behind most workplace injuries is that someone is aware of the threat well in advance, but is either unwilling or unable to speak up," said Joseph Grenny, co-founder of VitalSmarts and leading researcher of the study. "The greatest dangers to workplace safety are the norms, habits, and assumptions embedded in our corporate cultures that stifle employees’ ability to speak up and confront unsafe practices."

Each of the five threats to workplace safety outlined in Silent Danger was identified as being costly, common, and undiscussable. The five threats are:

* Get It Done: Unsafe practices that are justified by tight deadlines.
* Undiscussable Incompetence: Unsafe practices that stem from skill deficits that can’t be discussed.
* Just This Once: Unsafe practices that are justified as exceptions to the rule.
* This Is Overboard: Unsafe practices that bypass precautions considered excessive.
* Are You a Team Player? Unsafe practices that are justified for the good of the team, company, or customer.

However, not all employees remained silent bystanders when confronted with these and similar threats. A small minority, ranging from 25 to 28 percent, say they are able to speak up effectively in these crucial moments and address unsafe conditions. More than 82 percent of this vocal minority says that when they speak up, their actions result in a safer work environment for everyone.

Grenny says additional training, safety audits, and other tools, while important, will never be enough to create a truly safe environment.

"The reason we are seeing safety improvements begin to stall is not because the systems and policies we have implemented don’t work, it's because people don’t speak up and hold one another accountable," says Grenny. "Accidents in the workplace will not be prevented until senior leaders eradicate cultures of silence."

Grenny outlines recommendations senior leaders can follow for teaching their employees to speak up in crucial moments. One year after implementing Grenny’s recommendations, Pride International, an offshore drilling contractor, decreased its total incident rate by 55 percent and reported zero accidents that required employees to miss time on the job.

The full Silent Danger research results and recommendations for leaders are available for download at www.vitalsmarts.com/safety.

About the Silent Danger Study

In early 2009, VitalSmarts began identifying ways to improve workplace safety incidents that led to 4 million injuries and 5,600 deaths per year. The Silent Danger study began with interviews and focus groups with 130 people from eight organizations. Trends unveiled in the interviews were verified through a survey administered to 1,500 employees from 22 organizations to test the impact communication breakdowns had on workplace safety. Full results available at www.vitalsmarts.com/safety.

Labels: Free Safety Guides, workplace fatalities, workplace injuries, workplace safety

This report comes from the financial times in London (U.K.) It summarizes what might be developing into a major fight between business and OSHA concerning recording repetitive motion injury information. The article states:

"An arcane-sounding proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) related to repetitive-strain injuries is expected to revive a 10-year-old battle that began during the Clinton administration, pitting labour unions against business advocates such as the US Chamber of Commerce over how the government should define ergonomic injuries in the workplace."

"There are a lot of scientific questions on whether ergonomic injuries are caused by the workplace or outside the workplace, including lifestyle and genetics," says Marc Freedman at the US chamber. "Unlike every other hazard for which OSHA regulates, ergonomics is not limited to the workplace. That makes it extremely problematic."

Read the entire article here.

Labels: OSHA, workplace injuries

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the manufacturer of a machine, that was involved in an industrial accident, can be held liable even though that manufacturer is in the United Kingdom and has no presence in New Jersey or the U.S.

An article on the LAW.COM web site states:

"Justice Barry Albin, writing for the 5-2 majority, said that given the nature of modern international commerce and New Jersey's long-arm rule, there is no reason why a foreign manufacturer cannot be held liable, even if it has barely any contact here."

The accident happened in 2001 and involved the loss of four fingers in a recycling machine.

There were two dissenting judges in the 5-2 decision. The articles reports:

"In her dissent, Hoens said there needs to be more of a nexus to New Jersey than a product just ending up here. 'Repeated quotations and soaring language about the realities of the global marketplace might compel the casual reader to follow what appears to be the majority's relentless logic,' she said. 'But those rhetorical techniques cannot mask the fact that the majority today embarks on a path that stretches our notions about due process, and about what is fundamentally fair, beyond the breaking point.'"

Read the entire article here.

Labels: Industrial Safety, safety regulations, workplace injuries

This time of year I wonder whether I should stay on the lighter side and "be happy." In past years I've used the last week of the year to focus on posts about new videos I've run into throughout the year. But... yes there is a but, I'm struck by the number of fatal accidents I'm reading about in today's news reports. I wonder if instead of just being happy for the holidays, there should be an extra emphasis on safety... just so we don't lose our focus, miss a detail and someone gets hurt or killed.

There's a line in the following story, dated December 22nd, that bothers me.

In an apparent freak accident, a construction worker was killed by slabs of granite in a New York City construction supply store.

The New York Post reports that the 47-year-old man was killed when a number of the heavy slabs used to make bathroom and kitchen countertops fell on him, with one striking him in the head.

What bothers me is that the story quotes David Perecman, a New York personal injury attorney, as saying: "There are so many ways and means people can be injured. Some, like this one practically defy categorization. However an injury accident is an injury accident and if the workplace is at fault, the family of the victim deserves rightful compensation for the death. Was it a fluke accident or was it due to a lack of safety regulations?"

Are there any "fluke" accidents? By that I mean, are there accidents that are just going to happen and nothing could have been done to prevent them? Maybe from an attorney's perspective there are fluke accidents, but from a safety point of view I don't think there are fluke accidents. I'll grant that there may be what are called acts of God (an unexpected high wind blows over a tree, for example), but that's the exception to the rule.

What do you think?

Labels: safety management, workplace fatalities, workplace injuries

Business Insurance reports about an increasing concern among employers about increased OSHA regulation. The article reports:

"Fueling some concerns was a proposal last week by the Department of Labor and OSHA to require that employers report worker musculoskeletal disorders, known as MSDs, as part of their Form 300 injury logs.

Employer organizations said they fear that the increased MSD reporting could set the stage for mandatory workplace ergonomics standards."

Read the article here.

Labels: Industrial Health, safety politics, safety regulations, workplace injuries

OSHA has cited Hovensa LLC for 56 alleged serious violations of workplace safety and health standards at its oil refinery located in Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

The company faces a total of $222,500 in proposed fines following two OSHA inspections, a programmed inspection conducted as part of OSHA's National Emphasis Program on Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management, and an inspection opened in response to a June 4 accident in which three workers suffered serious burns after being sprayed with hot boiler feed water while they were performing maintenance.

"OSHA's process safety management regulations are designed to reduce or eliminate workplace hazards associated with the catastrophic release of highly hazardous chemicals," said José A. Carpena , OSHA's area director for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. "These requirements are stringent and detailed because failure to comply can seriously compromise the safety and health of workers."

The citations issued as a result of the programmed inspection address the company's failure to properly document process safety information, conduct proper process hazard analysis, comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, obtain contractor safety and health programs, properly train employees, conduct maintenance on critical instruments and equipment, update operating procedures and resolve incident investigation findings in a timely manner. Additionally, OSHA has issued citations for not properly installing metal stairs, maintaining ladders in a safe condition, supporting piping systems and protecting them against physical damage and excessive stress, and for equipment deficiencies, a lack of machine guarding, and electrical and fire hazards.

The accident investigation resulted in citations for exposing workers to the hazards of hot water and steam condensate, not developing and documenting procedures to prevent the unintended release of hot water and steam, and not training workers on the safe application, usage and removal of energy control devices. OSHA issues a serious citation when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and the employer knew, or should have known, of the hazard.

"One means of helping ensure worker safety is for employers to establish an effective safety and health management system through which they and their employees work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazards before they result in injury or illness," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.

The oil refinery, which employs about 2,500 workers, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an information conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The investigation was conducted by OSHA's Puerto Rico Area Office; telephone: 787-277-1560.

Labels: OSHA Citations, Safety Training, workplace injuries

Here's a video that provides good reminders about the importance of paying attention to safety.

---

Related past blog posts:
Will You Be Here Tomorrow?
Safety At Work - Falling Bricks
WSIB Workplace Safety Videos

Labels: Safety Training, safety videos, workplace injuries