Falls in Construction - Reroofing
In Spanish: Caidas en la Construccion/Reparacion del Techo
Sprains and Strains in Construction/Pulling Cables
In Spanish: Torceduras y Desgarres en la Construccion/Tendido de Cables
Struck-by Accidents in Construction/Swinging Cranes
In Spanish: Golpes Causados por Accidentes en Construccion/Gruas en Movimiento
"Every time Massey sent miners into the UBB Mine, Massey put those miners' lives at risk"
Joe Main, assistant labor secretary for mine safety and health and chief of MSHA
A scathing report issued by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration yesterday put the blame for the coal mining disaster that claimed 29 lives on "a workplace culture that valued production over safety." The report characterized the coal mining disaster as "entirely preventable", one that could have been avoided if long-standing and well-known safety standards had been followed. The report documents flagrant safety violations, routine coverups of violations, and intimidation of workers to keep them from reporting safety hazards and violations.
Ken Ward, who has covered the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster with painstaking detail in The Charleston Gazette, reports:
"Outlining flagrant safety violations and a practice of trying to cover up major hazards, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration officials cited mine operator Performance Coal Co. with 369 violations -- including 12 that directly contributed to the disaster -- and levied more than $10.8 million in fines.
Both the fines and the settlement are by far the largest ever in a case over worker safety in the mining industry."
In addition, federal prosecutors announced a $200 million settlement with Alpha Natural Resources, the firm that bought Massey Energy. The settlement calls for $80 million to be directed to enhanced safety at all the company's underground mines, as well as a dedicated training center and a $48 million trust to fund mine safety research at academic institutions. The settlement also includes $46.5 million in restitution for the families of the disaster victims.
Ward states:
Key to the deal, though, is that -- unlike a previous deal with Massey following the Aracoma Mine fire -- the Justice Department is not agreeing to never bring charges against any individual executives, officers or employees of Massey or Performance. Goodwin said resolution of issues with Alpha allows prosecutors to focus their resources on potential cases against such individuals.
In addition to his newspaper reports, Ward covers related events at his Coal Tattoo blog. Of particular note is a post in which he talks more about the settlement and how U.S. Attorney's criminal probe will continue. He quotes one US attorney as saying, "If anything, certain aspects of our investigation are going into high gear."
All eyes will be on Alpha going forward. Their buyout occurred last June despite intense opposition, questions about events, and allegations of secret deals revolving around the $8.5 billion sale. Shortly after this deal, Alpha joined industry opposition to tougher safety rules.
The report was issued on the 104th anniversary of the worst mining disaster in U.S. history - the coal mining explosions at Monongah W.V. that claimed 362 lives. While mining safety has improved in the decades since, yesterday's report demonstrates there are many more improvements that could and must occur to protect workers.
Related prior posts
Massey Energy Mine Disaster: The Soul of a Bean Counter
Mining safety: not just for China
Cold comfort: Crandall Canyon survivors and workers comp
A bad way to make a living
The sad, quiet death of Bud Morris - father, husband, motorcycle aficionado
The feds and Phantom Miners
Sago mining disaster and workers comp: newly formed insurer to pay benefits
Sago mining deaths: a sorry way to begin the new year
In the office, on the road or at home, proper ergonomics when using laptops will help to prevent back, shoulder, and wrist problems.
In the pre-holiday shopping season, crowd control is no small issue for retailers. And Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, is the behemoth day that dwarfs all other days. Last year, 212 million people spent $45 billion shopping in retail stores and websites over the Black Friday weekend. And it's not always happy holiday cheer - people can get pretty cranky in their pursuit of a bargain.
A few years ago, we reported on the the death of a worker trampled by crowds in a Long Island, NY during a Walmart "Black Friday" sale. Crowd control experts would say that the term "trampling is imprecise:
"Crowd forces can reach levels that almost impossible to resist or control. Virtually all crowd deaths are due to compressive asphyxia and not the "trampling" reported by the news media. Evidence of bent steel railings after several fatal crowd incidents show that forces of more than 4500N (1,000lbs) occurred. Forces are due to pushing, and the domino effect of people leaning against each other."
Since that unfortunate event, WalMart has spent nearly $2 million fighting the $7,000 fine imposed by OSHA. History was not in the retailer's favor: in the three prior years, thronging crowds had popped the hinges off the doors of the same store. And as it got closer to the 5 a.m. opening, the crowd was rowdy enough that a regional WalMart executive suggested that they not open the doors because police were not present, a suggestion that the store manager did not take.
It may seem counterproductive to spend so much money to contest a modest fine (the maximum penalty amount for a serious violation allowed under the law), but WalMart was actually trying to prevent a precedent from being established. Retail industry groups do not want the "government micromanaging how sales are conducted." Two years after the WalMart stampede, OSHA issued Crowd Management Safety Guidelines for Retailers (PDF), which offered guidance for various crowd control measures, including suggestions for major changes to the first-come, first-serve way that many sales events are held.
In October, the National Retail Federation issued its own guidance in the form of Effective Crowd Management: Guidelines on how to maintain the safety and security of your customers, employees and store. Retailers can download a copy of the 22-page document, which discusses crowd control for planned events such as sales, promotions, and celebrity appearances, as well as for unplanned events such as the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests, comedic flash mobs, and organized criminal gangs.
Criminal shoplifting gangs are nothing new - retailers have long been plagued by groups of "grab and run" gangs that descend in numbers on a store and distract employees. What's different today is the efficiency with which they can organize using mobile phones and social media. Although the National Retail Foundation has noted that media distorts the threat of the so-called criminal flash mobs. These are not to be confused with the much more benign and often entertaining flash mobs that occasionally stage improvisational musical or dance events in retail establishments. But despite whether they are amusing to the public or not, "spontaneous" unplanned events still pose a crowd control and security challenge to the workers.
Pop quiz:
Match the Injury Incident Rate per 100 Full Time Equivalents (#1 through #4) with the industry (A, B, C, D)
1. 8.6
2. 5.6
3. 4.8
4. 3.5
A. building construction
B. coal mines, underground workers
C. nursing home workers
D. tire manufacturing workers
Answers: 1-C, 2-B, 3-D, 4-A
Yes, you read that right. Nursing home workers are at higher risk of injury than underground coal miners, construction workers, and tire manufacturers. And the picture is pretty much the same when you talk about serious injuries that result in lost time. "The lost-time/ restricted duty injury case rate for nursing home workers is 5.6 per 100 FTEs, compared to 3.7, 3.3 and 1.7 for these same sub-industries, respectively."
At The Pump Handle, Celeste Monforton posts about new data that reveals that nursing home workers face an extraordinarily high rate of on-the-job injuries.
Of the 16 million US workers employed in health care and social assistance, more than 3 million are employed in US nursing and residential care facilities. In comparison, Monforton notes that about 17.1 million people were employed in manufacturing and construction. OSHA focused approximately 78% of its inspections on these two industries, and less than 2% on healthcare workers. She notes that there are different standards or triggers to prompt inspections in these industries. "Manufacturing plants on the targeting list, for example, aren't selected for a possible inspection unless their DART rate* is 7.0 per 100 FTEs or greater. Nursing homes in contrast, have to have a DART rate of 16 per 100 FTEs or greater to "make the cut" for a possible inspection."
*DART: days away from work, restricted-duty or transfer to a different job
Related
NCCI study on safe lifting programs for long-term care facilities
How bad is the obesity epidemic? Bad enough that car makers are increasing the size of cars to accommodate our collective expansion - typical family cars have gained about a foot of width over than half a century ago. And in a Plump My Ride research initiative, at least one luxury automaker is researching how obesity affects mobility while driving.
A recent study by Gallup says that obesity and related conditions total $153 billion in annual productivity losses. U.S. workers who are overweight or obese and have other chronic health conditions miss an estimated 450 million additional days of work each year compared with healthy workers. The study also notes:
"The $153 billion in annual lost productivity costs linked to unhealthy workers in the United States is more than four times the cost found in the United Kingdom. The striking difference is the result of fewer unhealthy workers in the U.K. About 14% of full-time U.S. workers are of a normal weight and have no chronic illness, compared with 20% in the U.K."Julie Liedman discusses obesity and its effects on the workplace in a recent article in Risk & Insurance. She cites a new report by Lockton Inc. that documents other costs related to obesity:
Liedman notes that this report suggests traditional wellness programs aren't enough to tackle the issue of morbid obesity and employers should consider offering benefits that cover more dramatic interventions, such as bariatric surgery.
"A person with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight; a person with BMI of 30 to 39.9 is considered obese and a person with BMI of 40 or more, or a BMI of 35 or more with an obesity-related disease such as diabetes, heart disease or sleep apnea is considered morbidly obese. People with BMI of 40 or more, or 35 or more with an obesity-related disease, are considered candidates for surgery."
We've previously discussed obesity costs as they relate to workers comp based on an NCCI study. While some might think that the suggestion for employers to consider benefits to cover bariatric surgery to be a radical response, it may be a Hobson's choice of "pay for it now" or "pay for it (more) later." We've pointed to several cases that determined employers must pay for weight reduction surgery as part of recovery from a work-related injury. See Compensable weight loss surgery? A new wrinkle in obesity and New York Weighs in on Obesity.
By the way...
Do you know your own BMI? Use this BMI calculator to check your own weight or to use in your wellness communications.
Related past posts
Tip Toeing Around Obesity
The Cost of Getting Better
Injuries at the gym: compensability, incentives, and wellness
Morbid Obesity and the Essential Job Functions of a Cop
Weighty matters: the high cost of obesity in the workplace
Obesity in Workers Comp: Duke Sounds the Alarm
The National Corn Growers Association and the National Grain and Feed Foundation - the research and education arm of the National Grain and Feed Association - recently unveiled a joint video project to promote awareness about grain bin safety on the farm. The two organizations teamed up in November 2010 to develop the video in response to an increase in U.S. fatalities and injuries associated with entry into grain bins.
It's pretty powerful. The video, shot on location in several states, provides a wide range of information on prevention tips and background data on grain bin accidents. The project also involved interviews with professionals in the fields of grain bin safety research and rescue.
The producers are hoping to get this in the hands of as many farmers as possible and are making DVD copies of the grain bin safety video available for ordering.
First responders and oral histories
We are mindful that the 9-11 story was one that largely affected ordinary people who were going about their workdays. When the planes hit, thousands of first responders jumped into action and their courage and quick actions helped to save untold thousands. Among the many remembrances and stories in the10-year commemorative events, we found the 60 Minutes story on the experiences of first responders to be particularly powerful. It focused on 911 Responders Remember, an oral history project initiated by Dr. Benjamin Luft, director of the Long Island World Trade Center Program (the SUNY-Stony Brook arm of the WTC Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program consortium). This Center of Excellence provides service and monitoring to approximately 5,000 WTC responders across Long Island. These men and women are law enforcement officers, construction workers, electricians, emergency medical personnel, firefighters, iron workers, plumbers, dog handlers, doctors, and many others.
In addition to cancer, respiratory and pulmonary disorders and other physical problems, many workers still suffer from varying levels of emotional or psychological distress, including PTSD. This project is a national historical record, a public health document, and for many participants, a therapeutic exercise which allows them to open up to tell about events or things that they witnessed that they may not previously been able to talked about.
See more testimonies.
Related: A decade later, the list of Sept. 11 victims continues to grow
Related: Fight Over Compensation for 9/11 Responders Shifts to Cancer Victims.
Hitting close to home
September 11 took an extremely heavy toll on the insurance industry. The terrible events claimed the lives of 295 employees of Marsh & McLennan and 176 employees at Aon Corporation. Dave Lenckus of Business Insurance offers recollections from insurance executives who were connected with or escaped from the WTC in his article Terror of September 11 lives in memory. Also see the company tribute pages: Remember: September 11, 2001 - a site to remember and celebrate the lives of those Aon employees lost on September 11, 2001, and Marsh & McLennan 9/11 Memorial - both a website and a physical memorial.
Tribute song & Firefighter Foundation
After 9/11, our own Tom Lynch recorded a 9/11 Tribute Song with Peter Clemente at Mechanics Hall in Worcester, MA. Actor and comedian Denis Leary used the song to raise money for the New York fallen firefighters. Leary is very devoted to firefighters and runs the Leary Firefighters Foundation. The Foundation was established in 2000 in response to a tragic fire in Worcester, Massachusetts that claimed the lives of Leary's cousin, a childhood friend, and four other firefighters. The Leary Firefighters Foundation's mission is to provide funding and resources for Fire Departments to obtain the best available equipment, technology and training. Inadequate equipment - particularly faulty tracking and radio equipment - contributed to deaths in both events.
Insurance media coverage
PropertyCasualty360: 9/11: 10 Years Later, Execs & Risk Managers Weigh In on How Industry Has Changed
Insurance Journal: 9/11 and Terrorism Risk 10 Years Later and Why 9-11 Changed Everything
Risk & Insurance: Selling Carriers on Rebuilding Ground Zero
Risk Management Monitor: Ten Years After
Occupational Health & Safety: NFPA Cites Safety Improvements Rising from 9/11
CNNTech: How 9/11 inspired a new era of robotics
workerscompensation.com: 9/11 Tribute
Other resources
Understanding 9-11: A Television News Archive - a library of news coverage of the events of 9/11/2001 and their aftermath as presented by U.S. and international broadcasters. A resource for scholars, journalists, and the public, it presents one week of news broadcasts for study, research and analysis.
The Encyclopedia of 9/11 - from New York Magazine
We stumbled on a photo feature of 11 Cringe-Worthy OSHA violations - and as advertised, the photos are mind-boggling horrific safety violations. Darwin awards waiting to happen. (In a similar vein, the Naval Safety Center Photo of the Week has been logging such violations for a long time now - 445 weeks, to be precise. )
We have mixed reactions to these photos. This genre of "people doing stupid things" photos and videos are immensely popular on the web - whether the stupid acts occur in the workplace or elsewhere. It's the age-old slipping on a banana peel gag. Sometimes, their popularity can be attributed to simple schadenfreude. Sometimes, watching people do stupid things makes the viewer feel superior in a "ha, at least I am not that stupid" way. And sometimes, laughter is rooted in a whistling-by-the-graveyard coping mechanism. We see this frequently in police, firefighters, and other emergency workers, whose job-related black humor might be shocking to people outside the industry. We see this same type of black humor in a lot of safety professionals, too.
But while we're as fascinated as the next person by these type of photos, we admit to being a bit humor challenged. Perhaps we've just seen the flesh and blood results of workplace injuries a little too often to find photos of this nature particularly funny. Astonishing? Yes. Cringe-worthy? Yes. Instructive? Often. Fascinating? Frequently. But rarely do we find them ha ha funny. Where some see idiots, we see untrained or inexperienced workers and horrible calamities waiting to happen.
The poster says she assumes that most of these violations are taking place in countries where OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction. We don't have any way of knowing where these photos actually did take place, but while that seems a fair assumption, we would caution about too much national superiority. For all we know, these workers could be offshore employees of U.S. firms. We are pretty sure that if U.S. workers were left to fend for themselves when it comes to workplace safety, we'd see some comparably "humorous " pics. Plus, never underestimate some of the safety horrors that go on right here in OSHA-land. Here's a few examples:
Exhibit A spotted in Indiana by DemolitionX at BuildCentral.
Houston Safety offers a photo of scaffolding violations in Galveston.
Blogger Patcick McDonough points out a safety violation in Chicago.
Sometimes, system redress seems painfully inadequate.
Such is the case with the $7,000 OSHA penalty recently imposed for inadequate safeguards related to the case of murdered mental-health worker Stephanie Moulton. $7,000 is the maximum fine available for "a serious violation of the agency's "general duty clause" for failing to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause serious injury or death." It's not just that the dollar amount seems paltry in light of the loss of life - it simply doesn't seem substantial enough to have any deterrent value.
And in truth, while the OSHA citation points to the employer, one could make the case that the employer is also a victim of an economic squeeze play, which has resulted in inadequate staffing and safety controls. State budget cutbacks worry mental health workers - a scenario that is no doubt playing out throughout the country - in mental health budgets, in public safety budgets, and in regulatory enforcement, just to name a few areas that affect the health and safety of workers -- and of the public.
Stephanie Moulton was working alone at one of the North Suffolk Mental Health Association's group homes in Revere when she was brutally murdered by a patient with a violent record. A week later and just miles away at the Lowell Transitional Living Center, a shelter for the homeless, a worker named Jose Roldan was also killed by person who had slipped through the cracks in the mental health system. Both these murders were discussed in-depth in stories that appeared in The New York Times: A Schizophrenic, a Slain Worker, Troubling Questions recounted Moulton's death, and Teenager's Path and a Killing Put Spotlight on Mental Care discussed the case related to Roldan's death.
An investigation into Moulton's death resulted in the issuance of a report in June: Report of the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health Task Force on Staff and Client Safety. The report found that:
OSHA's citation includes recommendations the employer could take to address the workplace violence issue:
Mouton's family is rallying for enactment of Stephanie's law, which would mandate panic buttons in mental health facilities. A good start and one among recommendations issued by OSHA in their Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Health Care & Social Service Workers. But such measures may be woefully inadequate in the face of reduced staffing. In an ongoing climate of budget cuts and a strong public appetite for decreased regulatory controls, mental health workers are likely to continue being at greater risk -- along with public safety workers such as police, firefighters, and healthcare workers, who also face dire staffing shortages.
Two Oklahoma teen athletes had their lives changed forever after becoming entangled in a grain bin auger while working on a farm. News reports state that 17 year old Bryce Gannon was working at a grain bin elevator when his leg was caught in the auger. In an all-too-familiar attempted rescue scenario, his co-worker 17 year-old Tyler Zander went to his aid and also became entangled. Emergency rescue personnel had to cut apart the 12-inch metal auger in order to free the young men.
Grain bin auger accidents are brutal and severe events in which body parts become entwined in spinning equipment. They are somewhat similar in nature to power take off (PTO) shaft accidents which claimed the life of baseball great Mark Fidrych. We posted about his death and the story of PTO injury survivor Kristi Ruth who was injured when her arm was pulled into a posthole digger's PTO while working on her family's farm.
A case report of a farm worker fatality from a grain bin auger entanglement offers more (gruesome) detail about how such injuries occur, along with these safety recommendations.
Last year at this time, we were reporting the suffocation deaths of two teen farmworkers in a Michigan grain bin accident. 2010 was a record year for grain bin fatalities. prompting OSHA to issue fines and to put grain bin operators on notice and to ramp up inspections on dairy farms.
Teen farm safety: new rules in limbo
Celeste Monforton of The Pump Handle discusses this accident and calls the Obama administration on the carpet for stalling on regulations that would strengthen protections for young farm workers, while at the same time giving lip service to child labor protections and transparency. She notes:
The fatality rate for young workers performing hazardous tasks----like working with a grain auger-----is two times the fatality rate for all U.S. workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), administered by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (W&H) stipulates dozens of work activities that are too dangerous for workers of certain ages. Individuals under age 18, for example, are prohibited from working most jobs in coal mines, from forest-fire fighting, and from operating meat slicers and cardboard balers in grocery stores. However, the safety rules governing young workers employed in agricultural jobs have not been updated for 40 years.
Elizabeth Grossman also recently posted about teen workers and farm accidents at The Pump Handle: Hazards of the harvest: Children in the fields. This post includes a recounting of a recent farm accident which resulted in the deaths of two 14-year old girls on an Illinois farm. The girls were electrocuted while detasselling corn.
Grossman notes that, "The hazards of farm work are underscored by the fatality rate for young people working on farms: 21.6 deaths per 100,000 young workers, compared to 3.6 fatalities for the same number of those working in all other industries, this according to data published in 2010."
Grain bin auger safety resources
Grain Auger Safety sheet with quiz from the Texas Department of Insurance.
Accident Extrication Procedures for Farm Families and Employees from the University of Georgia
Safety With Grain Augers from the North Dakota State University
Grain auger safety - from the University of Ilinois Extension
Pop quiz: 1) In highway construction zones, do most fatalities occur A) to the vulnerable workers who are standing in the work zone while thousands of cars and trucks speed by, or B) to the motorists in the cars and trucks that are speeding by?
2) Are most highway construction workers killed by A) being struck by passing motorists or B) being struck by construction vehicles?
If you guessed "A" for both answers, you are correct.
Motorist safety in highway work zones
Highway construction projects pose hazards for drivers and workers alike, but about 85% of the vehicle-related fatalities that occur in work zones each year involve motorists. Lane changes,uneven surfaces, stop and go traffic, driver impatience at delays, unpredictable occurrences, and poor night visibility are all factors that make these zones hazardous. For those who need further incentive for caution than self preservation, bear in mind that 32 states and the District of Columbia double the fine for speeding (or committing other traffic violations) in a work zone. The Governors' Highway Safety Administration offers a handy state by state chart of work zone traffic laws.
One of the best safety strategies a driver can take is avoidance: seek an alternate route. The Department of Transportation offers national traffic and road closure information to help drivers plan in advance - or drivers can check with state transportation authorities - most offer alerts about major construction projects. For those who can't avoid a construction route, the Wisconsin DOT offers tips for safe driving in a work zone. The tip sheet notes that work zones requiring special caution encompass more than just highway construction projects. They include emergency vehicles at the side of the road, snowplows, garbage pickups, landscapers and any situation where workers are at risk.
Worker safety in highway work zones
This spring, the NIOSH Science Blog featured an excellent post by David E. Fosbroke about construction equipment visibility. In the post, Fosbroke cites a multi-year study of 844 fatalities at road construction sites. While 73% of these fatalities occurred when workers were struck by vehicles, victims were killed by construction equipment at least as often as by passing motorists. And of the incidents when workers were killed by construction equipment, at least 50% of those fatalities involved vehicles backing up.
To help prevent such fatalities, NIOSH offers downloadable blind area diagrams of of 38 pieces of construction equipment and 5 pieces of mining equipment. These diagrams map out the area around a vehicle or piece of equipment that cannot be seen from the operator's position. The post explains this and other issues related to highway construction safety - including some good observations in the comments section.
For additional information, The National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse provides comprehensive information to improve motorist, worker and pedestrian safety in roadway work zones. Resource include links to related sites and training resources.
More safety resources:
NIOSH: Highway Work Zone
OSHA: Highway Work Zones and Signs, Signals, and Barricades
OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program was implemented some 30 years ago and includes about 2,500 workplaces. Employers must qualify for participation by meeting certain criteria, including a demonstrated safety record that is better the than industry average and practices such as training and employee involvement that would indicate a serious safety culture. Companies that are accepted into the program become exempt from programmed OSHA inspections while they retain their VPP status -- a not insubstantial benefit that makes the program popular with employers and small government advocates alike. So popular that some legislators are trying to make the VPP permanent.
But many question the effectiveness of the program beyond its popularity. And now, some investigators are asking what a company would have to do to lose the VPP status. If a company experienced a preventable workplace fatality, would they be ejected from the program? Would they be subject to a higher level of scrutiny?
Apparently not. A recent investigative report by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) revealed that at least 80 workers have died at VPP employers since 2001 yet have retained their "model workplace" status in VPP. Yet in 47 of these cases, inspectors found serious safety violations and, sometimes, tragedies that could have been averted.
Last week CPI and PBS's Need to Know ran the first report of their investigative series on OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), Model Workplaces, Imperiled Lives. In addition to the number of deaths at VPP participants, the investigation found that:
PBS featured this report on The Watch list: Safety matters: Injuries and fatalities at 'model' workplaces, which included this video.
This is not the first we've heard of the flaws in the VPP. In The Pump Handle's post entitled Investigators probe integrity of OSHA's safety recognition program, they link to a May 2009 GAO Report on OSHA's VPPs, which was extremely critical of OSHA's VPP program, noting that:
Shortly after this GAO report, OSHA pledged to reform the VPP.
There's certainly a place for a "Centers of Excellence" program for workplace safety. Companies that have made extraordinary efforts to ensure safety should be recognized. But it looks like a program that began with good intent has morphed into something that is poorly managed at best and a mockery of the original intent at worst. How much of a distinction is it for the truly high performing organizations if weak or inappropriate entities are kept in the program? Before any expansion of this program occurs, Congress would do well to ensure that the program that exists gets fixed.
In December of 2010, OSHA introduced stronger worker safeguards to prevent falls in residential construction. Under the prior directive, some employers were able to bypass fall protection requirements. The new standards for residential construction were scheduled to go into effect on June 15, but earlier this month, OSHA announced a three-month phase in to allow employers time to gear up to meet compliance requirements. During the phase in, however, employers must be fully compliant with the old directive.
OSHA estimates that 1.6 million Americans are employed in the construction industry, half of which work in residential construction. Each year, roughly 38,000 construction injuries are reported. Fatalities from falls are the number one cause of death in construction, with an average of 40 workers killed each year as a result of falls from residential roofs. These are preventable deaths.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a challenge to OSHA's directive by the National Roofing Contractors Association. The trade association was seeking to maintain a provision in an earlier directive that allowed certain residential construction employers to bypass some fall protection requirements. "With the issuance of the new directive, all residential construction employers must comply with 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1926.501(b)(13). Where residential builders can demonstrate that traditional fall protection is not feasible, 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) still allows for alternative means of providing protection."
OSHA says that the new directive interprets "residential construction" as construction work that satisfies both of the following elements:
OSHA has provided a site that offers resources and training materials about the new directive: Residential Fall Protection.
Additional materials can be found at OSHA's OSHA's Fall Protection - Construction page.
A restaurant manager taking out the trash in Virginia, a tree trimmer in Ohio and an Alabama school coach sitting inside at a desk are all workers who inadvertently joined a unique club this year: lightning strike survivors. In any given year, the odds of being struck by lightning are about one in a million, but the lifetime odds (over 80 years) are 1 in 10,000. About 90% of all lightning strike victims survive. About 25% of the survivors suffer major medical after effects.
This week is Lightning Strike Awareness Week - and the National Weather Service wants to remind you to be safe. Public awareness campaigns appear to be working because lightning-related fatalities have been trending down in recent years. While there are 55 fatal lightning strikes in an average year, in 2010 there were 29 fatalities, which occurred in 19 states in 2010; in 2009, there were 34 fatalities; in 2008, there were 28 fatalities.
There have been 5 lightning-related fatalities in 2011, one each in LA, MO, MT, NC, PA. Three deaths occurred during agricultural work, one was related to tornado search-and-rescue, and one occurred during golf. While lightning strikes can occur in any month, they spike in the summer months.
When it comes to geographical risks, not all locations are equal - some states are riskier than others. Florida has often been called the "lightning capital of the world," and although NASA scientists have clarified that Rwanda actually holds this dubious title, Florida still holds the North American title. Rounding out to the top five states for lightning-related fatalities, we have Colorado, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Are lightning strikes compensable under workers comp?
The answer to that question is a clear and resounding "maybe." As with so many issues in workers comp, the devil is in the details: state law, where and when the injury occurred, and the nature of the work involved all are factors that come into play. Injuries related to lightning and other weather-related events fall under the murky area of "acts of God" or "neutral risks," which are generally not considered to be the responsibility or liability of the employer. However, if a worker is exposed to heightened risk due to the nature of their work responsibilities, an injury related to a lightning strike could be compensable.
Often, the burden is on the employee to establish a causal link between their injury and their work or to prove that their job exposed them to increased or heightened risk. Recently, however, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld benefits for a framer who suffered injuries related to a lightning strike that occurred while he was at work. The court established that he did not have to provide expert testimony to establish increased risk. "The court concluded that the description of the physical characteristics of the jobsite supported a finding that the framer was at an increased risk of a lightning strike."
Employers certainly can't insulate their workers from "acts of God" but there are steps that employers can take to mitigate risk. It's a good idea to review weather-related hazards with your employees seasonally to raise their awareness about safety best practices both on the job and off. And it is important to take particular care with workers who have outdoor responsibilities or work that might put them at heightened risk. Here are some tools & resources:
As we noted in a blog earlier this year, the number of fatalities in grain bins reached record levels in 2010. There were 51 grain bin accidents last year, up from 38 in 2009 and the most since tracking began in 1978. Twenty-five people died, and five of them were children under age 16. The previous record for grain bin accidents was 42 in 1993. In response, OSHA has developed an explicit program to improve safety in grain bins. In doing so, they have increased the pressure on bin operators to operate safely. The stakes have been raised beyond even the robust fines that OSHA routinely hands out for violations.
As an example of the new program in action, OSHA has cited Lakeland Feed and Supply in Hamilton, Montana, for exposing workers to grain bin machine guarding and fall hazards, along with other safety and health hazards. At this point the fines total $122,500, but this might change after corrective actions and negotiations.
In detailing the serious violations, OSHA paints the picture of a hazard-filled environment that may well reflect the day-to-day operations of many grain bins across the country:
...Platforms missing guarding; no landing platform on a ladder; unguarded shafts, pulleys, chains and sprockets; the lack of an emergency evacuation plan and no fire alarm system; employees walking on grain in the bins; high levels of potentially explosive dust; the lack of a housekeeping program; not locking out augers when employees enter the bins; exposed live electrical lines; improper electrical wiring for high dust areas; and employees not trained on the hazards and chemicals associated with their work.
Not Exactly Junk Mail
As part of the grain bin initiative, OSHA has written to operators across the country, detailing specific steps to be taken to prevent accidents when workers enter storage bins. These steps include:
Turn off and lock out all powered equipment associated with the bin, including augers used to help move the grain, so that the grain is not being emptied or moving out or into the bin. Standing on moving grain is deadly; the grain can act like 'quicksand' and bury a worker in seconds. Moving grain out of a bin while a worker is in the bin creates a suction that can pull the workers into the grain in seconds.
Prohibit walking down grain and similar practices where an employee walks on grain to make it flow.
Provide all employees a body harness with a lifeline, or a boatswains chair, and ensure that it is secured prior to the employee entering the bin.Provide an observer stationed outside the bin or silo being entered by an employee. Ensure the observer is equipped to provide assistance and that their only task is to continuously track the employee in the bin. Prohibit workers from entry into bins or silos underneath a bridging condition, or where a build-up of grain products on the sides could fall and bury them.
Test the air within a bin or silo prior to entry for the presence of combustible and toxic gases, and to determine if there is sufficient oxygen.
Ensure a permit is issued for each instance a worker enters a bin or silo, certifying that the precautions listed above have been implemented.
On Notice
Bin operators are on notice that the above safety procedures must be in place. By providing this unambiguous and highly detailed list, OSHA is saying, in effect, "these are the standards. Nothing less is acceptable."
Why does this matter? Attorneys for workers injured in storage bins will review the details of any and all accidents. Where the above standards have not been met - and they are not easy to meet! - these attorneys may aggressively pursue increased sanctions against employers. In many states, injuries due to the "wilful intent" of the employer result in higher indemnity payments. In the event of serious injuries or fatalities, attorneys may attempt to pierce the "exclusive remedy" shield of workers comp and secure substantially higher benefits due to employer "negligence".
In other words, OSHA may have raised the stakes for grain bin operators above the traditional "no fault" level. While there is nothing radically new in the required safety procedures, the fact that OSHA has presented a definitive list means that employers are accountable for each and every one of these procedures. As is customary, violations will result in heavy fines. But in addition to the fines, bin operators may be at risk for exposures well beyond the "usual and customary" comp benefits.
The working conditions in grain bins are extremely challenging. There are critical time pressures, complex mechanical issues, weather concerns and at times, a shortage of trained labor. Teenagers -all too frequently the victims in bin accidents - may or may not take safety precautions seriously. If life on the farm is difficult, life in the bins may be even harder. When it comes to safety and the protection of the people doing the work, OSHA's sympathies are with the workers. In this environment, when serious accidents occur, employers will be judged by a single criteria: did they follow the OSHA book on grain bin safety? If not, bin operators are likely to pay, pay and pay again.
Every year as summer approaches and kids join the work force, many for the first time, the National Consumer League (NCL) offers its updated list of the 5 most dangerous jobs for teens, along with excellent advice for parents and teens on keeping the work experience safe. In 2011, their picks for the most dangerous teen jobs are:
The NCL notes that the five worst jobs for teens are not ranked in order. They earn their place on the list because they all share higher than normal injury or fatality rates. If you are an employer who hires teens, a parent with working age teens, or a teen workers, please take the time to look at the excellent report that the NCL has compiled.
We've compiled some additional resources for teen safety. While many are appropriate for all groups, we've sorted them by primary relevance for employers, teens, and parents.
Resources for employers
Employers need to take particular care with young workers. It's in the teens best interest and it is in every employer's best interests as well: According to HR Daily Advisor, "A recent DOL decision assessed penalties of over $277 thousand against movie theaters for employing youths in dangerous jobs and for working them illegally long hours. Have summer hiring plans? Better review youth hiring rules." The site offers two tip sheets for employers:
Summer Hiring? Watch for Tricky Child Labor Laws and Summer Jobs for Kids--Many Restrictions on Duties and Hours
Interstate Labor Standards Association - an organization of state labor department officials. Find your state contacts and get information on Child Labor Laws.
5 Leadership Lessons: What You Need to Know about Developing Teen Leadership
OSHA: Young Workers: Employers
NIOSH: Young Worker Safety & Health
Washington's Department of Labor & Industries: Youth Job Safety Resources
National Children's Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety
Iowa: Iowa Safe Youth @ Work
DOL: Yout Rules: for Employers
For teen workers
American Society of Safety Engineers: Target Teen Safety Tool Kit, including the The ASSE Interactive Zombie Game
OSHA: Young Workers - site includes a variety of safety videos for teen workers, as well as resources
OSHA Young Worker Summer Job Safety
-- Construction
--Farmwork
--Landscaping
--Lifeguarding
--Parks & Recreation
--Restaurants
--Safe Driving
California: Young Workers
Canada: Passport to Safety
CCOHS: Young Workers Zone!
CDC: Are You a Working Teen? What you should know about safety and health on the job
CDC: ¿Eres un Joven que Trabaja? Cosas que Debes Saber sobre la Seguridad y la Salud en el Trabajo
Parents
KidsHealth: Making Sure Your Teen's Job is Safe
OSHA: Young Workers - Parents
DOL: Youth & Labor
Our highways are increasingly being populated with an array of new vehicles, from hybrids to electric cars and variety of lesser known technologies. And every time the cost of gas spikes, more and more consumers consider the options. A newly released J.D. Power and Associates study indicates major growth in consumer interest in green cars. The firm expects as much as 10 percent of sales to come from fuel-efficient vehicles by 2016, which would be a four-fold increase in green car sales over 2010. The Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (EV), has been on sale in the U.S. market since mid-December 2010. By next year, GM believes it can sell as many as 60,000 Volts and Amperas. And other EVs have also made a recent debut: the Nissan Leaf and the Ford Focus, to name but a few.
New technologies pose new challenges. When firefighters, police and other emergency personnel respond to a vehicle collision, they need to be up to speed about these new technologies and any hazards they may pose during extrication and resue. These include risks related to electric shock, unintended vehicle movement due to multiple energy sources, new types of vehicle batteries, fire extinguishment/overhaul, and vehicle charging stations and infrastructure associated with electric vehicles.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has geared up for the challenge. Funded by $4.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and working in partnership with several vehicle manufactureres, the NFPA has launched an Electric Vehicle Safety Training program to help firefighters, police, and emergency medical technicians to prepare for the growing number of electric vehicles on the road in the United States. Training will encompass videos, classroom-training courses, self-paced online programs, and simulations to help first responders navigate the science and components of EVs, plug-in EVs, and hybrids. Training programs will help first responders ascertain whether the car is disabled or not, provide information about how to power down vehicles, demonstrate how to safely disconnect the high-voltage system, and show safe cut points for extrication.
An NFPA Journal article entitled Taking Charge offers more details about the program. According to a spokesperson, there are about 185 different makes and models of electric vehicles on the road today. The evsafetytraining.org site "...will also serve as a central repository for all EV-related training materials, and General Motors, Ford, Nissan, Tesla, and others will provide content to the program's e-learning component. Another website highlight will be the Emergency Field Guide Database, which will list details of every EV produced since 2008. First responders will be able to identify badging, no-cut zones, airbag locations, and power-down procedures specific to each vehicle."
Bonus: Firehouse.com offers a behind the scene look at the filming of the program's video staring N.H. and Nev. firefighters.
Other resources
The National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC) is an alternative fuel vehicle and advanced technology vehicle training organization. It is headquartered at West Virginia University and consists of National Training Centers (NTCs) located nationwide from Maine to California. NAFTC develops curricula and disseminates training about alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology vehicles. Over 1,000 organizations such as Walt Disney World, U.S. Air Force, and NASA have participated in the NAFTC's training, education, and outreach activities. NAFTC educates consumers about AFVs and advanced technology vehicles. In addition, the NAFTA curricula offers First Responder Safety Training in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Vehicles.
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (AFDC) is an offshoot of the US Department of Energy providing a wide range of information and resources to enable the use of alternative fuels (as defined by the Energy Policy Act of 1992), in addition to other petroleum reduction options such as advanced vehicles, fuel blends, idle reduction, and fuel economy. It offers resources on alternative and advanced vehicles
Last year 29 coal miners died in an explosion at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. Don Blankenship, Massey CEO, blamed the explosion on federal interference and a gigantic methane bubble that percolated up from below the mine shafts. The bubble has burst, but not in the way Blankenship would have you believe.
An independent team appointed by the former West Virginia governor, Joe Manchin, and led by the former federal mine safety chief Davitt McAteer, has issued its findings, which are both unambiguous and scathing. There was no methane bubble. There was, instead, a pattern of negligence by management that led directly to the deaths of the miners.
As summarized in the New York Times, the report is a searing indictment of Massey's management style:
"The story of Upper Big Branch is a cautionary tale of hubris," the report concluded. "A company that was a towering presence in the Appalachian coalfields operated its mines in a profoundly reckless manner, and 29 coal miners paid with their lives for the corporate risk-taking."
The report goes on to say that a "perfect storm" was brewing inside the mine, combining poor ventilation, equipment whose safety mechanisms were not functioning and coal dust, which, contrary to industry rules, had been allowed to accumulate, "behaving like a line of gunpowder carrying the blast forward in multiple directions."
Given the uncompromising language of the report, Massey management may not enjoy the "exclusive remedy" protections of the workers comp statute. They are now vulnerable to charges of criminal negligence. I suspect that attorneys for the widows and children of the miners will look rather closely at the assets of Massey's (now former) CEO.
Farewell, My Ugly
Don Blankenship resigned from his CEO post in December of last year. Don't bother putting up a collection to buy this ethically-challenged titan of business a gold watch. In 2009 he earned $17.8 million, which does not include deferred compensation of an additional $27.2 million. There is no question that Blankenship's leadership created profits for the company. Unfortunately, these profits came at the expense of the environment and of the men who extracted the coal from the West Virginia mountains.
The anecdote that tells you a lot about Blankenship involves his personal water supply. When Massey Energy activity poisoned the water reaching his own home, Blankenship ran a private pipeline to the next town, where clean water was readily available. His neighbors, lacking Blankenship's resources, have to make do with the local, polluted water.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. In a just world, Blankenship would be held accountable for his actions as Massey's CEO. But we do not live in a world where justice prevails very often. Blankenship will likely continue to enjoy his retirement years, drinking clean mountain waters, railing about government interference, buying a few politicians and generally living the good life. We can only hope that each and every night his dreams are haunted by visions of the 29 miners and their struggling families. That would be one form of justice indeed.
A couple of days ago my colleague Julie Ferguson blogged OSHA's new focus on farm safety. We all share the concern for the safety of farm workers. But OSHA is upping the ante in a way that requires the immediate attention of both insurance companies and their clients. As part of their investigation into the deaths of two teenage workers in a silo operated by Haasbach LLC, OSHA issued subpoenas for documents from Haasbach's insurer, Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. OSHA wanted to review safety inspection reports and any follow up documentation from Haasbach. The insurer refused, arguing that the subpoena would discourage businesses from allowing insurers to conduct safety inspections if the material contained in the inspection reports can be used against a business during later litigation or OSHA enforcement proceedings.
The U.S. district court has ordered that the records be given to OSHA.OSHA Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels praised the decision. "The court affirmed OSHA's authority to obtain relevant information from an employer's workers' compensation insurance company. This is not surprising legally, but it does illustrate that workers' compensation and OSHA are not separate worlds divorced from each other," he said. "Workers' compensation loss control activities overlap with OSHA's efforts to bring about safe and healthful workplaces, and in order to achieve a safe and healthful working environment for all Americans, all efforts of business, insurance, labor and government must move forward together."
The court ruled that OSHA has jurisdiction to investigate the workplace fatalities, and further has the authority to require the production of relevant evidence and the ability to issue a subpoena to obtain that evidence. The requested documents, which included copies of site safety inspections, applications for insurance coverage for the site, and correspondence between Grinnell and Haasbach concerning the site, were found to "reasonably relate to the investigation of the incident and the question of OSHA jurisdiction," according to the decision.
A Tighter Safety Net
The court's ruling has important implications for both insurers and their clients.
Insurers are required to provide safety services, including site inspections with the findings documented in written reports. Usually, the safety inspector asks for a written response within a set time period. With OSHA potentially accessing these reports, there is liability for insurers: did they identify safety problems? Did they follow up to ensure that the problems were fixed within a reasonable period of time? It's another version of the great liability question: what did you know and when did you know it?
Similarly, the documents put insureds at risk. Safety issues have been identified. How did the business respond? Did they fix the problem? Did they perform the necessary training? Did they document their activities to show good faith in correcting identified concerns?
In all of this activity, candor is essential. The last thing anyone wants - and that anyone certainly includes OSHA - is for this court's ruling to have a chilling effect on the routine inspections performed by insurance companies. The concern is that inspectors, sensing OSHA reading over their shoulders, might hedge the findings just a bit - enough, perhaps, to create an ambiguity in the finding that results in an ineffective and unfocused response by the insured, which, in turn, perpetuates the hazard and leads, perhaps, to a serious injury or even death. That would be an unintended consequence of tragic dimension.
Focus on Safety
As always when OSHA becomes involved, there is a lot of money on the table. Following the fatalities, Haasbach was issued 25 citations with a penalty of $555,000. This was in response to the situation where three (untrained) workers became entrapped in corn more than 30 feet deep. At the time of the incident, the workers were "walking down the corn" to make it flow while machinery used for evacuating the grain was running: all in a day's work on the farm, and extremely hazardous.
It is certainly not in the best interests of insurance companies and their clients to build defenses against potential OSHA involvement. If we all share a commitment to safety - and we must - then an open and candid dialogue is essential. To be sure, both insurers and their clients are "on the hook" once problems have been identified. But surely it is in their combined interests to fix those problems as quickly as possible. Insurers and their clients must keep the focus where it belongs: not on OSHA, but on the moment-to-moment, day-to-day safety of workers on farms, in factories and in every American workplace.
Suffocation in a manure slurry pit. Being attacked and crushed by a bull. Being crushed by an 1800 pound bale of hay. Being run over by heavy farm equipment. These aren't the things you think of when you drive by a pastoral, picture-postcard scene of a herd of grazing dairy cows. Yet dairy farms are among the most hazardous and deadly work environments in the nation.
In this month's Risk & Insurance, Cyril Tuohy discusses how OSHA is ramping up inspections at Wisconsin dairy farms - partly in response to the death of a migrant worker last spring in a manure pit - and in response to an overall high industry fatality rate.
Of the industry's lethality, Tuohy reports:
The labor statistical category for dairy farming, which includes all agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, reported 26 fatal work-related injuries per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers in 2009, the latest year for which numbers are available. That gives this occupational category the highest ratio among all categories.
Its fatality rate is more than double the No. 2 deadliest category, the mining sector with its 12.7 fatal work-related injuries per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, the BLS statistics reveal. Transportation and warehousing (12.1 fatal injuries), construction (9.7 fatal injuries) and wholesale trade (4.9 fatal injuries) round out the top five deadliest occupations.
There were a total of 551 deaths reported in 2009 in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, up from 286 fatalities reported in 2008. A total of 4,340 workers died in 2009 in all sectors, down 17 percent from 5,214 in 2008.
One of the most common causes of death and serious injury on farms is related to the heavy equipment required to run a dairy farm. A high number of farming fatalities are due to tractor turnovers. Other causes of fatalities include silage bunker collapse, manure pits, tractor power take offs (PTO) and large animals such as dairy bulls.
Recent research studies show that the two main causes of workers' injuries (fatal and non-fatal) are incidents with machinery and animals [Mitloehner and Calvo 2008]. Machine-related accidents include tractor rollovers, being run over by tractors and being entangled in rotating shafts. Animal-related injuries include kicks, bites, and workers being pinned between animals and fixed objects. Other causes of injuries include chemical hazards, confined spaces, manure lagoons, use of power tools, and improper use or lack of personal protective equipment [Mitloehner and Calvo 2008].
Douphrate's paper also documents the most common citations that resulted from 736 diary inspections between 2000 to 2010:
* Lack of proper injury and illness prevention program.
* Lack of work injury recording and reporting.
* Lack of mounting or proper tagging of portable fire extinguishers.
* Inadequate communication program about hazardous chemicals.
* Inadequate process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.
* Inadequate hazardous waste operation management and emergency response.
* Inadequate respiratory protection.
* Lack of roll-over protective structures (ROPS).
* Inadequate guarding floor and wall openings and holes.
* Inadequate eye and face protection.
* Inadequate medical services and first aid.
* Inadequate guarding of field and farmstead equipment.
An industry fueled by immigrant workers
As damning as some of the injury and death statistics are, the reality might be even worse. Many farm workers may be reluctant to report injuries due to their illegal, undocumented status - a fact that makes these workers an easy population to exploit. A 2009 article in High Country News documented this Dark Side of Dairies, portraying a broken system that leaves immigrant workers invisible - and in danger. According to the article:
The majority of the West's nearly 50,000 dairy workers are immigrants, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture sociologist William Kandel. Many of them are undocumented, monolingual Spanish speakers like Gustavo. Such workers are unlikely to report injuries or file claims with the state for money to recover medical bills and missed pay for fear of getting fired or deported.
Other dangerous industries, such as meatpacking, logging and construction, have specific safety standards mandated by state or federal labor agencies. While dairies fall under the general agricultural safety regulations for tractors and heavy machinery, there are no specific standards for how workers should be protected while milking or moving cows. Dairy workers in Washington, Nevada, Oregon and California are entitled to lunch and rest breaks, but legal aid organizations in these states say the laws are rarely enforced.
What dairy operations can expect from OSHA
An article in Hoard's Dairyman discusses OSHA's dairy initiative and talks about what dairy farms might expect:
As OSHA begins to take a closer look at dairy farms, there are a number of areas they will be evaluating. "If you have grain bins, and many dairies do, they will look at procedures for the confined space entry," says Carter. "Perhaps a bigger concern will be manure pit guarding. The State of Wisconsin requires guarding per your manure pit application. Many states may have similar rules," he notes.
The article also offers advice to farmers for what to do if OSHA makes a visit, and what the range of fines are for violations.
Last month we blogged the suicide of Dave Duerson, a former NFL star who killed himself at the age of 50. In order to preserve his brain for study, he took the unusual step of shooting himself in the chest. He suspected - and the subsequent autopsy confirmed - that he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative and incurable disease that is linked to memory loss, depression and dementia. A definitive diagnosis is available only through an autopsy.
Among the many ironies surrounding this sad tale is the fact that Duerson sat on the six person NFL committee that reviewed claims for medical benefits submitted by retired players. Duerson was known for his harsh line on these claims, apparently voting to deny benefits in many cases (the votes of individual committee members were not recorded). He even testified before a Senate subcommittee in 2007, supporting the NFL's position that there was no definitive relationship between repeated concussions and subsequent dementia.
The days of denial appear to be over. Dr. Ira Casson, who represented the "prove it" mentality of the NFL, is no longer actively involved. The medical evidence is accumulating; while some refuse to connect the dots, it's increasingly clear that repeated brain trauma (concussion) is often directly related to a precipitous decline in brain function in the post-gridiron years.
Old Game, New Order
The NFL is trying to improve the safety of its players. The new rules limiting return to the playing field after a concussion are taking root. Helmet to helmet hits are being penalized with increasing financial severity. But even as the league tries to limit future exposures, the fate of retired players looms large. There will be increasing numbers of claims for disability, including workers comp where applicable, by players who face a substantially diminished burden of proof to connect dementia to playing field ("workplace") exposures.
It is painful to contemplate the agony of Dave Duerson's final days. Confronted with the incontrovertible evidence of his own demise, he must have realized how wrong he had been in taking the company line on dementia. He knew what his own autopsy would reveal: a brain damaged by chronic traumatic encephalopathy, caused by repeated trauma. His choosing to shoot himself in the chest was a farewell gesture, not only to his own life, but to the beliefs that had led him to take a hard line with his former colleagues. A loyal member of the "old guard," he ended his life with the unmistakable and moving embrace of the new order.
In honor of NAOSH week, we thought it might be nice to feature a sampling of safety tips from the next crop of safety engineers. It's nice to see these kids are learning such important lessons early. Good job, kids!
Camille D. Soto, 6, FL: Make sure you wear safety glasses...
Tamaya Olivia Bush, 8, SC; Come Join the Crew
Da'moreon Travis, 10, KY, Make Safety First or You Won't Last
Sai Pravallika Velicheti, 12, Kuwait; Confined Spaces Can Kill
Robin Newman, 14, AL; Don't be the sender to cause a fender bender
Today is the annual day devoted to memorializing all those who died at work and honoring their memory by committing to work for safer conditions for the living. April 28 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the day of a similar remembrance in Canada.
Each year, to coincide with this day, the AFL-CIO issues
Death on the Job - The Toll of Neglect (PDF) - A National and State-By-State Profile of Worker Safety And Health In the United States. This is the 20th Edition. It offers a detailed breakdown - here is a brief into:
In 2009 (the latest figures available), 4,340 workers were killed on the job--an average of 12 workers a day--and an estimated 50,000 died of occupational diseases. More than 4.1 million workplace injuries and illnesses were reported in private and state and local workplaces. But the report says the 4.1 million "understates the problem," and the actual number is more likely 8 million to 12 million.
The safety report estimates that since the OSH Act become law 40 years ago tomorrow, it has saved an estimated 431,000 lives. The nation's two mining laws, the 42-year-old Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and the 34-year-old Mine Safety and Health Act, have saved thousands more.
Last year's string of major workplace tragedies, however, shows the desperate need for stronger safety and health rules coupled with tougher enforcement. Those disasters included the Upper Big Branch (W.Va.) coal mine explosion that killed 29 miners, an explosion at the Kleen Energy plant in Middletown, Conn., that killed six workers, another at the Tesoro Refinery in Washington State that killed seven workers and the BP/Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast oil rig explosion that killed 11 and caused a massive environmental and economic disaster. Says the report:
The nation must renew the commitment to protect workers from injury, disease and death and make this a high priority. Employers must meet their responsibilities to protect workers and be held accountable if they put workers in danger. Only then can the promise of safe jobs for all of America's workers be fulfilled.
The number of workers killed on the job fell in 2009 and the rate of on-the-job deaths dropped, 3.3 per 100,000 workers, down from 3.7 per 100,000 workers in 2008. But the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says the economy was a major factor as the recession resulted in declines in hours worked, particularly in construction and other industries that historically have experienced large numbers of fatalities.
A state-by-state breakdown of job deaths and injuries in "Death on the Job" finds that Montana led the country with the highest rate of worker fatalities in 2009, with Louisiana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska following close behind. The report also finds that Latino workers continue to be at increased risk of dying on the job, with a fatality rate of 3.7 per 100,000 workers in fiscal year (FY) 2009.
(More at AFL-CIO)
For more on Worker Memorial day events:
AFL-CIO - about and 2011 events & resources
Weekly Toll
Statement By John Howard, M.D., Director, National Institute For Occupational Safety And Health (NIOSH)
Workers' Memorial Day * 28 April on Facebook
Kudos to the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), whose 32,000 members will be celebrating the organization's 100 year mark during the annual North American Occupational Health & safety Week (or NAOSH week, for short), which runs from May 1 to May 7. Annually, ASSE teams up with the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering (CSSE) in the first week of May to raise public awareness about safety.
Here's a few of the resources that are available
NAOSH Week Toolkit
Safety Through the Decades chart
May 4 - Occupational Health and Safety Professional Day
ASSE's 100th Anniversary
ASSE's 100th Anniversary from jon schwerman on Vimeo.
Events at the damaged Fukushima plant continue to deteriorate. Today we learn that Japan's nuclear regulatory agency has raised the Fukushima accident rating level to a 7, the most serious level. Chernobyl is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event.
U.S. authorities and the news media have been quick to try to stem any public panic about the levels of radiation exposure here in the U.S. This is more than just spin - while many aren't aware of it, there is a national network of radiation monitors called Radnet. It is operated by the Environmental Protection Agency and includes at least 200 monitoring stations spread across the country. It measures radioactive substances in air, precipitation, drinking water, and milk. Reports are that only trace amounts of radiation have surfaced here in the U.S.
People may still have questions and heightened anxiety as the news plays out in alarming daily headlines. Many employees may also have questions about potential exposures related to their specific jobs. Employers would do well to stay informed and be prepared to address concerns.
For example, employees who travel for their jobs may have questions about exposure, particularity if work takes them to Japan or Southeast Asia. Employees in manufacturing firms that get parts or cargo from Japan may have concerns. Airline personnel, mail carriers, and package handlers may have concerns. People who work in or live near domestic nuclear facilities may have concerns.
OSHA and NIOSH have paired up to produce resources for both employers and workers. These include an OSHA resource on Radiation Dispersal from Japan and the Effect on U.S. Workers and a NIOSH page on worker information, which specifically addresses some of the concerns posed above.
Here are some additional resources:
Remember playing those "what's wrong with this picture" games in activity books when you were a kid? Well WorkSafe BC has adapted the concept as a safety tool. Every issue of WorkSafe Magazine includes a photo that has been staged to show at least six hazards or dangerous work habits - you can interact with the photo to position pushpins on identified hazards, describe the hazards, and then submit your response to WorkSafeBC for a possible prize (although it's likely that only B.C. residents are eligible). In each issue, they include the winning entry from the last issue, along with responses from other readers. Neat.
One of the really cool and useful things is that they keep an archive of all past photos online - you can either take the challenge online and then check the answer key, or you can print the photos and the answer keys and use them in safety meetings or toolbox talks.
Here's one example: Can you spot the safety hazards in this commercial kitchen? Note: the image below is only a sample pic - the online interactive version is accessible at Kitchen Safety and here's the commercial kitchen answer key to check your responses.
Archived "What's wrong with this photo" tools
There's a pretty good array of work scenarios representing a variety of industries. Here are direct links to each:
A few years ago, an important NIOSH study on nursing home lifting equipment demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the costs. In addition to recapping the equipment investment in less than three years, NIOSH found a 61% reduction in resident-handling workers' compensation injury rates; a 66% drop in lost workday rates; and a 38% decline in restricted workdays. Plus, the rate of post-intervention assaults during resident transfers dropped by 72%. That's pretty impressive.
Now we have further evidence based on the recently-released study by NCCI: Safe Lifting Programs at Long-Term Care Facilities and Their Impact on Workers Compensation Costs (PDF). The study was a collaborative effort with the University of Maryland School of Medicine. It was limited to facilities that have had safe lift programs in place for more than three years. Originally, researches intended to compare the experience of facilities with and without such programs, but during the course of the research, the rate of adoption of safe lifting devices was so great that close to 95% of facilities had them and about 80% of those used them regularly.
NCCI summarizes the study results:
"After controlling for ownership structure and differences in workers compensation systems across states, the statistical analysis performed as part of this study shows that an increased emphasis on safe lift programs at long-term care facilities is associated with fewer workplace injuries and lower workers compensation costs. More precisely, higher values of the safe lift index are associated with lower values for both frequency and total costs. The safe lift index captures information on the policies, training, preferences, and barriers surrounding the use of powered mechanical lifts. The institution's commitment to effectively implementing a safe lift program appears to be the key to success."
Many states have safe patient handling laws
In recent years, a number of states have enacted legislation mandating safe patient lifting - and that no doubt has contributed to the rapid adoption rate noted by NCCI researchers. According to the American Nursing Association, a strong advocate for such legislation, 9 states have implemented safe patient handling laws. These include Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington, with a resolution from Hawaii. In addition, they are tracking states with pending legislation in 2001, currently 6 states: California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri and Vermont. You can also track this legislation via a map and you can access additional resources and information at ANA's excellent Safe Patient Handling website.
Prior posts on safe lifting
Texas enacts safe lifting guidelines for a hazardous industry
Washington passes "Safe Patient Handling" legislation
NIOSH study on nursing home lifting equipment: benefits outweigh costs
Safe Lifting and Movement of Nursing Home Residents
If you asked the average person to list professions with the highest rates of violent assault, few would put health care professionals high up on that list. But the reality is that when it comes to workplace violence, nurses, nursing aids, and paramedics have the dubious distinction of being very high up on the list; only police and correctional officers suffer a higher rate of on-the-job assaults. And many nurses say that the violence is only getting worse.
In a fact sheet on violence, The International Council of Nurses, a federation of more than 130 national nurses associations representing the millions of nurses worldwide, says that:
The perpetrators of violence are varied: While many assaults are by patients, friend and family members of patients also can commit the assaults. There are also rapists or muggers who are targeting healthcare settings or solitary workers; drug addicts and robbers, who are looking for medications; and domestic violence brought into the workplace. And it's unclear why violence is on the rise. Many point to staff shortages. Others see the preponderance of alcohol, drugs, and ready access to weapons as contributing factors; others think that hospital administrators do too little in the area of prevention.
Some are seeking legislative relief that would require hospitals and healthcare facilities to have safety and security plans and training in place. In a posting on KevinMD.com, respected physician Kevin Pho suggests that the rising tide of violence against healthcare workers might be emblematic of a dysfunctional health system, where healthcare is viewed as a commodity, and the caregiver-patient relationship is deteriorating. He says:
"Sometimes the simplest approaches are the most effective. Rather than adding security or installing metal detectors to prevent hospital violence, doctors and nurses could do a better job of empathizing with patients who are under stress when they are hospitalized or are angry because they've waited hours for medical care. At the same time, patients must realize that health care professionals are doing the best they can with an overtaxed health care system and should never resort to violence or abuse."
Dave Duerson was a star safety in the NFL. He used his head in the way that aggressive defensive backs often do - as a battering ram to bring an opponent down, maybe even jar the ball loose. He was articulate, generous and in his post-football life, successful. So it saddened many of his friends and colleagues to learn that he had committed suicide last month. But even in this last, desperate act there was a method to the madness: he shot himself in the chest, so that his brain would be left intact. He was convinced that the downward spiral of his life over the past few years was due to football-related brain damage - chronic traumatic encephalopathy. He texted his ex-wife just before he shot himself, requesting that his brain be given to the NFL brain bank. Just in case she did not get the message, he left a written note with the same instructions.
We have blogged the issue of concussions in the NFL and their potential for long-term brain damage. As this prior blog pointed out, a changing of the NFL's medical guard indicates that the league finally appears willing to confront the issue head on (so to speak). They no longer systematically deny a connection between concussions on the field and severe cognitive problems after football careers come to an end.
Over the past few years, Duerson was in a downward spiral. He lost his business to bankruptcy. He (uncharacteristically) assaulted his wife, who soon felt compelled to end their marriage. While his friends did not see major changes in his behavior, he talked openly of his fears of dementia. He suffered short-term memory loss, blurred vision and pain on the left side of his brain. He looked into the future and despaired at what he saw coming. At the time of his death, Duerson was only 50.
Suicide as Political Act
Duerson's last gesture was an explicitly political act. He was convinced that his life problems - and the rapidly diminishing quality of that life - were directly connected to his years as a football player. So he not only decided to end his life, he made sure that suicide would leave his brain intact for research. The NFL has been (belatedly) collecting the brains of deceased players willing to donate them, to try and determine the impact of repeated violent collisions on aging. At this point, there is not much doubt of the causal connection - not in every individual who played the game, but surely in a significant percentage who suffered from multiple concussions.
With this connection medically proven, the burden falls on the NFL to improve player safety. That will not be easy. This past season, a number of players - most notably the Steelers linebacker James Harrison- complained about the newly implemented fines for helmut to helmut hits, defined as:
"using any part of a players helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures..."
Duerson the player would have agreed with Harrison about the rule. Duerson the retiree would have supported it. Experience is an exacting and often cruel teacher. As Duerson's sad demise demonstrates, what we choose to ignore in the prime of life may give birth to demons that haunt us as we age.
A Purdue University report revealed that 2010 was the deadliest year in decades for grain bin fatalities. According to a Bloomberg story by Michael J. Crumb, the report indicated there were "51 grain bin accidents last year, up from 38 in 2009 and the most since tracking began in 1978. Twenty-five people died, and five of them were children under age 16. The previous record for grain bin accidents was 42 in 1993."
The bulk of these fatalities occurred in major corn and soybean growing states: "Illinois led the country with 10 accidents last year, followed by Minnesota with eight. Wisconsin had seven, and five were reported in Iowa." The reasons for the spike were attributed to an increase in corn production due to ethanol demands and an unusually wet season. Moisture in storage facilities can cause spoilage and rot, resulting in caked grain which gets clogged and the grain does not flow freely out of the bin so workers enter the bins to dislodge clogs. Of course, the primary reason for the spike in fatalities was the failure to adhere to safe handling practices. As with many industries, unsafe practices are often defended as being "the way it's always been done."
The US Department of Labor and OSHA recently cited 2 Illinois grain elevator operators and imposed nearly $1.4 million in fines for 3 fatalities in incidents where workers suffocated after being engulfed in grain. The citations were issued to Haasbach LLC in Mount Carroll and Hillsdale Elevator Co. in Geneseo and Annawan, Ill., for willful safety violations and to Haasbach for child labor violations. The OSHA link enumerates the nature of the violations in some detail.
Last summer we posted about two of these fatal accidents:
After 2 teen deaths, OSHA puts grain handling facilities on notice
Two farmworking teens killed in silo; media is mystified
OSHA issues letters, guidance to grain bin operators
In response to these incidents, OSHA issued letters to 3,000 grain bin operators. More recently, they issued a second batch of letters, this time to 10,000 grain bin operators across the U.S.
OSHA's grain handling facilities standard includes a requirement that employers provide workers entering bins or tanks with appropriate personal protective equipment such as full body harnesses for easier removal in the event of an emergency. Providing proper protection and not allowing workers to walk or stand in products piled higher than the waist reduces the risk of workers sinking and suffocating.
OSHA also outlined the following guidance:
When workers enter storage bins, employers must (among other things):
1. Turn off and lock out all powered equipment associated with the bin, including augers used to help move the grain, so that the grain is not being emptied or moving out or into the bin. Standing on moving grain is deadly; the grain acts like 'quicksand' and can bury a worker in seconds. Moving grain out of a bin while a worker is in the bin creates a suction that can pull the workers into the grain in seconds.
2. Prohibit walking down grain and similar practices where an employee walks on grain to make it flow.
3. Provide all employees a body harness with a lifeline, or a boatswains chair, and ensure that it is secured prior to the employee entering the bin.
4. Provide an observer stationed outside the bin or silo being entered by an employee. Ensure the observer is equipped to provide assistance and that their only task is to continuously track the employee in the bin
5. Prohibit workers from entry into bins or silos underneath a bridging condition, or where a build-up of grain products on the sides could fall and bury them.
6. Test the air within a bin or silo prior to entry for the presence of combustible and toxic gases, and to determine if there is sufficient oxygen.
7. Ensure a permit is issued for each instance a worker enters a bin or silo, certifying that the precautions listed above have been implemented.
Additional Resources
Grain Handling
OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities Standard
Worker Entry into Grain Storage Bins
OSHA Agricultural Operations
Grain Handling / Harvesting Storage
Hazards Associated with Grain Storage and Handling
Confined Space hazards a threat to farmers
Dangerous Gases and Fires Can Make Silos Death Traps
Image from Wikipedia
Master Cleaners Ltd a central London cleaning company, has posted a fascinating photo feature on their blog called The World's Most Fearless Cleaners. We issue a vertigo warning in advance. Also, the caveat that we are not endorsing the safety procedures or lack thereof that are depicted in the photos.
Here are a few more detailed stories associated with the above photos:
Two years ago this month, we wrote about miracle survivor Alcides Moreno, a window washer who survived a 47 story plunge. In that post, we cited the ever-fascinating Free Fall Research Page, which documents reports, stories, and personal accounts of people who survived falls from extreme heights.
If tall structures are your thing, you might enjoy this skyscraper site which tracks the world's tallest buildings. This thread in Skyscraper City features a few articles about cleaning skyscraper windows.
Related resources
OSHA Fall Protection
OSHA: Scaffolding
No such thing as a free fall
This storm is a whopper of potentially historic proportion, with warnings and advisories covering a 2,000+ mile swathe from New Mexico and the Southern Plains to the upper Mid-Atlantic and New England. Four states - Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois - have already declared a state of emergency. More than one million square miles of the country are expected to be affected. And even if you live in a balmy state that is not directly affected, expect travel and business disruptions to spill over. (Or maybe the correct term is "snowball?")
If you get confused about the difference, here's a handy guide to how the National Weather Service defines Storm Warnings, Watches and Advisories and here is further clarification for winter weather terminology.
According to National Weather Service, about 70% of the injuries during winter storms result from vehicle accidents, and about 25% of injuries result from being caught out in the storm. Emergency workers who are out and about during the storm and in storm cleanup face additional risks.
Here are some of the most common winter workplace injuries and a toolkit of resources for prevention.
1. Driving accidents on slippery roadways or due to obstructed vision; Being struck by vehicles while working in roadways or while pulled over in roadways
CCOHS: Winter Driving Tips
OSHA: Safe Winter Driving
Mass. DOT: Safe Winter Driving Tips
2. Slips and falls on snowy or ice-covered outdoor walkways and wet indoor floors from snow or ice being carried in.
Winterize your workplace
7 Tips for Winter Slip and Fall Prevention
3. Hypothermia and frostbite due to cold weather exposure
CDC winter weather exposure
NIOSH: Cold Stress
Extreme cold prevention
In case you are stranded while driving in winter
4. Being struck by falling objects such as icicles, tree limbs, and utility poles
Natural disaster response: safety for cleanup workers
5. Falls from heights (roofs, ladders, lifts) while removing snow
OSHA Fall Protection
Safe snow removal
Safe work practices on snow covered roofs
6. Electrocution and burns from downed power lines, downed objects in contact with power lines, or ungrounded electrical equipment.
OSHA: Working Safely Among Downed Power Lines
OSHA Overhead Power Lines
Powerline Safety
NIOSH: Electrical safety
Electrical burns: first aid
7. Lacerations and amputations from unguarded or improperly operated snow blowers, chain saws and power tools
Practice snowblower safety
Mind the machinery while you work
8. Injuries from roof collapse under weight of snow
Preventing roof collapse in winter
Some roofs more prone to collapse
9. Exhaustion from working extended shifts
Fatigue
OSHA: Extended/unusual work shifts
10. Dehydration
Preventing dehydration in winter
Dehydration
11. Back injuries or heart attack while shoveling or removing snow
Snow shoveling is risky
Snow shoveling and snow removal safety
12. Carbon monoxide poisoning from generators used in improperly ventilated areas or from idling vehicles
Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Carbon Monoxide
A website called 11foot8 videos chronicles "the good, the bad and the ugly" of low clearance truck accidents at a single Durham NC trestle bridge. While one might think this is the purview of inexperienced drivers and rental trucks, the videos don't lie: professionals have had their share of accidents, too.
When professionals make a mistake, the results can turn deadly. In September, four people were killed when a bus crashed into a railroad bridge in Syracuse after deviating from the normal route. And even non-fatal incidents wreak havoc in terms of injuries, property losses, hazards to pedestrians and other drivers, and costly traffic tie ups. Here are photos of four serious nonfatal truck and bridge collisions
Prevention tips
Prevention might seem obvious to some, but approximately 5,000 bridge-truck collisions per year say otherwise. Here are some pointers we gleaned from the pros:
Additional Resources
America's Independent Truckers Association (AITA) offers an online database of low clearance bridges with heights broken down by state.
For situations that might require escorts, AITA maintains a truck escort referral listing
This trucker forum discusses low clearance solutions.
This is a very busy time for delivery companies.Whether it's the post office, UPS or FedEx, there are more packages moving around than people to handle them. The UPS solution is the hiring of 37,500 (!) temporary workers. These folks have been working for a few weeks and will continue working right up until Christmas Eve, when they will all be laid off. Due to the struggling economy, UPS had no trouble filling temporary jobs. This year, many laid off white-collar workers donned the drab brown uniforms and hopped on board delivery trucks, occupying the "jumper" seat next to the regular driver.
The Wall Street Journal has a nice article about this war-scaled ramp up (subscription required). As you can imagine, there is not a whole lot of time for training the new employees: a few tips on lifting "in the power zone," a caution about getting into the truck ("three point contact") and then off you go. The job is a frenzy of lifting, bending, carrying and climbing. These are physically demanding jobs, with relentless exertion required.
Risk Management Nightmare
Which leads to a loaded question for the risk managers at UPS: what percentage of this temporary workforce will be injured on the job? Even if it's only one half of one percent, that would be nearly 200 people. In all likelihood, they will have been laid off before the claim has been filed. And once laid off, these temps will have no loyalty and no commitment to UPS. They will have already handed in their brown uniforms.
More troubling from a risk perspective, the types of injuries may be the most open-ended and expensive claims in the comp system: back, shoulder and knee injuries, slips and falls on ice (for most of the country it is, after all, a rather tough winter). Statistically, you can expect an occasional robbery or animal bite.
All business entails some risk. Hiring strangers is always risky, no matter how thorough the vetting process - and in this case, that process is foreshortened, to say the least. Placing thousands of temporary employees into physically demanding jobs increases risk exponentially.
So when you go home tonight and look for the packages you are expecting, think for a moment on the harried temporary employees who brought them to your door. And say a little prayer, that the New Year brings these former white-collar workers health, happiness...and a job once again suited to their hard-earned skills.
We're just a few short months away from the 100-year anniversary of one of the most horrific industrial tragedies in our nation, one that catapulted the issue of worker safety to the forefront and helped to usher in a new era reform, including the protection afforded by workers compensation programs. On March 21, 1911, The Triangle Factory Fire killed 146 women and girls, most of whom were trapped on an upper floor of the factory. They were unable to get out because the doors had been locked to prevent theft. You can read many first-person accounts of the tragedy at the link above. My colleague wrote about it in his post The Original "No Exit" : The Triangle Shirt Waist Factory Fire.
In the wake of this tragedy, many safety laws were enacted and many lessons were learned.
Or were they? Last week, the tragedy was mirrored in a Bangladesh garment shop fire that killed 29 women workers and injured another 100. It's feared that more bodies will turn up. Reports say that to prevent theft, emergency exits were locked.
Now some might think that, however tragic, a fire in Bangladesh doesn't have much to do with us here in the U.S. Except that in our global economy, it does. Many of the most successful U.S. retailers and clothing manufactures have outsourced former domestic garment jobs to some 4,000 Bangladesh factories. In an article Workers Burned Alive Making Clothes for the GAP, human rights and labor groups make the link. The article paints a grim picture of serial fatalities in Dickensian-era sweat shops where workers are paid less than a dollar a day. In response to publicized abuses, some US companies have established "Codes of Vendor Conduct," but with a continuing stream of fatalities and worker abuses, labor groups question the effectiveness of these codes and demand a higher level of scrutiny. "How many times in one year do workers have to die before GAP Inc determines that the Hameem group "lacks the intent or ability" to make improvements? This is an American company accountable to American consumers."
It's not just The Gap. Other companies that are supplied by Bangladesh garment factories include Wal-Mart, Tesco, H&M, Zara, Carrefour, Gap, Metro, JCPenney, Marks & Spencer, Kohl's, Levi Strauss and Tommy Hilfiger. Surely, American companies could join forces in leveraging their buying power to demand that safety and basic human rights are enforced.
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., we aren't immune to such abuses, either. In 1991, 25 poultry workers were killed in a Hamlet chicken processing plant in North Carolina, another instance of workers being locked in. An investigation resulted in the owners receiving a 20-year prison sentence and the company was fined the highest penalty in the history of North Carolina. One would think that U.S. employers would have learned from the Triangle and the hamlet fires, but one would be wrong. In 2004, The new York Times reported that Walmart was locking night shift employees in. Later in the same year, OSHA cited a Winn Dixie supermarket in Mobile, Alabama for similar practices.
The road to good safety practices here in the US was paved with the blood of workers. It took incidents like the Triangle fire and large scale mining disasters before the US public clamored for reform. It remains to be seen whether the same types of offshore tragedies will galvanize consumer opinion enough to call for better worker protections.
"I had a huge, constant knot in my forearm. Chris Ojeda developed tennis elbow. Matty Eggleston popped a tendon in his hand. We were all sidelined with all these injuries."
"It's the same motion, back and forth, back and forth, rotating up high. You have a heavy weight at the end of the arm, out in the air. It's not just the shoulder. It's the wrist as well."
"Any time you're on your feet for 8, 10, 12 hours at a stretch with that amount of bending, lifted, constant movement, torquing your body around, it takes a toll on you."
You would be forgiven if you think the above quotes are in reference to an athlete's injuries but, no, we are talking bartenders here - - a type of urban athlete, one might say. Robert Simon of The New York Times looks at the stresses and strains - and the resulting injuries - of the modern day bartender. As demand for fancy cocktails and shaken drinks increases, bartenders are paying a price for their tips in the form of repetitive motion and muskuloskeletal injuries.
It doesn't help that bartending, already a profession given to showmanship and flair, has become a bona fide performance art in many establishments. Take the "crazy monkey shake" referenced in the article. When we went looking for more information, we found a reference in this all-star shake-off feature that assesses various shaking styles and the qualitative effects on the resulting cocktail. The author says, "The crazy monkey involves shaking so hard and so long that your body feels like it is flying apart. The idea is to see if a ridiculous and unfeasible shake appreciably alters the drink."
This is by no means the only in-vogue vigorous shaking style. There's also the celebrated "hard shake" method. Watch a clip of Japan's most famous bartender, Kazuo Uyeda, employing the hard shake technique. And this is but one of the hazardous trends that Japanese bartenders, highly regarded as masters of the craft, are popularizing: See ice ball carving and picture doing that 8 hours a day under rush conditions.
Is bartending the new frontier for injury prevention specialists? Judge for yourself next time you are socializing at a busy cocktail lounge over the holiday season. Simon's NYT article talks about the need for bartenders to focus more attention on ergonomics and the need to adopt a mixology form that will minimize stress.
Postscript:
New York master mixologist Eben Freeman offers a hard shake tutorial if you'd like to try your hand. Presumably, this shaking style is a tad less perilous to the occasional cocktail maker than to the professional.
On February 19, 2008, Rachel Moltner, a 76 year old New Yorker, went into the Starbucks at 80th Street and York Avenue and ordered a "venti'-sized" tea. Her tea was served to her double-cupped and lidded. She took it back to a table and tried to remove the lid to add sugar. She had difficulty with the lid, and in the course of her attempts to pry it off, the tea spilled onto her left leg and foot. Moltner suffered severe enough burns to require a skin graft. To compound her woes, during her hospital stay she suffered from bed sores and a fractured sacrum and herniated discs caused by a fall out of bed.
Moltner sued Starbucks. In a follow up to the suit, Starbucks asked how much Moltner was seeking, to which she responded, "not more than $3 million." (Even at Starbuck's prices, that's a lot of tea...)
The suit accused Starbucks of serving tea that was too hot and that the serving in a doubled cup was inherently dangerous. She also said Starbucks should have warned her the tea could spill.
The appeals court rejected her case, saying "double-cupping is a method well known in the industry as a way of preventing a cup of hot tea from burning one's hand." Hm. Mitigate one risk, expose another...
Moltner also lost a subsequent appeal, based upon Starbuck's slow response to her initial suit.
Tea Time
David Jaroslawicz, a lawyer for Moltner, said Tuesday's ruling probably ends his client's case.
"The other side presented an old lady knocking over her tea," he said. "The case was really about that Starbucks has a directive to employees that you should not double-cup because it changes the center of gravity and can cause the cup to tip over."
Note to engineers: Does double cupping really change the center of gravity?
Note to risk managers: Double cup to spare the hand or single cup for steadiness?
Better yet, how about taking your afternoon cuppa in a big white reusable porcelain mug? Still risky, to be sure, but slowing down is the best way to prevent bad things from happening, and slowing down is what tea used to be about.
From mancomm.com, supplier of compliance and safety training products, we received the following quiz on OSHA's employee protection regulations, which is excerpted from their Introduction to OSHA booklet. See how well you do.
1. On OSHA's Form 300, Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, what else might be written in the space marked 'Employee's name' instead of the actual name?
A.) 'Privacy Case' - in the event of a privacy concern case, where confidentiality is necessary.
B.) The employee's job title.
C.) You must always put the employee's first and last name, with no exceptions.
D.) None of the above.
2. Which of these is an item of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for which an employer must pay?
A.) Rubber boots with steel toes.
B.) Prescription eyewear inserts/lenses for full face respirators.
C.) A and B.
D.) Employers must pay for all PPE.
3. Stress is psychological, not physical, so it is not considered a common workplace health hazard. True or false?
4. Why is a confined space, such as a manhole, sewer or silo, considered a potential safety hazard?
A.) It may contain too little oxygen.
B.) It may contain too much oxygen, with potential for an explosion.
C.) It may contain a build-up of carbon monoxide.
D.) All of the above.
5. Work-related fatalities and catastrophes which have resulted in the hospitalization of three or more workers must be reported by employers to OSHA:
A.) Within one hour.
B.) Within eight hours.
C.) Within 48 hours.
D.) Within five working days.
6. A sedentary worker dies of a heart attack at his desk, but because it occurred in the workplace, the death must still be investigated by OSHA. True or false?
7. If an employer retaliates against an employee for engaging in whistleblower activity, the employee:
A.) Has no legal recourse.
B.) Can file a complaint with OSHA.
C.) Has one year to file a complaint.
D.) None of the above.
8. An employee has the right to refuse to do a task, if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe hazardous conditions or imminent danger exists. The employee can:
A.) Walk off the job immediately, with full OSHA protection.
B.) Use vacation time instead of doing the task.
C.) Ask the employer for other work.
D.) Remain on the worksite, even if ordered to leave by the employer.
9. If an employee files an OSHA complaint form, their write-up of the 'Hazard Description/Location' should:
A.) Describe the hazard clearly.
B.) Identify chemicals involved and include copies of labels or Material Safety Data Sheets, if possible.
C.) Include the approximate number of employees exposed to or threatened by each hazard.
D.) All of the above.
10. Components of a Material Safety Data Sheet usually include:
A.) Physical and chemical properties of the substance.
B.) The flavor of the chemical, for accurate identification.
C.) Sales phone number, so more of the substance can be purchased.
D.) All of the above.
11. The OSHA website includes such features as:
A.) The latest OSHA news.
B.) A graphic slideshow of OSHA highlights.
C.) Recent information on worker fatalities.
D.) All of the above.
12. When reading OSHA standards, you will note that they:
A.) Break down into parts, subparts and sections.
B.) Are presented in chapters and paragraphs, like a novel.
C.) Are copiously illustrated with photographs.
D.) Are written in a friendly, conversational style.
==============Click link below for answers
Obesity as a health problem is not going away, nor is the issue of whether obese people are considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The latest iteration of this saga involves the late Lisa Harrison, a morbidly obese employee of Resources for Human Development (RHD) in New Orleans. Harrison, an intervention prevention/specialist, worked with the children of mothers undergoing treatment for addiction. By all accounts, she performed her job well, but RHD viewed her as limited in a number of major life activities, including walking, so they fired her. Harrison died before the EEOC filed suit, but the lawsuit lives on.
Keith Hill, the field director of the EEOC's New Orleans office, stated, "This is a classic case of disability bias, based on myths and stereotypes. The evidence shows that Ms. Harrison was a good and dedicated employee who did not deserve to be fired. All covered employers, whether for-profit or non-profit, must abide by the ADA's provisions."
It's important to note that the EEOC is not basing the lawsuit on obesity itself, but rather on the idea that RHD perceived Harrison to be disabled. That's why they fired her. The larger issue - so to speak - is whether morbid obesity in itself is a disability. This particular case will not attempt to resolve that condundrum. Thus far, the courts have resisted the idea that any and all obesity is a disability. They look for physiological causes for the obesity, including thyroid disorders and genetics. If there is no specific medical cause for the weight problem, obese people are generally not considered to be disabled.
It all comes down - as it usually does - to the ability to perform the essential functions of the job. Harrison did not seek any accommodation based upon a disability. She simply did her job and apparently did it well. It will be interesting to see whether the RHD defense raises the issue of risk: whether Harrison's morbid obesity placed her or her young charges at immediate risk of harm - not hypothetical, but imminent - a difficult standard to prove.
Related posts:
If you search the Insider for "obesity" you will find three pages of postings. Here are a couple of highlights:
The story of Adam Childers, the obese pizza maker whose stomach stapling operation was covered by workers comp.
The federal case involving Stephen Grindle, whose job loss due to obesity was not covered by the ADA.
On Mother's Day in 1999, Custom Bus Charters' bus driver Frank Bedell veered off a highway near New Orleans, killing 22 passengers and injuring 20 others. Just 10 hours before this trip, Bedell was treated at a local hospital for "nausea and weakness." He had been treated at least 20 times in the 21 months prior to the accident, and 10 of those times involved hospitalization for "life-threatening" heart and kidney disease. You can read more about this horrific crash, which remains one of the nation's deadliest bus crashes, at NOLA.com: Loopholes let sick man drive, safety board says. Also of interest: Breaking the law went with the job.
This accident brought the issue of the medical competence of commercial drivers to the public attention in a dramatic way. In its subsequent report of the accident after the investigation, The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that "...the probable cause of this accident was the driver's incapacitation due to his severe medical conditions and the failure of the medical certification process to detect and remove the driver from service. Other factors that may have had a role in the accident were the driver's fatigue and the driver's use of marijuana and a sedating antihistamine.
The incident and investigation prompted NTSB to issue Safety Recommendations revolving around medical certification of commercial drivers.
How are we doing today?
Nearly a decade later, how are these safety measures designed to protect the public from medically unsafe commercial drivers working out? Not too well, according to a recent investigative report by News21, which was published by MSNBC in the article Truckers fit to drive -- if a chiropractor says so: "From 2002, when the recommendations were made, through 2008, the last year for which data is available, there were at least 826 fatal crashes involving medically unqualified or fatigued drivers, according to a News21 analysis of the FMCSA Crash Statistics database."
The article paints a scary portrait of a driver medical certification program that is pretty broken. Truck drivers can pop into roadside clinics to pick up certifications issued after a cursory examination by almost any health professional. And that's a good scenario - drivers can also download online certificates and fill them out themselves or ignore the requirement entirely. Forgeries are a common occurrence. Being caught without a certificate might result in a slap-on-the-wrist fine. While there have been calls for a national registry for medical certification of commercial drivers, the idea has made little progress. It will probably take the next big incident to ignite public outrage to motivate any change.
For a resource on current regulations, see the US Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Medical Programs, which includes medical regulations and notices, including drug and alcohol testing.
The News21 story on commercial drivers is the third part in a series of four articles that deal with transportation and public safety. Here are the others:
Part 1: Driving While Tired: Safety officials are slow to react to operator fatigue:
"NTSB does not track fatigue-related highway accidents on a regular basis. But in 1993, the board commissioned a study expecting to learn about the effects of drugs and alcohol on trucking accidents. Investigators studied all heavy-trucking accidents that year and made an unexpected discovery: Fatigue turned out to be the bigger problem. NTSB Crash investigators said driver fatigue played a key role in a bus accident in Utah in 2008 that killed nine people returning from a ski trip.
The study found 3,311 heavy truck accidents killed 3,783 people that year, and between 30 percent and 40 percent of those accidents were fatigue-related."
Part 2: Video in the cockpit: Privacy vs. safety
In 200, the NTSB added a recommendation for video recorders to be installed in commercial and charter planes to its "most wanted" list. Pilot unions and other groups have lobbied this safety measure. See this story's sidebar article: Shhhh! Your pilot is napping
Part 4: Outsourcing safety: Airplane repairs move to unregulated foreign shops
"More maintenance has moved overseas. Airlines are not required to use regulated repair shops. Foreign repair stations can go five years between inspections, and even then are often tipped off that inspectors are coming. Manuals are in English, but not all the workers read English. Drug tests of workers are illegal in some countries.
A News21 analysis of Federal Aviation Administration data showed that about 15,000 accidents or safety incidents in all aviation travel can be attributed at least in part to inferior maintenance or repairs since 1973, when the FAA started keeping such records. In these accidents at least 2,500 people died and 4,200 were injured."
Most wanted list: transportation safety improvements
The NTSB keeps a most wanted list of transportation safety improvements, in which it makes recommendations for critical safety improvements for various transportation sectors. Recommendations are designed to improve public safety and save lives, but many have been on the list for years. In some cases, individual states may have requirements, but these recommendations are national in scope. While issues on the "most wanted list" are pending, individual employers might use the list as best practice guidance for safety programs to limit exposure both for workers compensation and other liability issues that might arise from commercial transportation accidents.
You can find more reports on transportation and public safety at News21, "a national initiative led by 12 of America's leading research universities with the support of two major foundations" with a purpose of furthering in-depth and investigative reporting. In 2010, one of the main areas of focus has been Breakdown: Traveling Dangerously in America.
In yesterday's blog on this topic, we told the story of a pizza delivery driver whose undisclosed seizure problem put others (and herself) at risk. Today we examine the inordinate and ultimately terrifying risks that routinely confront the people who deliver pizzas to homes.
The risks of delivery jobs are embodied in one sad tale. Richel Nova, 58, was a hard working immigrant who worked two jobs, one being delivering pizzas for Domino's in Boston. He responded to a call from the Hyde Park neighborhood. The address was a vacant home. He was lured into the house, robbed, stabbed multiple times and left for dead. The three thieves took his money ($100) along with the pizza and drove off in his 1995 Subaru. (The age of the car tells us a lot about Mr. Nova.) The abandoned car was found a bit later, along with the blood-stained pizza box. All but three pieces had been eaten.
Nova's life revolved around his family: twin 20-year-old daughters and an older son. The twins are both juniors in college. All that stood between Nova and a seat at his daughters's graduation next year were a hundred bucks and a pizza to go.
Robberies of delivery people in the Boston area have been a long-standing problem - 52 were reported through mid-September.
Common Ground Among Competitors
The three main pizza chains - Domino's, Pizza Hut and Little Caesar's - have collaborated on developing safety programs for drivers. Among them, they have nearly 90,000 drivers on the road. (Here is the Domino's description of the job.) Statistically, it's not difficult to identify the riskiest neighborhoods for delivery, but the chains face pressure from neighborhood groups and the federal government to provide delivery services without discriminating against the poor.
Back in 2000, Domino's reached an agreement with the Justice Department to formalize a delivery policy for all its restaurants. Reflecting what Domino's said were well-established standard practices, the new guidelines require managers to evaluate crime statistics with local law enforcement agencies and community groups before limiting delivery. As part of that policy, drivers must report any incidences of violence, and delivery limits must be drawn narrowly. (Easier said than done.)
(Sort of) Managing Risk
There are a number of ideas floating around on how drivers should handle what appear to be risky delivery scenarios:
- Require the customer to come to the car to pay for the delivery and pick up the pizza. (This may not be feasible in all circumstances - for example, disabled customers may not be able to come to the street.)
- Require customers to have exact change for their purchase (and hope against hope that they have a bit extra for the tip!)
- Advise drivers not to enter darkened dwellings
- Limit deliveries after certain hours (in the Boston data mentioned above, many of the robberies took place after 9:00 pm.)
- When in doubt, when confronted with what appears to be immediate risk of harm, the driver is instructed to return to the store (and risk the wrath of legitimate, irate customers awaiting their dinners)
For those of us who have never had a gun or knife thrust into our faces, the dangers confronting delivery workers every day are both frightening and unimaginable. For Richal Nova's children, any mention of pizza will haunt their thoughts for the rest of their lives - reminding them of their father's lonely and senseless demise at the hands of cruel thugs with a half-baked plan for a free meal.
Most people are aware that, since 1970, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has been responsible for issuing and enforcing standards for workplace health and safety. But if I were a betting person, I would wager that far fewer are aware of OSHA's responsibilities in relation to the Sarbanes Oxley Act. OSHA is charged with protecting workers " ...from retaliation for reporting alleged violations of mail, wire, bank, or securities fraud; violations of rules or regulations of the SEC; or federal laws relating to fraud against shareholders."
This responsibility is part of the Office of Whistleblower Protection Program (OWPP),for which OSHA has oversight. OWPP was originally intended to protect workers from being retaliated against for such things as reporting safety violations to OSHA, requesting or participating in an OSHA inspection, or testifying in any proceeding related to an OSHA inspection.
Over the years, this responsibility has expanded to encompass oversight of the whistle-blowing provisions for eighteen other statutes, including violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, health care reform, nuclear energy, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad and securities laws.
And according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), OSHA gets failing grades for discharging its whistleblower protection responsibilities. The GAO cited lack of training, chronic inattention from OSHA leaders, and long delays in resolving cases, among other problems.
Some say the problems are no surprise: too few staff spread too thin, resulting in long case delays and staff demoralization. You can see charts depicting the growth of responsibilities while staff remained flat on pages 16-17 of the GAO Whistleblower Report. (PDF)
Some relief is in the offing - 25 new investigators are scheduled for appointment to OWPP. In addition, the Department of Labor (DOL) is conducting a "top to bottom" review and there is some discussion about whether the program should be moved to another part of DOL.
Whistleblowers are fundamental to workplace safety, but even with protections built into the laws, the reality is that protection for whistle-blowing employees can be a long time in coming, when and if it does. Read about truck driver John Simon's whistle-blowing ordeal as a case in point. There are unfortunately many other similar stories. OSHA offers employees a a bill of rights to ensure safety, but fundamental to those rights are protections when and if they speak up in the cause of safety.
Last week, we rocked and rolled you with a dramatic video of a cruise ship tossed in a storm, but for sheer fear factor, we think this video may top that one. Normally, we wouldn't post another video so soon after that one, but we think this one may not stay up for long!
Note: the video we had posted was removed but a copy has been posted here: Climbing Up The Tallest Antenna Tower 1,768 feet
Once we caught our breath after the gut-churning visceral reaction to the clip, we had two thoughts: Massive respect for the jobs that infrastructure workers do to keep our lights on, our computers running, and our phones working, and absolute horror at the "free climbing" concept. The narrator says that OSHA rules really allow for this, but that doesn't sound right. We'd be interested in comments from safety professionals.
Here's what we found from OSHA: "Tower climbing remains the most dangerous job in America. The majority of fatalities are the result of climbers not being tied off to a safe anchorage point at all times or relying upon faulty personal protection equipment. Many fatalities have occurred during the erection, retrofitting or dismantling of a tower. "Tie or Die!" has become synonymous with the requirement for 100 percent fall protection."
Today we examine an interesting case where the ADA runs up against OSHA's general duty clause, where the individual's right to "reasonable accommodation" collides with the need to ensure the safety of the general public.
In 1999 Oscar Brownfield became a policemen in Yakima, Washington. By all accounts, he was a good cop. In 2000 he suffered a head injury in a non-work-related car accident. He returned to work about 6 months later. In 2005 the troubles began: he (wrongfully) accused a co-worker of malfeasance. He was short-tempered, storming out of a disciplinary hearing with a superior. He described moments of intense anxiety when he was not sure he could control himself. And he made alarming comments about how meaningless life had become.
Fearful of Brownfield's mental state, his employer sent him for a Fitness for Duty Exam (FFDE). He was diagnosed with a mood disorder and disabled from work due to his "emotional volatility, poor judgment and irritibility." The disability was considered permanent.
Then Brownfield had another auto accident. His treating physician, Dr. Gondo, released him for work: that is, he wrote that Brownfield could carry out the "physical requirements" of the job. When pressed on the issue of Brownfield's mental state, Dr. Gondo did not back down, but he did not respond either. He simply remained silent. As a result, the Yakima police department sent Brownfield for a second FFDE, with the same result as the first. Brownfield was terminated from his job.
Claiming an ADA disability (he does appear eligible), Brownfield sued for a violation of the ADA, violation of his first amendment rights of free speech (his apparently groundless accusations against a fellow cop) and violation of the FMLA (which limits the ability of employers to require multiple FFDEs). Brownfield's case was dismissed on summary judgment by the district court, a decision subsequently upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
A Tool in the Toolbox
Employers often balk at requiring Fitness for Duty exams. They fear a violation of the employee's rights. This case clearly indicates that those rights can and should be tempered by a clear-headed vision of business necessity. If the employee's mental or physical condition undermines his ability to perform essential job functions safely, a fitness for duty exam is not only allowable, it is necessary. To be sure, the exam comes with a high standard: the need must be work related and it must derive from business necessity. But where these standards are met, employers must act. If the employer takes the path of least resistance and does nothing, they could easily be charged with negligent retention when and if something bad happens.
Management continuously walks a fine line between employee rights and the obligation to operate a safe workplace. Yakima took a chance in terminating Brownfield's employment, but it appears that they did what had to be done and they did it legally. Brownfield was unable to perform his job safely. His mental state comprised a risk to himself and to the public he was oath-bound to protect. It is never easy confronting an unruly, agitated and volatile employee, but it must be done - and done in a timely manner.
If you haven't discovered the gem that is the Boston Globe's "Big Picture" yet, you are missing a wonderful feature. Billed as "news stories in photographs" it is a themed news essay curated by Alan Taylor. From the BP oil disaster to the floods in Pakistan, the photos add a visual narrative to breaking stories of the day.
This past week, as in many media outlets, the focus was on Katrina. With a human toll of more than 1,800 dead and an economic toll exceeding $80 billion, the 5-year anniversary merits our attention.
For many of us, the anniversary is a look back, but for many of those who experienced it first hand, Katrina is a continuing nightmare. News reports point to ongoing health problems, from mental health issues to general health problems, such as skin infections and respiratory illnesses: "A recent study published in a special issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry found elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic and other toxic chemicals were present throughout New Orleans, particularly in the poorer areas of the city. It suggested that widespread cleanup efforts and demolition had stirred up airborne toxins known to cause adverse health effects."
Many residents, particularly children, are still still experiencing severe emotional and psychological disturbances. The National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health has been conducting studies on Gulf coast residents, and recently issued a white paper in coordination with the Children's Health Fund:
"Together, these documents indicate that although considerable progress has been made in rebuilding the local economy and infrastructure, there is still an alarming level of psychological distress and housing instability. Investigators believe that housing and community instability and the uncertainty of recovery undermine family resilience and the emotional health of children. These factors characterize what researchers are calling a failed recovery for the Gulf region's most vulnerable population: economically disadvantaged children whose families remain displaced."Looking back to look ahead
A crisis by its very nature is unpredictable and random. But from a risk management point of view, it's important for businesses to examine past events so that lessons learned can become part of planning for future crises with an eye to minimizing losses and disruption.
Perhaps one of the best articles we've seen on this theme is Crisis Management of Human Resources: Lessons From Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This article discusses the three phases of crisis management: planning and preparation; immediate event response; and post crisis, or recovery. It cites specific companies and the way they problem-solved aspects of the Katrina crisis, and points to the importance of putting some plans in place: having and circulating an alternative emergency communication systems plan; keeping contact information and next-of-kin data current; maintaining communications with employees during an emergency; having updated policies and procedures for compensation and benefit continuation; making resources such as EAP services available to employees; and having flexible and alternative work arrangements.
Farm work is hazardous business. Recently, we focused on the deaths of two Michigan teen farmworkers who were killed while working in a silo. Last week, we learned about the recent deaths of two more young workers who died in an Illinois grain bin which is owned by Haasbach, LLC. Wyatt Whitebread was 14 years old and Alex Pacas was 19 years old. Officials put the cause of death at "traumatic asphyxiation, due to being engulfed in corn."
According to reports, the boys were standing in corn as an unloading system operated. Wyatt began sinking in the corn and became trapped. As is so often the case in such incidents, coworkers rush to rescue their trapped coworker. Alex Pacas and Will Piper, 20, tried to help Whitebread but they also became trapped. Pacas' efforts resulted in his death; Piper was rescued and hospitalized. Reports indicate that one or two other teens were also in the bin but managed to escape and call for help.
Preliminary OSHA investigations indicate that these deaths were preventable. The three workers were not wearing safety harnesses and were not equipped with life lines. In addition, reports say there was not a spotter in place who could shut down the system if there was a problem. Also, it is illegal for teens under age 16 to work in grain storage bins.
Liz Borowski of The Pump Handle reports that OSHA is taking action in light of recent grain bin deaths. It has proposed or levied fines against two other grain facilities for recent entrapments and deaths. In addition, OSHA issued letters to all grain elevator operators reminding them of their safety obligations. The OSHA letter states that employers have legal obligation to protect and train workers, and warns that they will aggressively pursue cases "use our enforcement authority to the fullest extent possible" when employers fail to fulfill their legal obligations.
According to OSHA, employer safety precautions include:
When workers enter storage bins, employers must (among other things):
1. Turn off and lock out all powered equipment associated with the bin, including augers used to help move the grain, so that the grain is not being emptied or moving out or into the bin. Standing on moving grain is deadly; the grain acts like 'quicksand' and can bury a worker in seconds. Moving grain out of a bin while a worker is in the bin creates a suction that can pull the workers into the grain in seconds.
2. Prohibit walking down grain and similar practices where an employee walks on grain to make it flow.
3. Provide all employees a body harness with a lifeline, or a boatswains chair, and ensure that it is secured prior to the employee entering the bin.
4. Provide an observer stationed outside the bin or silo being entered by an employee. Ensure the observer is equipped to provide assistance and that their only task is to continuously track the employee in the bin
5. Prohibit workers from entry into bins or silos underneath a bridging condition, or where a build-up of grain products on the sides could fall and bury them.
6. Test the air within a bin or silo prior to entry for the presence of combustible and toxic gases, and to determine if there is sufficient oxygen.
7. Ensure a permit is issued for each instance a worker enters a bin or silo, certifying that the precautions listed above have been implemented.
Yesterday was a day of remembrance for the victims of last week's horrifying shootings at Hartford Distributors in Connecticut - our hearts go out to the family, friends, and coworkers of the deceased. Their lives will be forever changed and imprinted by this terrible event.
In chilling testimony minutes before death by his own hand, we hear the shooter in the deadly rampage calmly relaying his motive to a police dispatcher: "This place right here is a racist place...They're treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people."
Omar Thornton's murderous acts left eight coworkers dead and two grievously wounded. The horrifying massacre brought to mind another racially-motivated workplace-based mass murder, the 2003 shooting at a Lockheed Martin plant in Meridian, Miss., which left 6 dead and 8 wounded. Unlike last week's shooting for which there were few if any advance clues or hints, the killer in Meridian had left a trail of violent threats and behaviors. Many who knew or had worked with Doug Williams feared and even predicted that his threats would culminate in some terrible event.
Whether racism was a trigger in the Connecticut case or not seems a moot point. Even if it were true that racism occurred, as alleged by the family of the shooter, that would not justify such a heinous and wildly disproportionate reaction. Company and union officials deny the allegations of racism and say that no such grievances had been filed or were on record. Yet Thornton's call and the allegations will likely play a factor as lawyers for the victims seek damages. If victims seek any redress beyond workers compensation, they will face a high hurdle. When litigation is successful at piercing the exclusive remedy shield, it often involves employer misconduct that is highly egregious.
In 2005 and again in 2008, courts barred tort claims for Lockheed victims and upheld workers compensation as the exclusive remedy. Plaintiffs felt they had a strong case and sued Lockheed on the basis of having been deprived of civil rights. They cited a 2004 EEOC report, which stated: "(Lockheed) was aware of the severity and extent of the racially charged and hostile environment created by Mr. Williams, which included threats to kill African-American employees," the determination by the EEOC's Jackson office said. "(Lockheed's) reaction to those threats against African-American employees was inadequate and permitted the racially charged atmosphere to grow in intensity, culminating in the shooting of 14 individuals."
We noted then and note again now that, while often an imperfect and unsatisfying system, workers comp generally holds up as the exclusive remedy in such cases.
Can employers inoculate against such events?
While most workplace risk can be managed and risk mitigation strategies can be adopted to eliminate or minimize hazards, when it comes to the human heart and mind, preventive strategies can be less certain. There are certainly best practices that can be put in place, predictive profiles and warning indicators that can be consulted, and good hiring and supervisory practices that can be enacted.
Connecticut attorney Daniel Schwartz has been following this event and others on his blog. He recalled another terrible CT event on the 10 year anniversary of the 1998 Lottery headquarters shooting, which claimed the lives of four supervisors. Schwatz has revisited the topic of workplace violence on more than one occasion, offering best practice tips and resources for employer vigilance. In light of the recent tragedy, he asks if there are any lessons to be learned from evil. He concludes:
"Despite all the guidance and advice that can be given, the awful truth is that there really is no way to prevent tragedies like this from ever occurring. An employer can do everything "right" and yet still a rampage ensues by someone committed to carrying out a terrible crime.That's not to say that employers should ignore the issue; they shouldn't. But we also should be careful not to draw conclusions from an incident like this too.
Indeed, as we look for answers from this tragedy, perhaps its best to acknowledge that we can never truly understand what brings people to commit evil and that despite whatever efforts we might make, something like this will sadly happen again."
David Warren died last week in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia. He was 85. You may never have heard of this aeronautical researcher, but his work has impacted anyone who travels by air. David Warren is credited with the invention of the black box. (A splendid obituary by Douglas Martin in the New York Times can be found here.)
In 1934, when Warren was just 8 years old, his father died in a plane crash. His last gift to his son was a ham radio set. After earning a PhD in chemistry from the Imperial College in London, Warren went to work for the Australian defense department, where he investigated a spate of civilian air crashes.
Thinking like a good risk manager, he recognized the need for better data at the time of the crash. He volunteered to work on developing a flight recorder system. His bosses were not impressed. One went so far as to say: "If I find you talking to anyone, including me, about this matter, I will have to sack you."
His peers went on to note that if his idea had any merit, the Americans would have already made it (!). Preserving pilot conversations would yield "more expletives than explanations." (The pilots, naturally, did not like the idea of a permanent record of their chatter.) It was only a visit by a high ranking British aviation official in 1958 that triggered a positive response. Warren was flown to England to show off his little black box (which, for the record, was and remains red or orange). The rest, as they say, is history - a history that has significantly enhanced our ability to understand exactly why a given plane went down.
Obscurity and Fame
We live in an age of instant (unmerited) celebrity: you can become rich and famous for doing absolutely nothing (did someone say Snooki???). The quiet Australian David Warren accomplished a great deal in his long life and managed to stay in the background. He was able to transform the painful loss of his father into safer skies for everyone. It will not surprise you that he never profited from his work. Even if his government had offered him all the profits from his invention, he says he would have refused. He quipped that if he were to profit from his good idea, he might also get billed for the ones that amounted to nothing.
The latest generation of black boxes are self-ejecting, encased in steel and insulated against fire. They provide more than 200 measurements and dump data 128 times a second. These technical wonders have their origins in the mind of young child tinkering with a radio set and dreaming of a father who never came home. We should all be grateful for the exemplary life of this humble man.
From Michigan, we learn the tragic news of the silo-related deaths of two teens on a farm. Victor Perez, 18, was a recent high school graduate who had worked on the farm for about 4 years. His co-worker Francisco Mendez Martinez, 17, had been on the job for about a month.
News reports are thin and shrouded in mystery. One refers to the fatalities as a "mishap" (talk about understatement) and quotes a local farmworker as saying that the teens "weren't doing something particularly dangerous and they knew how to do it." (Apparently wrong on both counts). Other stories portray this as "just a tragic accident" with authorities quoted as saying they might never be sure what happened because there were no witnesses.
We should really expect better reporting from media whose beat includes farm country. And if the news reports are correct, there is at least one other local farm worker who needs to be alerted to silo dangers and the quoted sheriff needs to take an EMT refresher course.
A cursory Google search on silo deaths will show that there's nothing particularly mysterious about this "mishap" - unsupervised teen workers + confined space + silos + molasses storage - all should trigger red lights. The danger posed to teens of confined spaces in agriculture should be well known. Instead of breathless reporting about mysterious tragedies (see also "freak accidents"), media could do a huge service to local communities if they did a little research and used such horrific events as a springboard to educate people about a) safety for a high-risk group, teen workers and b) farm worker accident prevention.
The hazards associated with silos are well-recognized. One cited in this link might have been a description of the recent that killed the teens:
The typical scenario involves a worker entering an oxygen-deficient or toxic atmosphere and collapsing. Co-workers notice the collapsed worker and enter the same atmosphere and attempt a rescue; however, if they do not use proper precautions (respirators, ventilator fans, etc.), they also collapse.
Additional resources
Confined Space Hazards a Threat to Farmers
Dangerous Gases and Fires Can Make Silos Death Traps
Silo Gas Dangers
Silo Gas Dangers - from Farm Safety
Preventing Deaths of Farm Workers in Manure Pits
Confined Space Hazards
OSHA: Confined Space
Parental Alert: 2010's Five Worst Teen Jobs
Lawyers, investigators, policymakers and safety professionals will be wrangling over the Deepwater Horizon tragedy for years to determine what happened, where fault lay, and who will pay.
By many accounts, Deepwater Horizon was had a relatively good safety record. Its 125-member crew had no serious injuries in the seven years prior to the explosion. In a cruel irony, BP mangers were reported as being on board to recognize the Deepwater crew for its outstanding record on the very day that the explosion occurred.
The sheer magnitude of the disaster and the economic and ecological impact have taken center stage, while the deaths of 11 workers are all too often the asterisk to the story. Their surviving family members and their 156 work colleagues, who narrowly averted death themselves, are in the early stages of an arduous healing process. Coworkers lived through the harrowing and terrible event, many sustaining physical and psychological scars. At hearings and in the media, their personal survival accounts are beginning to be told.
In the first part of a 60 Minutes segment on the disaster, crew member Mike Williams talks about events leading up to the explosion. Production was off schedule by more than a month and $25 million had been lost. This put crews under even pressure to perform. A critical piece of equipment was damaged 4 weeks prior to the explosion, yet this unsettling event did not slow the inexorable push forward. Williams describes a "chest-bumping" argument that occurred on the morning of the fateful day, between a BP manager and crew manager about who would have the final word about process decisions. In his account, the BP manager won the argument and made a process decision, which preceded the explosion.
In the second part of the report, Williams relates his own struggle for survival, as well as the dramatic close call for other coworkers. He talks about being injured in the initial two explosions, the helpless feeling when crawling outside to see the extent of the damage, and the terror of jumping 90 feet into oil-slicked, fiery water and swimming until being rescued.
The dividing line between survival and death was a matter chance and of seconds. Although there had been weekly lifeboat drills, some survivors said that they had not anticipated such chaos, nor had they actually sat in lifeboats or thought through the details of a quick escape. And details could make the difference. One life raft of survivors was tethered to the rig and narrowly avoided being pulled back into the inferno simply because the company's strict "no knives" policy meant that no one had a knife to cut the rope.
Other survivors and family members shared their experiences on CNN.
Family members relate the experience from their point of view - hearing the terrible news of the explosion and the long, terrible vigil waiting to get official word of whether their loved one survived or not.
Also see: Profiles of the profiles of the Deepwater Horizon Eleven, ranging in age from the youngest at 22 to the oldest at 56 years old.
Prior posts
News update on BP
Engulfed by risks
A sewer may not be the preferred place to begin the work week, but the working world calls and we must follow. About a year ago, we blogged the sad story of Shlomo and Harel Dahan, respectively the owner and heir of S. Dahan Piping and Heating company in Queens, New York. They were hired to vacuum an 18-foot-deep dry well at a plant owned by Regal Recycling. Harel went in first. When he failed to emerge, his father went in after him. When the father failed to surface, an employee of Regal, Rene Rivas, went in after them. All three were overcome by deadly fumes at the bottom of the well. All three died.
Now we read in the New York Times that Sarah Dahan, Shlomo's widow and mother of Harel, brought the remains of her husband and son to Israel for burial. She left the company in the hands of Ygal Lalush, a trusted employee. In her absence, Lalush changed the locks, stole the company's four trucks, wrote $30,000 in company checks for his personal benefit and started running the company out of his own home under a different corporate name.
Ms. Dahan discovered the problem when she returned from Israel. She first tried to resolve the issue directly with Lalush. When that failed, she went to the authorities. Lalush has been charged with fraud, grand larceny, forgery, possession of stolen property and falsifying business records.
Lessons from the Underground
We could conjecture about the frailty of human nature and the dark shadows that accompany us all as we make our way through the world. We could wonder at the transformation of a loyal employee into a pathetic crook. (Perhaps his lawyer will chalk it up to post-traumatic stress syndrome!) That aspect of this tale will remain forever hidden, like the contents of the sewers cleaned by S. Dahan Piping and Heating.
The take-away from this tale lies within the Dahan family: the father who tried in vain to save his son. The mother who fulfilled a commitment by burying her husband and son in Israel and who tried unsuccessfully to convince her wayward employee to abandon his demented plan. There is genuine dignity in these people, who deserved both a better fate and a higher class of employee.
We are following the consequences of the gulf oil disaster with increasing despair. Images of oil soaked birds, dead fish, and the serene Gulf waters transformed from the customary beautiful blue-green to an appalling brown. Our thoughts also turn to the men and women laboring under very challenging conditions to contain the impact of this man-made disaster.
NIOSH has issued the following summary of the exposures facing the recovery workers:
Chemical exposures may include benzene and other volatile organic compounds, oil mist, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and diesel fumes. Physical hazards may include ergonomic hazards, excessive noise levels, sun exposure and heat stress. Injuries may occur due to slips, trips, and falls on slippery or uneven walking and working surfaces. Other safety hazards are associated with the use of tools, equipment, machinery, and vehicles. Biological hazards include possible exposure to biting or venomous insects or other animals. Psychological hazards may include witnessing traumatic injuries or death, inability to help affected wildlife, and fatigue.
You can read the CDC's 96 page opus on managing the exposures to emergency workers here. (I can't help but wonder if this particular web-available document is symbolically collecting dust on the shelf, like so many other well-intentioned but rather long-winded safety manuals - the ones risk managers point to with pride during a tour of an industrial plant.
"We're Hiring!"
BP has hired about 22,000 workers to help with the clean up. I wonder how carefully they screened the new hires. Any rapid ramp up is full of risk; the hazards of hiring on this scale for jobs full of open-ended risk is simply beyond calculation. How many of the 22,000 workers will end up with work-related illnesses and injuries? How would you project the future impact on BP's workers comp costs? (Perhaps BP is calling the new hires "independent contractors." Some may well be; most are not.)
Under regulatory scrutiny, BP has provided some form of rudimentory training and the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) for the new workers. But how well is the work supervised? With temperatures routinely in the high 80s and the heat index over 100 degrees, how long can people function in the requisite protective suits, steel-toed boots, gloves, hard hats and safety glasses? What is the impact of raw crude on bare skin and laboring lungs?
Looming Epidemic?
There have already been reports of illnesses among these workers. Law firms have put out the word that at least one of the dispersants used in the clean up may harm workers:
OSHA representatives, Obama administration officials and others have expressed concerns that the oil dispersant chemical Corexit may be the source of the illnesses reported on May 26 by cleanup workers. In May, the EPA urged BP to stop using Corexit because of its toxicity. Corexit is manufactured by Nalco, whose board of directors has strong ties to the oil industry, including sharing at least one board member with BP.
We all feel a sense of urgency on an unprecedented scale as the pristine Gulf waters are sullied by millions of gallons of oil. A huge workforce has been mobilized to help with the clean up. Looming on the distant horizon is the cost of cleaning up the damage to those who are currently engaged in the clean up. It's something we give only passing thought to today. But the time will come when those costs are as conspicuous and nearly as disturbing as the image of an oil-soaked pelican trying to spread its soiled wings, trying and failing to launch itself into the brilliant blue skies of its Gulf home.
On this blog, we are usually speaking to employers or workers. Sometimes we are addressing people in the insurance industry - claims adjusters, safety professionals, insurance geeks, and the like. But today we have a different target audience: parents of teens who are about to embark on their first summer job.
Parents: please do not assume that your kids health and well being will be looked after while on the job - make it your business to dig deeper.
Every year, in some of the most pedestrian-sounding jobs, kids are maimed and killed while working. Who would think that a job in a doughnut shop could lead to a 17-year old drowning in an uncovered cesspool? Or that a summer job on a lawn care crew could result in a 14-year old being killed when pulled into a wood chipper? Some of the most compelling advocates for teen worker safety are teen survivors themselves: Candace Carnahan who lost her leg to a conveyor belt; Kristi Ruth, who lost an arm that was entangled in equipment while working at her family farm; and four kids who tell of their life-changing injuries at summer jobs in a series of powerful videos.
Most dangerous jobs for teens
Millions of teens will be looking to join the work force over the next few months, and with a teen unemployment rate hovering around 30%, there will be strong competition for positions - and some young workers may be tempted to take jobs that could endanger their health. The National Consumers League (NCL), which coordinates the Child Labor Coalition, has issued a report detailing 2010's Five Worst Teen Jobs report to remind teens and parents to be alert and informed about the hidden dangers that many jobs hold.
2010's Five Worst Teen Jobs
The article offers information and details about the potential risks and hazards for each of these job categories, as well as common risks that teens face at work. It also offers suggestions for parents on how to be involved in their teens job choices, and what to look for.
More tools for parents
Here are some additional resources to help you keep your teens safe at work:
Other teen safety resources
We've recently been challenging ourselves with OSHA recordable quizzes posted by the smart folks at the Advanced Safety and Health News Blog. We found them interesting enough that over the next few weeks, we will pose the scenarios / questions and you can test your knowledge. Click the headlines to go to the respective blog post and learn the answers.
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #10: injured on smoke break
Scenario: An employee reports to work. A few hours later, the employee goes outside for a "smoke break." The employee slips on the ice and injures his back.
Question: Since the employee was not performing a task related to the employee's work, the company has deemed this incident non-work related and therefore not recordable - right or wrong?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #11: injury during seizure
Scenario: You have a 48 year old male employee who reports to work on Wednesday morning and two hours into his work shift he experiences some sort of seizure and falls to the floor. During this event when the employee falls he strikes his head on a work table and receives a laceration on his head that requires six stitches. Further investigation determines the employee has epilepsy and a history of epileptic seizures. The doctor verifies that what this employee experienced was indeed an epileptic seizure. So you determined the event was due to a preexisting non-work related medical condition.
Question: Since the employee struck his head while at work performing work, does the geographical presumption make this event an OSHA recordable?
Recordkeeping Quiz 12: company sponsored meal
Scenario: To celebrate a safety milestone of achieving one million hours worked without an injury, your employer provides a lunch complete with fried chicken, barbequed ribs, hamburgers, and all the trimmings. A few hours later many employees start to exhibit signs of food poisoning. Seventy two of your employees get food poisoning so bad that they must miss the next day of work. Further investigation reveals they received the food poisoning from the potato salad provided by the caterer your company hired for the event.
Question: Do all seventy two of these cases go on your OSHA 300 log as recordable with at least one day away from work (DART case)?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz 13: counting time away from work
Scenario: An employee sustained a work-related ankle injury (sprain) and received medical treatment. The employee immediately returned to work with restrictions. The employee's doctor has requested that the employee return for periodic office visits so that he can observe the patient's improvement. The employee's doctor states that on the days the employee has an appointment, the employee is "unable to work that date."
Question: Are the days used by the employee to visit the doctor for follow-up to be considered days away from work?
We've recently been challenging ourselves with OSHA recordable quizzes posted by the smart folks at the Advanced Safety and Health News Blog. We found them interesting enough that over the next few weeks, we will pose the scenarios / questions and you can test your knowledge. Click the headlines to go to the respective blog post and learn the answers.
Recordkeeping Quiz #6: counting days
Scenario: One of your employees injured his foot at work on a Thursday. Your physician said he could not work and scheduled a follow-up appointment on the following Tuesday. The physician would then determine if your employee could return to work or would need to be away longer. The employee was not scheduled to work on Saturday or Sunday, but was scheduled to be at work on Monday.
Question: Since your employee was not scheduled to work on the weekend, do you need to record this time as part of the days away from work?
Recordkeeping Quiz #7: are flu illnesses recordable?
Scenario: Your business is in the middle of flu season and many employees are calling in sick. Two of the employees are claiming that they have been diagnosed by their doctors with the H1N1 flu. They say they contracted the flu at work from a co-worker who was also diagnosed with the H1N1. The two employees want you to record their illnesses because they say they got the flu at work.
Question: Are you required to record these flu related illnesses?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #8: maximum recordable days
Scenario: One of your employees suffered a very serious broken leg due to an accident at work. She had surgery and is in rehabilitation. Her physician cannot give a definite date or even an estimate of when she will be able to return to work. She may be out of work for many months, but is expected to fully recover and be able to work in her job again.
Question: Is there a maximum number of days that should be recorded on the OSHA 300 Log for cases such as this one?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #9: posting the entire 300 Log
Scenario: You are the Safety Manager for your company and are responsible for completing the OSHA 300 Log. It is time for you to have your new Plant Manager sign the "Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" Form 300-A so you can post it as required by the standard. You spent quite a bit of time explaining to him how the whole OSHA recordkeeping process works, and he demonstrated quite an interest in what you were doing and the types of injuries your plant was experiencing.
As you are leaving his office, he makes the following statement to you: "When it comes to safety, we have no secrets around here. I think it would be a great idea if you post the entire 300 Log along with the Summary so people see just exactly what type of injuries we are having."
Question: How should you respond to his statement?
We've recently been challenging ourselves with OSHA recordable quizzes posted by the smart folks at the Advanced Safety and Health News Blog. We found them interesting enough that over the next week or so, we will pose the scenarios / questions and you can test your knowledge. Click the headlines to go to the respective blog post and learn the answers.
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #1: horseplay
Scenario: Two of your supervisors completed their work for the day and had entered the change trailer to change clothes and proceed home. There was some bantering back and forth concerning how to beat the traffic at shift's end. The discussion escalated into a physical confrontation where one supervisor allegedly pulled a knife and struck the other in the right bicep, causing a laceration that required sutures to close.
Question: Is the injury the one employee received an OSHA recordable or not?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #2: go-cart racing
Scenario: An employee is injured while participating in go-cart racing, which occurred during an off-site company sponsored team-building event. Employees were required to attend the off-site meeting and lunch, but were then free to choose among the following options: (1) participating in the team-building event; (2) returning to the office to finish the work day; or (3) taking a ½-day vacation.
Questions: Is an injury incurred during the go-cart racing considered to be work-related? Is the answer any different if an employee elects to stay for the go-cart racing but is not required to participate and is injured while watching the racing?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #3: personal tasks
Scenario: An employee knits a sweater for her daughter during the lunch break. She lacerates her hand and needed sutures. She is engaged in a personal task.
Question: Are lunch breaks or other breaks considered "assigned working hours?" Is the case recordable?
Recordkeeping Quiz #4: injuries in company parking lots
Scenario 1: Employee A drives to work, parks her car in the company parking lot and is walking across the lot when she is struck by a car driven by employee B, who is commuting to work. Both employees are seriously injured in the accident.
Scenario 2: Employee C commutes from home to work and parks his personally-owned vehicles in the company controlled parking lot. The employee opened the driver side door and started to exit his car when he caught his right foot on the raised door threshold. The employee subsequently fell onto the parking lot surface and sustained a right knee cap injury that required medical treatment.
Question: Is either case work-related?
OSHA Recordkeeping Quiz #5: damage to dentures
Scenario: One of your employees was hit in the mouth by an object while he was performing his normal work duties. However, his dental bridge was damaged. He has not wanted any medical or dental treatment.
Question 1: Would damage to a denture in the presence of no other discernible injury be considered a recordable injury requiring entry on the OSHA 300 log even when medical treatment is not administered?
Question 2: In the context of repair to a denture, what type of activity would be considered medical treatment?
Question 3: Would simple repair to a denture meet the threshold for the definition of medical treatment?
Today is Workers' Memorial Day, both a global and a national day to remember those who lost their lives on the job. April 28 has been an annual day of remembrance since 1989. It is the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the day of a similar remembrance in Canada. Trade unionists around the world now mark April 28 as an International Day of Mourning.
Here in the US, in addition to remembering the more than 5,000 workers who die on the job each year, we face the fresh and painful large-scale tragedies of the 29 workers who lost their lives in the West Virginia Massey mine disaster, 7 workers killed at the Tesoro refinery explosion in Washington, 6 workers killed at the Kleen Energy Plant in Connecticut, and 11 workers missing and presumed dead from Transocean's oil rig explosion off the coast of Louisiana.
These large-scale disasters were played out on a very public stage, with much media attention on the accidents, on the loss of life, and on the grief of the survivors. Less public but no less tragic and painful are the stories of the other 5,000+ deaths: 56-year old father of four James Wetzel, crushed to death in a collapsed trench that was not properly secured; a double fatality at the Kansas MagnaGro International Plant, in which 25-year old Iraq veteran Brandon Pierce and 51-year-old grandfather of four Roy Hillebert lost their lives in a vat of unspecified liquid or 32-year old mother Lori Keen who was killed after being struck by a pallet of bottled water in a Kroger store in Illinois. News reports often paint work-related deaths as freak accidents, but safety experts know that workplace freak accidents are a media myth - most entail preventable safety violations.
The AFL-CIO has amassed resources and information on Worker Memorial Day, including the release of its 19th annual report on the state of health and safety for U.S. workers: Death on the Job Report 2010: The Toll of Neglect. It's worth reading and passing along. The best way that we can honor fallen workers is to pledge that we can and we will do better.
Salverio Todaro, a 68 year old entrepreneur, ran a safety inspection company called SAF Environmental Corporation. You may never have heard of Todaro, but if you live in the New York City area, Todaro may have succeeded in damaging your brain or shortening your life by a number of years. Certified to inspect buildings for lead and asbestos, Todaro rarely actually tested for the deadly substances. Beginning in 1989, he routinely filed bogus inspection reports, including phony lab results, on buildings scheduled for renovation or demolition across the five boroughs. (William Rashbaum of the New York Times provides the appalling details here.)
Think about the consequences of Todaro's failure to do his job. He gave the green light for projects that put construction workers on hundreds of jobs at immediate risk for exposure to lead and asbestos. These workers ripped apart buildings contaminated with asbestos, raising clouds of toxins for all to breath - construction workers, neighbors, passers by. It will take years for the toxins to do their work, but rest assured, that dreadful work will be done.
NOTE: I hardly need add that construction workers on the job sites certified as safe by Todaro are unlikely to qualify for workers comp benefits: thanks to Todaro, there are no records of hazardous substances on these sites.
In one documented case, Todaro was asked to examine an apartment where a young child had suffered from exposure to lead. Todaro gave the building a clean bill of health. As a result, the family had no reason to move, no reason to suspect that every breath their child took put him at risk for further brain damage.
A Punishment to Fit the Crime
In an earlier time, we might have pondered Todaro's fate after his death. In Dante's Inferno, the Ninth Circle of Hell is reserved for traitors, who find themselves eternally locked into awkward positions, encased in ice. Todaro betrayed his city and his fellow man, and made a few bucks in the process. But his actual fate is pretty mild by Dante's standards: he is facing four to six years in jail. After that, I imagine, he'll head south to a quiet retirement in Florida. No eternity encased in ice for this despicable betrayer of the public trust.
Whatever you may be doing as you read this, take a moment to focus on your breath - the simple act of breathing in fresh air and then exhaling. Then think for a moment of the all the people who work in conditions where clean air is nowhere to be found. Think especially of the miners working deep in the earth, extracting minerals which benefit us all.
I often wonder what compels people to choose work in such dire conditions. For many, it's the only work available. For others, it's just what they know. Here is a passage, quoted in a lovely essay by Colin Nicholson, from one of my very favorite writers, Alistair MacLeod of Cape Breton Island, Canada (whose books Island and No Great Mischief are simply wonderful). MacLeod's family emigrated from the Scottish highlands in the late 1700s and found work in the Canadian mines:
Once you start it takes a hold of you, once you drink underground water, you will always come back to drink some more. The water gets into your blood. It is in all of our blood. We have been working in the mines here since 1873.
Here he describes a young boy in his first working day underground:
And there was scarcely thirty-six inches of headroom where we sprawled, my father shovelling over his shoulder like the machine he had almost become while I tried to do what I was told and to be unafraid of the roof coming in or of the rats that brushed my face, or of the water that numbed my legs, my stomach, and my testicles or of the fact that at times I could not breathe because the powder-heavy air was so foul and had been breathed before.
I am haunted this morning by the thought of 25 miners in West Virginia, whose last breaths were taken 1000 feet below the earth's surface. For each, there was a first terrifying day in the mines, perhaps following their grandfathers, fathers or uncles into tunnels deep below the surface. Over time, the terror receded, followed by the grim routine of working in the dark and breathing powder-heavy air that had been breathed before.
In the coming weeks, there will be many questions about mine safety, company policies and procedures, and survival benefits for the families. But today, there is simply the hope that the bodies can be recovered and brought one last time to the earth's surface. In a concluding irony, the final resting place for these men will be far above the chambers where they worked and where they died.
Bryan Griffin was a pilot for Australia's Qantas Air from 1966 to 1982. In 1979 he began to have "uncontrollable urges" to switch off the engines in mid-flight in order to bring down the airplane. He would leave the flight deck and smoke a few cigarettes until he calmed down. He made no attempt to hide his problem - he talked to his colleagues about it. Qantas had him examined and treated by several doctors, but the problems continued, including the urge to "scream and cry." He routinely ignored instructions and repeatedly missed radio and altitude calls. On a flight from Singapore to Sydney, he felt his hand "being abused by the uncontrollable pull of the start levers" - which, if pulled, would kill the engines.
OK. Not exactly "pilot of the month" stuff. There are a couple of intriguing aspects to this tale.
First, Qantas made the management decision to keep Griffin on the job. While the Insider normally recommends following a "return to work/stay at work" protocol, in this case, "staying at work" for three years with severe mental illness clearly put far too many people at risk. Griffin was incapable of performing his job safely; he should have been put on indefinite leave until his mental state stabilized beyond any reasonable doubt.
Griffin continued to fly until he retired in 1982 with a diagnosis of anxiety, depression and obsessive compulsive disorder.
Indemnity for Working?
Here is the second unusual aspect to this case: Nearly 30 years after his retirement, Griffin has been awarded $208,000 by an industrial compensation commission, which ruled that his mental problems were exacerbated by his continuing to work. The Workers Compensation Commission found that the pilot's condition had been worsened by continuing to fly for Qantas until his 1982 retirement. The financial award covers "loss of earnings, medical expenses and legal costs."
While I am no expert in the intricacies of comp as it operates down under, I am confused by this award. How can you suffer a "loss of earnings" when you continue to work? How does workers comp indemnity come to play in a situation where there was no lost time? Perhaps the commission assumes that if Griffin had been grounded during his prolonged period of mental disability, he eventually would have been cured and then would have been to continue his career with Qantas beyond 1982. In other words, Griffin's premature retirement was caused by making him work while he was suicidal. If that is the reasoning, it's a bit of a stretch.
I have one additional question for the commission: why did it take nearly 30 years to reach this conclusion?
Qantas is considering an appeal on this ruling. I think they should shut up and cut the check. Any additional proceedings might further expose their amazingly reckless decision to keep Griffin in the cockpit. That is negligent entrustment at its very worst. Ironically, had Griffin succumbed to his demons and crashed the plane, we might never have known the real cause of the accident. As it is, Qantas is lucky that both Griffin and his hundreds of passengers survived. Air travel is stressful enough without having to worry about a pilot with a barely controllable urge to crash the plane.
Cavalcade of Risk #101 - Andrew of Ozrisk hosts this week's edition of Cavalcade of Risk - check it out.
In other news this week, Roberto Ceniceros posts about making safety more fun than a workplace prank - a video contest sponsored by the Oregon Young Worker Health & Safety Coalition. The Coalition launched its second annual "Save a friend. Work safe" video contest, which invited Oregon high school students to submit a 45-second video about young worker safety on the job. Entries are competing for prizes ranging from $300 to $500, with matching amounts for each winner's school. There were 50 entries this year, from which 7 finalists were chosen. Help pick the winner - log in to YouTube and view and rate the 7 finalists.
We're all for creative ways to raise the issue of workplace safety with young workers. Also see Oregon's Young Employee Safety page - O[yes]. The mission of O[yes] is "...to prevent young worker injuries and fatalities. O[yes] educates its constituency of young workers, educators, employers, parents and labor and trade associations through outreach, advocacy and sharing of resources. We pool our expertise, leverage resources and recognize the diversity and knowledge of our partners and the voice of young workers. O[yes] asserts that all injuries are preventable, all workers have a right to safe work and that young workers shall be treated respectfully and fairly."
We have been following with increasing amazement the saga of Amy Bishop, the Harvard-educated biology professor who certainly is in touch with her rage, if not much else. She was involved in a year-long conflict with the University of Alabama-Huntsville over tenure. Sometime after receiving the final denial, she calmly taught a class and then attended a faculty meeting with 13 colleagues. Forty-five minutes into the meeting, she took out an unregistered automatic pistol and methodically shot six colleagues in the head, three of whom died. Had her gun not jammed, she might have succeeded in executing the remaining 7 people. After being forced out of the room, she calmly called her husband and asked for a ride home.
The astonishing part of this story is that she had apparently already committed a cold-blooded murder. In 1986 she killed her younger brother with a blast from a shotgun. In what now wreaks as a coverup, the incident was classified as an accident: she claimed that she was attempting to remove the shells from the shotgun and accidentally drilled her brother. Sounds reasonable, except that she had already discharged the gun in her bedroom - no one in the family heard the blast (just Amy being Amy?). She was, coincidentally, in the middle of an argument with her brother. As we have now all learned, you definitely do not want to get on Amy's bad side.
Her mother, claiming to have witnessed the shooting, upheld Amy's version of the event. Mom, conveniently, was a politically connected official in the local town. Amy was released into the custody of her parents (enjoying, we presume, her new status as an only child). The investigative report ignored the utter implausibility of the entire story: the incoherent sequence of events, Amy's evident rage, her fleeing the house with the gun and subsequent threatening of people on the street.
Defending the Indefensible Self
Here's the risk management part: Amy's father bought the shotgun after someone allegedly broke into the house. (There is no mention of any police record of this earlier incident.) Dear old dad kept the shotgun in the bedroom, with the shells conveniently laid out on top of a dresser. Amy, a brilliant scientist, but, she would have us believe, mechanically inept, took down the gun and put in the ammunition. (Why? no one bothered to ask.) She "accidentally" discharged the gun into the ceiling. Oops, how did that happen? Then she carries the gun downstairs and asks for help in unloading it. Her brother walks into the kitchen. The rest, as they say, is history as written by the (cruel) victors.
Twenty four years later, Amy practices shooting at a firing range. Her husband does not ask where she got the gun or why she wants to learn how to shoot it. He apparently has no clue what she is planning to do. He claims that he is "no psychologist" - and who could possibly argue with that? When he finally gets to talk to his homicidal wife, secure in a jail cell, she asks if the kids have all done their homework. From executing colleagues to worrying about homework. Who could possibly know what is going on in the mind of this brilliant, demented woman? And how could you possibly hold her parents accountable for enabling this monster and letting her loose upon an unsuspecting world?
It will be years before we know the full implications of Toyota's recall problem, but a few things are already evident. In its relentless push to become the world's number one car manufacturer, Toyota lost its corporate soul (to the extent, of course, that any corporation has a soul). As with any business, performance measurement is a month to month, year by year priority. At this point, it appears that Toyota's primary measurement involved gross sales. Since 2003 the company has ignored alarming signs that their quality control was slipping dramatically. Long known as the producer of reliable, if somewhat pedestrian, cars, Toyota tried to become all things to all drivers. They expanded production capacity across the world as their market share grew. They buried the competition, but in doing so, dug a rather big hole for themselves. They will surely survive, but what form will the survival take?
The old adage "be careful what you wish for" should be engraved over every Toyota plant. They wanted to dominate the market and now they dominate the market. Alas, their cars are prone to uncontrollable accelation and compromised braking. A rather unfortunate combination, to say the least.
Acceleration and Stopping
As evidence of the acceleration problem accumulated - going back to the mid-2000s - Toyota entrenched itself in a denial stance. Finally, they acknowledged a problem with the floor mats. They fixed that. Then they admitted to a defect in brake pedal design, which is the subject of the current recall: they are attaching a small plastic shim to the brake pedal to fix that. Now there are indications that a problem may exist in the computers that determine gas feed. To date, Toyota has not conceded on this last potential source of the acceleration problem. If they are wrong on this one, it's virtually three strikes and you're out.
The braking issues in the Prius involve a sophisticated mechanism which seeks to transform the natural friction in braking into energy to charge the car's battery. The good news is that the battery runs longer. The bad news, of course, is that you might not be able to stop the car.
From a risk management perspective, rapid growth is frought with dangers. On the employment side, you are bringing in (thousands of) strangers to make your product. On the management side, your lines of communication are stretched to the breaking point (no pun intended): a work culture that was successful for a relatively small company might prove inefficient and even disastrous for a world-wide organization. Toyota executives may think that today's company is simply an extension of the modest, diligent operation that entered the world market some decades ago, but size matters. Toyota the Giant is no longer "the little engine that could."
Blame the Media?
One dealer thinks the media has created the problem. Tammy Darvish, who operates 4 dealerships in the Washington, D.C. area, thinks Toyota's commitment to safety is equal to that of other manufacturers. "I don't want to minimize importance of any safety matter. But I think the media has made a sport out of sensationalizing something that is very common: a recall. I sell Chryslers, and they had 18 recalls last year. Did you read about any of those?"
So Toyota's commitment to safety is no different from any other manufacturer. That's a comforting thought! True, the whole problem has been sensationalized. The image of 3,000 pound vehicles hurtling out of control is, well, sensational. It would be nice to think that Toyota will do a little soul searching and re-commit to the values that made them successful: producing a safe, high quality vehicle that accelerates when you want it to and stops when you press the brake. Anything less from Toyota at this point would be, to put it bluntly, criminal.
Toyota, the world's largest automaker, is in the midst of a public relations nightmare. Over two million vehicles have been recalled for a problem with acceleration: gas pedals are prone to sticking, which leads to unstoppable cars hurtling along at high speeds. For months, Toyota denied that there was a problem. Well, there is no denying it now. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood has advised owners of the vehicles not to drive them. [Update: he is backpedaling from his statement.]That's over two million people who are not supposed to drive for the foreseeable future. With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, in this culture where the automobile is less a luxury than an essential, what are these millions of drivers supposed to do?
For the sake of clarity, here are the specific vehicles with a pedal problem:
2007-10 Camry
2009-10 RAV4
2009-10 Corolla
2009-10 Matrix
2005-10 Avalon
2010 Highlander
2007-10 Tundra
2008-10 Sequoia
2004-09 Prius
2007-10 Tacoma
2009-10 Venza
We frequently blog the compelling issue of personal risk management: the myriad decisions we all make in mitigating risk and prolonging the chances of living to see another day. Well, we have here a crisis of huge proportions that confronts Toyota drivers with some very difficult decisions. In keeping with our usual mandate, we will try to focus primarily, but not exclusively, on the implications for workers comp.
At the head of the line are companies that operate Toyota fleets, or that have employees operating Toyotas leased by the employer. At this moment there are irrevocably immense liabilities in allowing employees to continue to drive the vehicles listed above. Of course, the usual "to and fro" issues prevail in determining whether employees injured in an accident are covered by workers comp. (Astute readers will recall that in California, anyone driving a company car is covered by comp 24/7.) But even where comp should be the "exclusive remedy," employers are vulnerable to suits alleging "wilful intent" should they insist that Toyota drivers stay behind the wheel. Prudent risk managers will rent alternative vehicles until the Toyotas have been repaired.
For employees driving their own Toyotas, the "to and fro" rule prevails. However, what happens when an employee is "in the course and scope" of employment and gas pedal lock leads to an accident? Will the employer be held liable for the injuries to third parties? Should employers prohibit employees from driving the compromised Toyotas while working? If yes, how are these employees supposed to do their jobs? Who pays for the replacement vehicles?
Secretary Lahood has accelerated the risks associated with the Toyota recall. He has put the nation on notice than any use of the above vehicles entails unreasonable risk.
This all brings to mind a Toyota ad campaign from an earlier decade. The slogan was: "Get your hands on a Toyota. You'll never let go." I remember thinking at the time that there was a gruesome ambiguity to the wording. The image of a dead driver behind the wheel of a crushed vehicle rose up in my (admittedly hyper-active) imagination. Well, that slogan has come back to haunt the automotive giant. This is no time to put your hands on the wheel of a Toyota. Until this immanent hazard is addressed, it's definitely time to let go.
Addendum:
We just noticed that Renaissance Alliance's Consumer Insurance Blog has a post on what to do if you experience sudden acceleration - it includes a video and some tips from Consumer Reports - whether you own a Toyota or not, it's a good safety skill to learn
My colleague Julie Ferguson raised some fascinating issues relating to the growing movement to approve marijuana as a medication. As is so often the case, the implications for workers comp diverge substantially from general health issues. A toke may be just what the doctor ordered for pain management, but in the context of the workplace, any such prescriptions are likely to preclude actually reporting to work.
Here are just a few reasons why the use of medical marijuana is incompatible with the workplace:
- I cannot think of any job suitable for a person who is experiencing a marijuana high (actuaries? Just kidding)
- You cannot operate a motor vehicle or any piece of equipment safely while under the infuence of marijuana
- Imagine the impact on co-workers when a fellow employee lights up a joint. ("Note from a doctor. Yeah, right! By the way, who is your doctor?")
- Smoking is prohibited by law in virtually all indoor workplaces. "Accommodating" a marijuana smoker by allowing him/her to light up outside of the building raises issues for co-workers and the general public, not to mention the police.
It will be very interesting to see how strongly state legislatures step in to protect medical marijuana users. As Julie pointed out, no state is currently requiring that employers offer "reasonable accommodation" in this situation; it is unlikely that any will do so. The day may come when marijuana makes the list of approved medications in the workers comp system, but prescriptions for weed are unlikely to be accompanied by a return-to-work release from the doctor.
Medical marijuana, along with alcoholic beverages and prescribed opiates, may be legal substances, but employees under their influence do not belong in the workplace. Employers should place the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the treating doctor, who must be able to certify in writing that the prescribed use of pot does not put the employee, co-workers and the public at risk for injury. Quite frankly, unless someone works from home, I don't see how this burden of proof can be met. When it comes to performing a job safely, any toke is a toke over the line.
Robert Sanchez operated Metrolink trains in the Los Angeles area. By all accounts, he was a personable fellow. You might say, nice to a fault. He occasionally invited young passengers to take control of the train. He stayed in touch with train enthusiasts and friends via texting. Cool!
On September 12, 2008, he was operating a train near the end of an 11 hour shift. He was also sending and receiving text messages - 57 in all while on duty that day. Sanchez missed a red light signal and plowed without braking into a freight train heading in the opposite direction on the same track. Twenty five people died (Sanchez included); 135 were injured, many critically. For dozens of the survivors, life will never be the same. (You can attach faces to the numbers here.)
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued its final report. While criticizing the long shifts and the lack of automatic crash controls, the board has placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the late Mr. Sanchez. Distracted by his texting activity, he failed to notice yellow and red signals, which should have alerted him to trouble ahead. As one board member put it, "his head was not in the game." That's an odd but apt metaphor for a tragedy on this scale, with losses totalling about $12 million, not to mention the random destruction of human life.
Distractions
We live in a world where distraction is deeply embedded in our way of life. As the poet T.S. Eliot put it in his poem "Burnt Norton," we are "distracted from distraction by distraction." From moment to moment, one thing or another tempts us. Don't like the music? Change the station. Wondering what a friend is up to? Fire off a text. No need to be bored when there are so many ways to engage our flighty minds. It's deceptively easy to multi-task your way out of the doldrums. It worked for Sanchez - up to a very specific point in time.
Eliot's poem ends with what might be an epitaph for the victims of this terrible incident, Sanchez included, who surely never intended any harm:
Ridiculous the sad waste time
stretching before and after.
Ridiculous and sad, indeed.
NCCI has issued its latest report (PDF) on the status of older workers in the comp system, with a particular focus on workers 65 and up. If nothing else, the study reinforces the notion that older workers are safety conscious and a relative bargain. For employers worried about workers comp costs, older workers are not a significant problem.
In 1988 eleven percent of workers 65+ participated in the workforce; now 17 percent of these older workers are still working. That percentage will likely increase as the long-term effects of the financial collapse continue to resonate through the damaged economy. Some people continue working because they want to; many more continue because they have no choice.
Injury Prone?
The frequency rate for older workers varies by occupation: in construction, older workers appear to be safer than younger workers - they are injured at a 4 percent rate, compared to 12 percent for their younger colleagues. The results are flipped in retail/sales: older workers are injured at a 23 percent rate, compared to 15 percent for all others.
As you might expect, the leading cause of injuries for 65+ workers are slips, falls and trips - 47 percent of all injuries for this cohort. (Younger workers suffer these injuries at a 24 percent rate). For strains and sprains - the overall leading cost-driver for workers comp - the results are reversed: the frequency for older workers is 23 percent, compared to a whopping 38 percent for all others.
It does take longer for older workers to recover from injuries: they have a median days-away-from-work rate of 16, compared to 12 days for workers in the 55 to 64 group and 10 days for workers 45-54. Despite this higher rate, overall indemnity costs are lower. Why? Because older workers make substantially less on average than younger ones. Wages peak in the mid-50s and then fall off dramatically after age 65, down to the same level as the entry level 20 to 24 group. So much for the notion of paying for experience!
The only red flags in the study involve the retail trade and service/hospitality industries, where older workers are showing higher-than-average costs for comp. These jobs probably offer ample opportunity for slips, trips and falls, the number one cause of injuries for these workers, .
It will be fascinating to watch NCCI's study evolve over the next decade. The percentage of workforce participation for the 65+ group is going to increase steadily. With this growth, the risks will be enhanced. There is likely to be an upward trend in both frequency and severity, but perhaps not as much as feared. Certainly, the NCCI study reinforces the argument that older workers are safe, reliable and motivated. There is no reason to discriminate against them. If anything, you could make a good case for preferring an older worker to a younger one. Fodder for further thought, indeed.
NOTE: Special thanks to reader Soon Yong Choi for spotting an error in an earlier version of this post (see comments). Given my checkered track record with numbers, I can only hope that Choi and similarly adept readers continue to cast a critical eye on any of my postings where statistics are involved.
In the interests of keeping Insider readers mentally alert for as long as possible, we present the results of a study that appeared in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (and is summarized in the Wall Street Journal). The study found that long-term cell phone use appears to protect against and even reverse Alzheimer's-like symptoms in mice. Here is the Journal's description of the study:
Mice genetically engineered to develop brain impairments similar to Alzheimer's in humans were divided into two groups. One group was exposed twice daily to hour-long electromagnetic fields akin to those created during cellphone use. Mice in the other group were not exposed to the radiation. After seven months, young mice in the first group fared significantly better on cognitive tests than their unexposed littermates. Older mice, which had already developed symptoms of Alzheimer's, exposed to the radiation for eight months in a subsequent experiment also performed better than older nonexposed mice. Mice, younger and older, not engineered to develop Alzheimer's also appeared to benefit from the radiation. Biopsies suggested such exposure might fight Alzheimer's by inhibiting the buildup of certain protein plaques in the brain, the researchers said.
Given that exposure to radiation is considered a plus here, head set devices cannot be used. If your goal is Alzheimer's prevention, you have to keep that cell phone clamped against your ear.
Before you start dialing up everyone on your call list, you might want to take note of a few caveats: first, what is true for mice is not necessarily true for humans. Further studies involving larger numbers of mice would be needed, and even then there would be no definitive correlation with humans.
There are also a couple of potential safety issues connected with cell phones: use of cell phones while driving is a widely-recognized hazard. In some states, use of cell phones without a head set is illegal. After being pulled over, you could try the line: "but officer, I cannot use a headset because I'm trying to avoid Alzheimer's." You'll get a chuckle...and a ticket.
Beyond the safe driving issue, there are some inconclusive but alarming indications that heavy use of cell phones might result in brain tumors.
So there you have it: talking on your cell phone might help prevent Alzheimers, but it might also cause a motor vehicle accident or even a brain tumor. Personal risk management at its ambiguous best. It's all so confusing, I'm going to take a coffee break. Caffeine, they say, is really good for you. Except when it isn't.
As the world watches in horror and hopelessness, the people of Haiti are trying to extricate themselves from one of the great natural disasters of our lifetime. As I write, thousands of people are still alive, trapped beneath the rubble of what was once Port-Au-Prince. Very soon, most of these people will die, along with scores of the relatively unscathed who have no food, no water and no shelter. Faced with formidable logistical obstacles, the rescuers will not be able to reach most of the trapped people in time and the trickle of essential supplies may be too late for many others.
Our thoughts are with everyone who is suffering in this unimaginable disaster.
As the roads are cleared and supplies finally make their way into what is left of Haiti's capital, rescuers will face enormous hazards. Unstable buildings may collapse at any moment. Further aftershocks are likely. Everyone in the devastated landscape is breathing air contaminated with toxins. There is even a danger of mob violence, as victims become increasingly frustrated by the lack of effective response.
Among the many issues that need confronting at this time, workers comp coverage for the rescuers is probably at the bottom of the list. Yet we know from the World Trade Center experience that many first responders will be exposed to life-threatening injury and illness in the coming days and weeks. Given the magnitude of human suffering in front of them, these responders are not about to raise the issue of their own disability coverage. But the day will come when the extent and nature of that protection is paramount, when the as-yet undiscussed benefits will be an absolute necessity for individual rescuers and their families.
We blogged recently about the personal risk management in which we all engage on a daily basis. We make our choices, moment to moment, in the expectation that nothing really bad will happen. If our luck holds, we live to face the micro challenges of another day.
For the poor people of Haiti and the brave souls trying desperately to help them, the time for micro management is over. The challenge of a lifetime confronts them with savage force. May all who suffer find peace and may all who are trying to alleviate the suffering return home safely.
Postscript
See a post at HR Web Cafe on Haiti earthquake resources, which includes links for:
We conclude this bi-polar year with a risk-related story that is both a phenomenal high and a pathetic low. In what appears to be a record-breaking performance - at least for South Dakota - police found Marguerite Engel passed out behind the wheel of a stolen delivery truck. The article does not specify the contents of the vehicle, but if Engel had her Christmas wish, it was full of alcoholic beverages. Her breathalizer test revealed a blood-alcohol level of an astounding .708. That's some serious drinking: a level of .40 is fatal for about half the adult population.
You might think that Engel's dubious achievement qualifies for the Guinness Book of World Records. Not even close. According to Wickipedia, the record belongs to an unnamed Pole: in March 2009, a 45-year-old man was admitted to the hospital in Skierniewice, Poland after being struck by a car. The blood test shows blood alcohol content at 1.23%. The man survived. He did not remember either the accident or people he drank with. With that much alcohol in his system, it's a wonder that his brain can retain anything.
As we say farewell to the decade that gave us x-rays of shoes, Octomom and the I-Phone, we ring in the new year with a toast: "May the gifts of moderation be yours in abundance. Salud!"
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was depressed and lonely, so he decided to blow up an airplane. He boarded a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas day with explosives strapped to his underwear. (The Freudians will have a field day with that one.) As the plane prepared for landing, Umar, in seat 19A, began to detonate his deadly concoction.
One row back and several seats over, Jasper Schuringa sat in seat 20J. As soon as flames and smoke began to rise in front of him, Jasper lunged across the row and seized Umar around the neck. He disarmed the would-be terrorist and prevented the ignition of the explosives. He suffered some burns, but none as severe as Umar's.
We will probably never know the pathetic thought process that led the spoiled and privileged Umar to seek an end not only to his own life, but those of 280 innocent people. But we can certainly acknowledge the instinctual courage that motivated Schuringa. Like U.S. Airways pilot Chesley Sullenberger, Schuringa demonstrated grace under pressure. In the weeks ahead, most of the attention will be on the Umars of the world: how to find them, how to prevent them from carrying out their wretched pseudo-political vendettas against life itself. It would be reassuring to think that our risk management tools might help us identify these folks before they can act, but I doubt it. Umar has succeeded in adding underwear to the long list of items to be scrutinized before boarding a plane. What's next: explosives hidden in dental crowns?
Seen from a perspective of time, our lives are vectors: as we move in the world, our paths intersect randomly with others. There are mostly gifts in these encounters - but there are also dangers. We all try to manage risk - personal and professional - but there are risks that fall well beyond our control. It takes a lot of luck just to survive. As we welcome the New Year, let's take a moment to appreciate all the good fortune that brought us to this moment. And let's give thanks to the latent heroes among us - the Schuringas and the Sullenbergers - who are ready in a flash to do what needs to be done.
Most Massachusetts residents will recall how their heart sank 10 years ago upon hearing TV and radio reports of the on-the-job deaths of six firefighters in the Worcester Cold Storage fire. While firefighting is a dangerous job, this was the first time that six firefighters fatalities occurred in a building where neither a collapse nor explosion had occurred. The first two firefighters became lost in the labyrinth building and the next four were lost in trying to rescue them. Firehouse.com has a Worcester 10th Anniversary Tribute and the Telegram & Gazette have devoted a special section to the remembrance: Worcester Cold Storage and Warehouse Fire: 10 Years Later.
Worcester is a community that several of us at Lynch Ryan know well - we've lived there and worked there. Given the nature of our work, we are no strangers to on-the-job fatalities - we've heard many heartbreaking stories about work-related deaths that never should have happened. But rarely does an event hit so close to home and with such force as on that day. Many locals will remember the shock of hearing about two lost firefighters - shortly followed by the almost unbelievable word that the tally was now up to six. Many locals who knew firefighters as friends, family, or neighbors waited the long, tense vigil until names of the deceased were released, and then again waited mournfully until fellow firefighters were able to pull the bodies of their colleagues from the rubble a few days later. We all became familiar with the faces of bereaved spouses, children, parents, and siblings. We all saw and hurt for the heavy burden of grief that the fellow firefighters labored under.
There was an amazing tribute for the fallen firefighters: fifteen-thousand firefighters from around the globe came for the memorial service. President Clinton and Vice President Gore spoke at the service, along with local Senators Kennedy and Kerry. Senator Ted Kennedy, a man who was no stranger to tragedy, encapsulated things by saying that "Sometimes life breaks your heart." It was fitting that Kennedy was at the ceremony for the fallen firefighters, he fought for worker safety throughout his career.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, Two major reports were issued: the U.S, Fire Administration's Abandoned Cold Storage Warehouse Multi-Firefighter Fatality Fire and a report from NIOSH.
Firefighter safety still has a long way to go. Tragically, two and a half years ago, nine firefighters lost their lives in Charleston SC. The fire was in a furniture showroom and warehouse - and again, a labyrinth building where firefighters became disoriented.
Firefighters continue to study and learn from the hard lessons of these warehouse fires. In 2001, Firefighters in Jersey City battled a warehouse fire with similar conditions to the Worcester blaze. Fire authorities credit a seminar that they took with members of the Worcester Fire Department for guiding their strategy in fighting this fire and preventing loss of life. In addition, many communities have been more vigilant about monitoring large vacant properties, and firefighter communication technologies have been improved.
The matter of firefighter disorientation is still an issue of concern and one that is under study. (See: U.S. Firefighter Disorientation Study). This has given impetus to other safety initiatives, such as advances in First Responder Locator Systems. These include a system developed at a local university, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, where engineers are nearing completion of a First Responder Locator System.
At the end of last week, OSHA issued $87 million in penalties against BP for failure to make make the changes which were specified in a settlement agreement related to the 2005 explosion at a Texas refinery which killed 15 and injured more than 170 others. The second-highest penalty that OSHA has imposed was in 2005 for $21 million - also issued to BP related to the same explosion.
BP had paid the $21 million fine and agreed to corrective actions to eliminate potential hazards similar to those that caused the 2005 tragedy as part of a settlement agreement with OSHA in September 2005. The penalties were imposed after a 6 month OSHA investigation. BP had recently sought but was denied more time for compliance.
OSHA issued 270 "notifications of failure to abate" previously identified hazards, as well as 439 new willful violations for failures to follow industry-accepted controls. A willful violation is defined by OSHA as an intentional violation of the Act or plain indifference to its requirements.
Unsurprisingly, BP is contesting the fines, stating that they have spent more than $1 billion on modernization and safety and have taken 550 corrective actions. (See BP's offical response and October 5, 2009 response to OSHA, a 17-page PDF). The company has also gotten support from Texas City's mayor, Matt Doyle, who has criticized OSHA for the fines, calling OSHA's actions "one of the biggest affronts to the working men and women of this country" and "an example of intrusion into private business by government."
Jordan Barab, acting assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, noted that BP had four years to comply with the agreement, and defended OSHA's actions as protecting the safety of working men and women. While Barab acknowledged that improvements had been made, he noted that some of the most important things had not been addressed, particularly pressure relief and automatic shutdown systems, problems directly related to the accident. "Our experts say BP is 10 years behind where a lot of the leading refineries are when it comes to process safety," Barab said. "This is a company that should have known better."
We recently posted about the Imperial Sugar Company explosion report issued by the US Chemical Safety Board, but more recently we found a video version, which we think is well worth the nine and a half minutes it takes to view it. Using computer graphics, it clearly explains how the accident happened and the conditions that led to it. It should be mandatory viewing by the 100,000 at-risk organizations that have the potential for such explosions, but think "it can't happen here."
A year and a half after the Imperial Sugar combustible dust explosion, the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) issued its final report on the explosion, which killed 14 workers and injured 36 others, leaving some with permanent, life-altering conditions. In short, the CSB found inadequate housekeeping and maintenance, largely preventable conditions. In addition, CSB found inadequate emergency evacuation plans. The linked article from WTOC-TV above has a summary with photos, as well as related stories. Or you can read the entire 89-page Investigation Report - Sugar Dust Explosion and Fire - Imperial Sugar Company (PDF).
The initial explosion occurred in a closed steel conveyor belt, triggering a series of secondary explosions and fireball eruptions throughout the buildings. The fatalities occurred in the secondary explosions.
Last year, OSHA proposed $8.7 million in fines on the company for more than 100 violations, fines that Imperial Sugar is currently battling in court.
As part of the report, the CSB recommended that OSHA establish mandatory standards for combustible dust. Critics say that this recommendation isn't strong enough, and that OSHA's current rule making process will take too long. They note that under a federal workplace safety law, OSHA can adopt an emergency temporary standard, which would circumvent the red tape to get something in place quickly.
A good source of information on combustible dust is the Combustable Dust Policy Institute blog. This blog states that although OSHA lists 30,000 facilities in its National Emphasis Program, there are actually more than 100,000 facilities at risk, which includes many national industries not listed in the Dust NEP. They track media accounts of combustible dust incidents, and found that last year, about 50% of the incidents occurred in national industries not referenced in the OSHA's dust NEP. Another source of information that we turn to on combustible dust and other public health issues is the excellent blog, The Pump Handle, which provides informed commentary from experts.
For another perspective on the Imperial Sugar explosion, the Joseph M. Stiller Burn Center included Battling Big Burns: The Imperial Sugar Company Fire (PDF) in its summer 2008 newsletter. The article offers an overview of the complexity of issues involved in managing large disasters, including issues directly related to caring for critically burned patients.
In all of our discussions about controlling the cost of workers comp, we continually come up against two lifestyle issues that have a direct impact on costs: obesity and smoking. Let's leave obesity for another day and focus on smoking.
According to a compelling article by Stephen Smith in the Boston Globe, 70 percent of smokers want to stop, but fewer than 10 percent will succeed each year. For non-smokers, this might appear to be a matter of will. But that is both condescending and a gross over-simplification.
Nicotine, the primary addictive agent in tobacco, steals into the brain, setting on fire circuitry that regulates our sense of pleasure [emphasis added]. At the same time, cigarettes acquire a sort of social permanence in smokers’ lives - a way to start the day, to end a meal, to celebrate good times, to muddle through bad times.
Smith uses a rather terrifying analogy to describe how nicotine enters the brain:
Smoking is a uniquely efficient manner of delivering an addictive substance to the brain. “That’s why crack cocaine is so much more addictive than regular cocaine,’’ said Dr. Nancy Rigotti, chief of Massachusetts General Hospital’s tobacco treatment center. “Cigarettes are kind of like the crack cocaine of nicotine.’’
Inhaled nicotine from a cigarette arrives in the brain in 10 seconds. There, it attaches to an especially pivotal region of neurons, those cobweb-like structures that govern our physical and mental actions.
Nicotine, said Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, a tobacco control researcher at Mass. General, “stimulates the same area that get stimulated when you have a wonderful gourmet meal or when you have sexual intercourse. It lights up that part of the brain, which is the rewards center. It drives human behavior. It’s powerful stuff.’’
Hmm. Similar to gourmet meals and love making. No wonder people have trouble walking away from the habit, despite the known and often dire consequences of continuing to smoke. It would take powerful medicine indeed to counteract nicotine's overwhelming appeal.
If there is good news in all of this, it is that a combination of drug therapy and counseling increase the chances of success.
“The data are very clear that you can double your chances if you use a medication if it’s appropriate for you, and you can triple your chances if you use a medication and counseling,’’ said Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends at the American Cancer Society.
The medicine cabinet now includes seven first-line treatments, anchored by five forms of nicotine replacement. Regardless of the delivery system, the goal is to stave off the withdrawal symptoms and cravings that bedevil so many people who want to quit.
Finally, perseverence is key. You just have to keep at it.
“It takes smokers seven to 11 quit attempts to quit for good,’’ said Lois Keithly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. “We need to get the message out that if you make a quit attempt and you relapse, you don’t give up.’’
Smoking Out Smokers
It will be interesting to see if the nation's pending experiment with universal health care attempts to tackle the issue of smoking. Will smokers be charged higher premiums? (With a significant portion of smokers qualifying for premium subsidies, such penalties may prove difficult to enforce.) Will the new insurance rules mandate coverage for smoke cessation programs, including the full range of pharmacology options plus counseling? On the one hand, the success rates are low, so smokers are likely to keep smoking; on the other hand, any and all successes project to future cost savings.
Let there be no doubt about how hard it is to give up cigarettes. After all, we have the image of our president: a self-possessed, calm and extremely bright (American born!) man sneaking out of the White House for secretive puffs. Good luck to him and to all smokers who strive valiantly to give up this nasty habit once and for all.
Charles Wilson of AP has written an article about the Indiana court ruling which determined that Boston's The Gourmet Pizza must pay for an employee's weight loss surgery under workers comp. For the article, Wilson spoke with attorneys representing both sides of the issue, as well as our own Tom Lynch for the workers comp perspective.
The so-called "lifestyle illnesses" of obesity and diabetes pose complicated issues and challenges for employers:
"Both Lynch and Maltby said the issue won't go away soon, in part because one-third of American adults are considered obese, with a body mass index of 30 or more. The index is based on height and weight. Last year, at least 220,000 obesity surgeries were done in the United States, says the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.See our original post: Compensible weight loss surgery? A new wrinkle in obesity.And Lynch said the ruling could have repercussions beyond obesity and weight-loss surgery.
"Who among us does not have some kind of situation that either now or in the future ... could contribute to an injury?" he said. "This could be a big deal."
Related posts:
As a follow up to Julie Ferguson's gruesome imagery from Monday's blog, we find Clyde Haberman's entertaining piece in the New York Times about the state's new statute outlawing texting. As of November 1, it will be illegal for anyone to drive and text in the Empire State. Haberman goes on to write:
If any law may be described as a no-brainer, this one is it. You have to be certifiable to think that you can stare at a small screen and thumb-type on a tiny keyboard for five or six seconds while going 65 miles an hour, and not be a potential threat to everyone in your path. In the opinion of many safety experts, self-deluding multitaskers have had their way long enough. It's time for some multi-tsking to rein them in.
Bravo, Clyde! But Haberman goes on to say that the new law is pretty toothless. "It doesn't throw the book at texters so much as it tosses a few pages in their direction." (Shades of Keith Olbermann?)
The problem is in enforcement. The new statute will only receive "secondary" enforcement, which means that a fine may be imposed only if the police find some other violation, such as speeding or running a red light. Beyond that, the maximum penalty is only $150. That's chump change for the high rolling multi-taskers who clog New York's multitudinous arteries.
Live Free and Die?
Haberman interviews Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a Washington lobbying group. She says "secondary enforcement is not OK, and there's no reason for it."
The good folks in New York like to creep up on enforcement. When they first initiated a seat belt law, they began with secondary enforcement and eventually moved to primary status. All states now require seatbelts, with the notable exception of New Hampshire, which exempts adults over 18 from the mandate.
"It must be that "Live Free or Die" spirit," Haberman quips.
To which Stone responds, "Live free and die, I'd say."
The low budget ($20,000) video was produced by the Chief Constable of the tiny town of Gwent in SE Wales UK. The video has become a You-Tube sensation. The Insider humbly suggests that New York legislators check it out and then revisit the enforcement section of the new law. No one wants to suffer injury or even death just because some twit can't wait to for the proper time to communicate something that, in the scheme of things, most certainly can wait.
There's been quite a lot of media coverage on the high risk of texting while driving and several states are lining up to issue bans or restrictions on the practice. We recently featured a texting while driving game that let's you get a rough gauge of how you'd fare while texting at the wheel. But this simulator really soft pedals things in comparison to the approach that some countries are taking in getting the message out. Nothing that we've seen or read here in the U.S. has the raw, visceral power that a recent British public service announcement aimed at teens.
Before watching, please be warned that this video is very graphic.
There's no disputing the danger that texting while driving poses - the studies are adding up. One of the more recent is a study by the VirginiaTech Transportation Institute, which found that texting truck drivers were 23 times more at risk of a crash or near crash event than nondistracted drivers. But there has been some debate about the effectiveness of shock advertising as an awareness and prevention tactic - some see them as highly effective, while other think that viewers tend to tune them out. This is an issue that came up about two years ago when Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board released a series of graphic public service announcements designed to highlight worker safety.
As for the subject of this ad - currently, 18 states ban texting for all drivers. The Governors' Highway Safety Association maintains and updates a handy chart of state cell phone and texting laws - check back often, as this is an issue on several state legislative dockets.
Wyoming might be a good place to work, but it's also a good place to die at work. The mortality rate for occupational injuries is three times the national average, with 15.6 fatalities per 100,000 workers. Many of these fatalities occur in the oil fields, where "roughnecks" make pretty good wages in exchange for working in relatively dangerous conditions. As DeeDee Correll writes in the Los Angeles Times, everyone shares the goal of improving safety on the far-flung job sites, but there is a continental divide in how to achieve that goal.
Most oil workers are employed by independent contractors, who provide the bodies for the intense work in the fields. The fields are owned by big corporations. On one side of the fence you find workers and their advocates, who want to be able to hold the big corporations liable for what happens on the job. They want to be able to sue the big corporations when they suffer catastrophic injuries or deaths on the job.
The counter argument says that workers comp - carried by the employers of these field workers - should be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries.
At issue here is the question of accountability and control: under current Wyoming case law, injured workers have to prove that the operator maintained "pervasive" control over the site. This is a very high standard, because the daily operations at these sites are primarily under the control of the independent contractors. By lowering the standard of control, worker advocates would make it easier for workers to sue the oil companies for damages.
Denim Versus Suits
The battleground for this dispute is the Wyoming legislature. As is so often the case, there is considerable theatricality on display. Many of the roughnecks lobbying for a change in the law show the scars of their chosen occupation. They are dressed in denim and baseball caps. Their opposition, lawyers for the oil companies, wear the indispensable dark suits.
The "suits" counter the compelling visual evidence of the roughnecks with some dubious arguments, maintaining, for example, that any change in the law would expose home owners to liability for injuries to contractors working on their houses. That's a red herring, as homeowners rarely exercise significant control over the work environment of their contractors.
There should be enough middle ground in this dispute to fashion a meaningful compromise. Wide-open litigation is rarely the best way to go. The legislature should set specific standards for safe operating procedures in the oil fields. Oil companies should be held accountable for meeting these standards. Only if they are demonstrably negligent in maintaining and documenting these standards should the door be opened to law suits. At the same time, the state should bolster the benefits available to workers who are killed or severely injured on the job.
The "exclusive remedy" provision of workers comp is a standard well worth preserving. It's tempting to carve out exceptions, but each exception becomes a fault line in the fundamental compromise that is workers comp. We are nearing the 100th anniversary of comp in America (New York 1911). For the most part, it is a remarkably successful experiment in public policy. The law makers of Wyoming would do well to keep this success in mind: by all means tinker with the statute to make it more responsive to 21st century working conditions, but don't mess with the premise. This is not the time to find fault with "no fault."
Earlier this week, my colleague Julie Ferguson blogged an intriguing case in Indiana, where Adam Childers, an obese pizza baker, suffered a back injury when he was hit by a swinging freezer door. He was unable to get better due to his obesity. As a result, the Indiana court ordered the employer to pay for weight reduction surgery, to be followed by back surgery, all the while providing temporary total disability benefits to Childers. A relatively large claim becomes a very large claim due to the prospect of sequential surgeries. This case raises some fascinating issues concerning the cost of getting better. Boy, does it ever!
There is no need to repeat the succinct summary of the case provided in Julie's blog. For those interested in the details, here is the actual opinion of the court.
This case raises two compelling issues: First, the degree to which employers become responsible for non-work related factors in recovery; and second, the looming specter of widespread discrimination against people whose pre-existing conditions make virtually any injury substantially more difficult to manage.
Taking People as They Are
Employers cannot set a high bar for "health and wellness" and then exclude everyone who falls below it. Any health standards must be grounded in business necessity. As we have seen in recent blogs, employers might be in a position to reject applicants who smoke (depending upon the state), but they generally cannot arbitrarily turn away people with co-morbidities that may impact recovery times: diabetes, heart conditions, asthma, etc.
In the Indiana case, at the time of the injury Childers weighed 340 pounds and smoked 30 cigarettes a day. In its opinion, the court did not consider him "disabled" as defined in the ADA: his weight did not "substantially impact" one or more major life activities. Thus, despite his weight, he did not fall into a protected class.
Once injured, however, Childers's weight became a major obstacle to his recovery. Indeed, any obese person suffering from back, hip, knee, leg or ankle injuries would find recovery extremely difficult, as their spine and limbs are routinely stressed by the sheer weight of the body. Under Indiana law, the pre-existing condition of obesity combines with the work-related injury to produce a single injury. With the pre-existing condition absorbed into the workers comp claim, the employer is responsible for any and all treatments required to bring the worker to maximum medical improvement.
There is a definite logic to the Indiana court's position. The problem is not in its protection of Childers, but in the implications for all Indiana employers as they are confronted with hiring decisions.
When in Doubt, Leave Them Out?
With the Childers's decision, employers in Indiana have been put on notice that at least one conspicuous part of the labor pool - obese people - bring the risk of substantially higher costs following injuries in the workplace. As employers make day to day hiring decisions, they may well have the image of higher costs of injuries associated with obesity in the back of their minds. Given two applicants, one obese, one within normal weight ranges, employers may be tempted to ignore other important hiring factors such as motivation and experience and reject the obese applicant.
Thus the unfortunate consequence of providing extensive benefits to Childers is that it may have the proverbial "chilling effect" on the job prospects for others with similar weight problems. The obese already suffer from the daily judgment of a thousand eyes: their weight problems are impossible to hide. Now they may have to overcome the additional burden of fearful Indiana employers, who exclude them from employment in the vague hope of keeping the costs of comp under control.
Back in December of 2006 we blogged the story of Scott Rodrigues, a new hire of the Scotts lawn care company, who was fired after failing a drug test. No news here, perhaps, except that the drug in his system, nicotine is perfectly legal. Scott's is self-insured for health benefits, so they have a vested interest in making sure that employees follow basic wellness practices.
On his way to a pre-placement drug test, Mr. Rodrigues chewed on Nicorette gum. He was trying to kick the habit. Ironically, the Nicorette may have triggered the positive finding for nicotine. Rodrigues was hired provisionally and then abruptly terminated once the test results were released.
Rodrigues brought suit in federal court for violation of privacy and civil rights. Judge George O'Toole has ruled in favor of the company. The judge found no violation of privacy laws, as Rodrigues smoked while walking down the street and in a restaurant parking lot. His supervisor spotted a pack of cigarettes on the dashboard of his truck. Would the judge have ruled for Rodrigues if the employer had peeked through a window to see him smoking at home?
O'Toole also rejected the notion that the firing violated a 1974 federal law that protects employee rights to benefits. O'Toole ruled that Rodrigues was not yet a bona fide employee and was working on the condition that he pass the urinalysis.
Jim King, a spokesman for Scotts, said the smoking ban has never been used to fire an "existing" employee. It is used solely to screen out applicants. Since the ban went into effect in 2005, the percentage of smokers among the company's 7,000 employees has fallen to 7 percent from 28 percent.
[The Insider notes in passing that even as a "provisional" employee, Rodrigues was covered by workers comp from the moment he began working - indeed, while he was on his way to the drug testing lab.]
Whether employees can smoke or not depends upon the state they work in. A few states (e.g., Kentucky, Louisiana) explicitly protect smoker rights. Other states do not. It's interesting that Rodrigues pursued his case in federal court, probably because Massachusetts laws offered no protection to smokers.
Is Obesity Next?
We all know that smoking increases the risk of illness and the cost of medical coverage. The same goes for obesity. So the next front in the battle to control the business side of medical costs may well be the bathroom scale. The New York Times magazine profiles the Cleveland Clinic, which has been upheld as a model for medical cost control. Two years ago, they stopped hiring smokers. Delos M. Cosgrove, the heart surgeon who is the clinic’s chief executive, would like to expand the hiring ban to include applicants who are obese.
“Why is it unfair? Has anyone ever shown the law of conservation of matter doesn’t apply?” Cosgrove states that people’s weight is a reflection of how much they eat and how active they are. The country has grown fat because it’s consuming more calories and burning fewer. Our national weight problem brings huge costs, both medical and economic. Yet our anti-obesity efforts have none of the urgency of our antismoking efforts. “We should declare obesity a disease and say we’re going to help you get over it.”
Should the Cleveland Clinic - or any other employer- decline to hire obese people, it will be interesting to track the results. Where obesity can be traced back to genetic or chemical issues - where it qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act- employers would be guilty of discrimination. If no such causes can be specified, employers may be on solid ground. (The unaddressed issue in these hiring practices, of course, is the loss of a vast pool of talented and often essential workers.)
A recent article in Health Affairs estimated the annual cost of obesity to be $147 billion and growing. That translates into $1,250 per household, mostly in taxes and insurance premiums.
The Fat Tax
Cosgrove is interested in an idea that some economists favor: charging higher health-insurance premiums to anyone with a certain body-mass index. Call it the Fat Tax. Another alternative might be taxing the calorie-rich foods that lead to obesity: just imagine paying a little surcharge for your large order of fries, your jumbo soda and your two-for-one pizza. That would be interesting, indeed! Just as smokers pay a tax-driven premium for their cigarettes, eaters would be taxed for their food addictions.
This is simply not going to happen. To be sure, fundamental wellness is the cornerstone of any plan to contain health care costs. But when the public good collides with the rights of freedom and privacy, individual rights will win out. Policy wonks may not like it, but citizens can eat whatever they damn well please. Lighting up after that supersized meal? Well, that's one area where the public good pretty much trumps the private right.
Last week, 61-year old rock musician Steven Tyler fell off the stage and suffered a broken shoulder, along with stitches in his head and back. He has had to cancel upcoming shows, though it's likely he'll be on a self-imposed return-to-work plan in the near future. Many musicians are like athletes in their devotion to their profession and their determination to return to work as soon as feasible. (Not to mention the economic impact of canceling shows, which although there is event cancellation insurance for that type of thing, still must take a bite from a musician's earnings.)
Falling off stages isn't all that unusual a work-related occurrence for musicians and other performers. Celebrity spills are a favorite fare on the Internet, with video clips drawing millions of viewers and little sympathy. Fashion model falls seem to be a particular favorite for the YouTubers, and frequently available given that a job-related hazard for models is teetering around on ridiculous footwear. But despite the vicarious pleasure that many viewers take in seeing pop culture icons coming down to earth, slips and falls are nothing to take lightly - they are one of the most common injuries in many professions, resulting in disabling injuries. They are also a leading source of fatalities in the construction industry.
Injuries beyond the falls
We went looking for more information about musician injuries and came upon Looking at Musicians' Health Through the Ages, an examination of performance-related musculoskeletal disorders (PRMDs) from the scholarly Medical Problems of Performing Artists. This is a publication that bills itself as "...the first clinical medical journal devoted to the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of medical and psychological disorders related to the performing arts. Original peer-reviewed research papers cover topics including neurologic disorders, musculoskeletal conditions, voice and hearing disorders, anxieties, stress, substance abuse, disorders of aging, and other health issues related to actors, dancers, singers, musicians, and other performers. Alas, the interesting articles entitled "Bagpiper's Hernia" and "The Psychological Profile of a Rock Band: Using Intellectual and Personality Measures with Musicians" are available only to subscribers.
For some other sites related to musician injuries, see Musician's Health, an educational website devoted to common musician's injuries and information on preventing those injuries. Instrumental injuries often include similar repetitive motion injuries to those that are commonly associated with computer use. Musicians' Injuries describes various types of performance-related injuries and offers advice on how to avoid them.
Hearing-related injuries are common for musicians
Hearing loss is another risk for musicians and conductors - and not just for rock musicians, as might be commonly assumed. Doug Owens, a USM music education professor and trumpet player who has experienced hearing loss himself, has been studying the issue of hearing loss and musicians. For his doctoral dissertation, he had ten high school band directors wear noise monitors for two days on the job.
"Owens found they were exposed to mean average noise levels of 85 to 93 decibels, similar to a vacuum cleaner or a leaf blower. Noise exposures peaked at 101 to 115 decibels, similar to a jackhammer or a crowd at a basketball game.Comparing eight-hour exposure rates, Owen found noise levels for all of the band directors were more than three times higher than recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health."
The other Nicholas Sparks is in a bit of trouble: not the well-known writer, but an obscure 25 year old tow truck driver from upstate New York. The lesser known Sparks has earned himself a place in the Business Hall of Shame when he raised multi-tasking to new heights (or better, depths). He was talking on one cell phone, texting on another(!), when, surprise of surprises, he lost control of his vehicle, smashed into another car, careened across a front lawn and plunged his flatbed tow truck into a swimming pool. The 68 year-old woman driving the other car suffered head injuries but is in good condition; her 8 year old niece suffered minor injuries.
Sparks has been charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. He was driving a truck for Adams Towing Company. While I was unable to find an area company listed under this name, I do hope they carry robust liability coverage. The company is clearly guilty of negligence and will pay dearly for their multi-multi-tasking employee.
Driven to Distraction
The New York Times has singled out the use of cell phones while driving as a major danger. They have a begun a series focusing on this new road hazard entitled "Driving to Distraction." In their most recent article, they describe the ubiquitous talking on cells performed by taxi drivers. (My family caught a cab during a downpour in Brooklyn last week; I sat in