ASSE's President: We Need to Change Course

"For far too long, occupational safety and health has been dominated by a politically charged yes and no conversation about occupational safety and health that, as these statistics demonstrate, is not advancing worker protections," Terrie Norris said in response to the BLS preliminary fatality data from 2010.

The preliminary 2010 fatality numbers released Aug. 25 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a call for action and a clear sign that a "new paradigm" is needed to advance U.S. employers' safety, Terrie Norris, president of the American Society of Safety Engineers, said Aug. 30. The BLS report said 4,547 workers died from occupational injuries in 2010 compared with 4,551 in 2009. ASSE extended its condolences to the families of the 4,547 people who died last year.

"ASSE urges everyone concerned with worker safety not to accept as reasonable the preliminary results of this report that show little change in the number of workplace fatalities between 2009 and 2010," said Norris, CSP, ARM, CPSI. "Despite the dedicated efforts of ASSE's members, employers, workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the fact that this nation's fatalities are not significantly decreasing should be a call for action, not complacency, especially at an economically challenging time when some of the most dangerous industries are not at full employment. A statistical plateau of worker fatalities is not an achievement, but evidence that this nation's effort to protect workers is stalled. These statistics call for nothing less than a new paradigm in the way this nation protects workers.

"For far too long, occupational safety and health has been dominated by a politically charged yes and no conversation about occupational safety and health that, as these statistics demonstrate, is not advancing worker protections. This oppositional approach leaves too many of this nation's workplaces mired in efforts that do not achieve better safety but merely meet the most minimal standards for safety. That needs to change. Instead of a tug of war over compliance to prescriptive standards that cannot address each workplace, this nation's approach to workplace safety must encourage a specific dialogue about the most important risks in each workplace that engages employers, workers, and OSHA in a cooperative effort to address those risks, supported not only [by] enforcement but by NIOSH research and education resources.


"ASSE and its members are engaged in helping move this nation towards that goal. ASSE has supported the idea of an OSHA injury and illness prevention program (I2P2) standard with the knowledge that this standard, if done well, can begin to move OSHA's focus from prescriptive approaches to safety to risk-based and more cooperative efforts. We have established a Risk Assessment Task Force of members and others who will work to engage the occupational safety and health community in moving towards more risk-based approaches to managing safety in all workplaces. ASSE's Sustainability Task Force is intent on making sure the quickly growing voluntary fervor among employers to address sustainability encompasses worker safety and health now. Our federal occupational safety and health reform bill seeks to be a platform for compromise and addresses ways the 40-year-old OSH Act fails to advance workplace safety, including helping make the standard-setting process work, allowing the adoption of updated permissible exposure limits, and better defining who is qualified to do safety, among a variety of measures.

"The time has come for all stakeholders in occupational safety and health to come down off the plateau of acceptance and work together to find conciliatory ways that help make sure our economy, our jobs and corporate bottom lines can benefit from a safe and healthy workforce."


Share this Page


Comments

Tue, Apr 10, 2012 Tommy Los Angeles, CA

I've read what Ms. Norris and the commenters had to say and while I concur, I also know that there is a twenty ton elephant in the room that everyone ignores; perhaps the ignoring has a political overtone to it. Workers do not direct and control themselves and subsequently they cannot protect themselves while at work. OSHA (whom I've worked for) is enforcement, and we might as well throw in the towel if we have to resort to providing a police person for every five or so workers. The ASSE excludes a good 40 percent of persons working in this country as safety leaders by adherence to a self-serving educational standard that is hardly relevant to the daily operations in industry. The twenty ton elephant in the room is the discussion that needs to be had with the operational / production chains of command that direct and control every worker in this nation and the world. Working safely takes time away from production initially, and I've yet to meet the operational leader who is willing to retard production in order to save a life. There is but one way to avoid a mishap and the production time lost when one occurs, and that is to plan mishap out of the work scenario. Until that is demanded in a fashion that is equal to the production effort, workers will continue to incur injuries and death at the rates reported by BLS. It does not matter when mishap data is collected -- it has been the same give or take a few points for the last 30 or so years. It is relative to product; when production goes up, the injury rate goes up. JHA's are skipped and pencil whipped, and that is fine with operational chains of command until a mishap event occurs. So, I 200 percent agree with Ms. Norris as she calls for a paradigm shift centered around risk assessments of mishap potentials and negotiating work arounds with operations. However, until operational chains of command are severely penalized for failing to have such safeguards in place, not one of them is going to sincerely implement such a practice.

Fri, Sep 16, 2011 Phillip Davis Tacoma Washington

Workplace safety begins at the basic level in all corporations. The safeguards are in place. It is up to all individuals to take the necessary precautions to prevent accidents from happening. I've worked in the construction industry for over 30 years and I've witnessed a lot of accidents and near misses in that time. In my opinion this is the number one cause of accidents.....many workers are afraid to speak up or are intimidated. Fear of being ridiculed by employers and even fellow workers are stopping them from speaking out, being the snitch if you will. The employers are seeing their bottom lines affected by the interuption of addressing these issues but what they should be doing is rewarding these individuals for their actions. All workers need to realize that they are more important than the jobs they are working on. VALUE LIFE!

Wed, Sep 7, 2011

No doubt the political climate in D.C. will stall greater efforts to reduce these numbers. In my business, safety is not regarded as an equal to production, quality, operation efficiency, etc. Lack of resources and management commitment don't help our efforts.

Wed, Sep 7, 2011 Melvin

Yes I agree we need to have a paradigm shift and it needs to happen at OSHA. Isn't it amazing how every indicator was trending downward when OSHA focused on helping the workplace become safer and worked with employers. Then OSHA changed course and becomes the hammer, reduces their consultation budget, changes the outreach training program to focus on helping employees complain instead of being safer and they became more fine and citation driven and now the numbers are flattening. I would not be surprised to see the 2011 numbers actually increase slightly. While OSHA has a necessary role in being the enforcer, our money would be better spent trying help rather than hinder employers.

Wed, Sep 7, 2011 Melvin

Chuck, ANY company can have a fatality. You can have the absolute best safety program known to man, you can have every employee actively engaged and you can still have a fatality. Why??? Because safety is wrapped up around the human factor. You can have the best engineering, the best workpractices and the best PPE but you still have to have humans in the mix and while we do everything possible to keep them safe, humans are still falible, they still make mistakes.

Tue, Sep 6, 2011 Chuck McHenry Milwaukee, WI

Any company that has a fatality should be considered as a company with no real safety program. With the best practices available for practically any job function, a company experiencing a fatality demonstrates that safety is not considered first when planning a job. Companies that have fatalities should be identified on OSHA's web page and on BLS reports. Just listing numbers does not give companies an incentive to do a better job from a safety standpoint.

Tue, Sep 6, 2011 Michigan

One of the biggest problems, in my opinion, is that the BLS publishes the data in the first place. This gives company execs and management a figure to compare to their own "performance". If they are under the number, they trumpet to the rafters about how well they are doing. If they are above the number, "we need to do better" and then react in a usually predictable manner by introducing "incentives", that typically do not incentivize any change in behavior, or throw money into training, revising procedures, or a laundry list of other fairly ineffective fixes. This does nothing to look at the issues related to how or why a company is doing "better" or "worse". I realize that data is important and should be used appropriately. The BLS figures are after-the-fact numbers that are calculated by either a spreadsheet or person plugging info into a formula after the injury has happened. It can show trends, but we as safety professionals need to focus on what we can do in a proactive and preventative manner to ensure our employees are not injured. So much has been written on this subject that I will not get into details...sufficed to say, BLS is doing all of us (safety professionals) an injustice by publishing this info (I doubt, however, they will stop anytime soon). Looking at internally-developed proactive metrics is the best way to find out how a company is doing and what to do about any problems that this information uncovers. I find it interesting that when the BLS data shows a drop in any one of the reported, reactive statistics, government officials put out statements showing that our/their efforts are paying off with reduced numbers of people injured, we are effective in our programs, etc., etc., etc. But when a statistic like this (a <0.1% drop in fatalities!) is published, you do not hear much from them. A reduction in or lack of injuries does not mean that a program is doing well or a business is "safe". When businesses realize that when they can explain why and how these reductions have occurred, then they are on the path to success in their safety programs. The company that I currently work for gets this and we very rarely discuss what the BLS average for our industry is or how we are doing related to it (FYI, we are currently at just over 6% of our BLS TRIR, and below 5% for DART and DAFW in a very hazardous industry). Our conversations are about what WE did last year and the previous years, and what WE can do to improve, based on OUR historical info, not some other company that does not get it. Yes, it is difficult to reduce our injury rates and we do not reduce them every year, but we focus on our proactive efforts and use the data that comes from this focus to improve our system and only use our injury rates as an indicator of where we may need to concentrate our future activities.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Follow Us

Join OH&S Magazine on SafetyCommunity!
Join us on SafetyCommunity!

Upcoming Webinars

5/24: It's Not Just the SAMHSA 5 Anymore: K2/Spice, Bath Salts and Emerging Drug Trends
Which drugs should employers test for? Synthetic drugs like K2 and Spice, as well as seemingly harmless products like Bath Salts, have become as popular as the illegal drugs they try to mimic. These questions and more will be explored in this enlightening webinar.

5/30: An Introduction to Machine Safety
A common sense look at the regulatory framework of machine safety, best practices and practical solutions to ensuring a safe machine and workplace.

5/31: IAQ is Critical to Earning LEED Points, Green Building and a Healthy Workplace
This is an informative webinar on the role of high performance buildings in workplace health and safety.

6/14: OHSAS Guidance for Small Businesses: Protect and Grow Your Business
OHSAS 18001:2007 Certification offers more than just a globally recognized Health and Safety System. It can also help your business.

6/27: The Different Forms of Machine Safeguarding and When to Use Them
Some of the topics include: the different forms of safeguarding and when to use them. Safety devices to be reviewed may include: interlocking devices, light curtains, safety mats, safety scanners, two hand control units, and safety strips.

Spotlight

For May, OH&S puts the spotlight on: