Is Your Stoplight Flashing?
2009 is
behind us and for many it was a very difficult year. Since I last wrote, most
of us have had holidays and returned to work. Unfortunately, a good number of
our brothers and sisters are still out on the street. Peoria Journal Star
Business Editor Paul Gordon gave his 2009 Business Person’s of the Year award to
the 22,000 CAT workers worldwide who were tossed overboard for the good of Team
Caterpillar. Thanks to the sacrifices paid by those honorees, CAT didn’t lose a
single one of their 29 Vice Presidents or any Group President…wow, what a
relief!
Did you
see the photo of the D7E on front page of Journal Star in December? Could you
tell from the picture that the workers who welded the frames in Building LL did
not have a safe job procedure (SJP) for the first two-plus months the 7E was in
production? Our members routinely get discipline for failure to follow the SJP
to the letter (especially when something goes wrong, like getting hurt) so how
could this have fallen through the cracks?.
More
interesting still is the fact that there was a weld procedure for the job. Why
would there be a welding procedure and no safe job procedure? A callous observer
might infer that the lack of a SJP and the provision of a highly detailed welding
procedure indicates welding the frame in the proper sequence using the correct
parameters was more important than the safety of the person(s) doing the job—surely
not!
Building
LL is quite proud of their behavioral safety program (BS Safety). Since workers
are required to perform mandatory behavioral safety observations, how would one
be able to perform a behavioral observation without the SJP to determine if the
worker were following the prescribed procedure? Even though there was not a detailed
SJP, I’m sure those in the D7E frame area were checked to be sure they had
safety glasses and ear plugs.
I
wonder how the supervisor of the area was able to determine if the workers
assigned to him were doing their jobs safely. Where were the management safety
personnel, you’d think they would have caught this omission? What about the
building manager? Was a safety Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) done on the
job as required by CPS? Isn’t there some kind of sign-off sheet or inspection
checklist that has to be completed before a job is released to production? Hell, we’ve had UAW members given disciplinary
time off for not filling out a lousy commodity sheet at the end of the shift. All
things being equal, it would only make sense that a number of heads should roll
because production work was allowed in areas with unidentified hazards and no
documented safety procedures in place. It’s certain that no excuse would be
acceptable if a worker had a lapse of this magnitude..
BS Safety is not new. In fact, it is one of the
oldest and most outdated approaches
to health
and safety. The
basis of the BS Safety movement came as the result of a study done by Travelers
Insurance Investigator H.W. Heinrich in the 1930’s and 40’s. 12,000 insurance
company accident claims and 63,000 injury and illness records submitted by
plant owners were studied and conclusions were drawn based on corrective
actions recommended by the supervisors. Who do you think those supervisors
blamed for the injuries and illnesses—yes you!
Although Heinrich’s flawed study has led
proponents of BS Safety to claim that 76% to 96% of all injuries and illnesses
are caused by unsafe acts, the only true statistic is that 100% of all
workplace injuries and illnesses involve worker exposure to a hazard. If there
is no worker exposure to hazards, there are no injuries or illnesses.
The other problem for workers subjected to BS Safety
programs is the focus on reducing downstream safety metrics, particularly
Recordable Injury Frequency (RIF) and Lost Work Days (LWD’s). This focus leads
to measures being taken that lead to non-reporting or under-reporting of
injuries. If you don’t know if you have BS Safety or not, ask yourself if you
have or heard of any of the following:
·
Being told to stay out of the line of fire
·
Being told to keep your eyes on task
·
Watch for proper body position
·
Being told to keep your mind on task
·
Being sure to use your PPE
·
Safety Stoplight
·
Contests for days without injury
·
Injury Discipline Policies
How
many of the items listed above remove you from exposure to hazards? None of
them do, in fact, all of those issues are covered by OSHA Standards and be
careful isn’t one of them.
The
policies listed above simply allow you to continue to work in hazardous situations.
“Staying out of the line of fire” and “Keep your eyes on task”, is used in place of effective machine/equipment
safeguarding and design (either the Machine Guarding Standard or Lockout/Tagout apply). “Proper body
position” has become a replacement for a good ergonomics program and well-designed
work stations (This is covered by 5(a)(1) the General
Duty Clause). “Personal Protective Equipment” becomes a substitute for
noise control, chemical enclosures, ventilation, and toxic use reduction (the
Occupational Noise Exposure Standard or the Air Contaminants Standard apply).
Furthermore,
any contest that measures days without injuries between workgroups or
individuals provides incentive not to report injuries or illnesses. Injury
discipline policies also drive under-reporting. These BS Safety concepts do not
improve safety; they shift the employer’s obligation for safety to the workers
and improve metrics performance by encouraging under-reporting.
As a
sadistic twist to the injury incentive/discipline policies, our benevolent employer
makes reporting injuries a condition of employment. Talk about having your cake
and eating it too. On one hand, if you don’t report an injury, you’re rewarded.
On the other hand, if you don’t report an injury, you’re disciplined and if you
do report an injury, management will find a way to blame you and you’ll be
disciplined. Any way you turn management’s message is clear, don’t report your
injury.
In the
past several weeks, we’ve had brothers and sisters disciplined for reporting
and not reporting (in what management considered an appropriate time frame,
which in this case was as soon as the worker knew he was hurt, but that wasn’t
soon enough). In one of our business units,
a group grievance was filed because during a start-up meeting, a supervisor
threatened to discipline anyone who reported an injury. This is illegal! OSHA
1904.36 says reporting an injury is protected activity. If you receive
discipline, coaching, reassignment, don’t receive a prize, or any other adverse
action because of being hurt at work, file a grievance and ask for your UAW
Safety Representative.
Is there
is a Safety Stoplight in your facility? What do the flashing lights stand for?
Does your Stoplight count the number of days without an OSHA recordable injury
or lost time injury? Does it flash yellow when there’s a First-Aid case? Does
it flash red for a recordable or lost time injury? Does the Stoplight in any
way reduce the hazards to which you are exposed?
I know
of a person who tripped over a board sticking out from a pallet, fell and broke
their arm. This person didn’t want to report their injury because they knew it
would turn the Safety Stoplight flash red and cause the numbers of days counter
to go back to zero—that’s sick!
So
given all the problems related to BS Safety, why is it so popular? First, it
shows new management commitment to safety. I can appreciate this sentiment,
misguided as it may be; because management knows what they are doing isn’t
getting them where they want to be. Additionally, management feels that by
spending a lot of money, it indicates their level of commitment.
A
recent 6Sigma project at the
BS Safety
is supposed to increase worker involvement. I’ll concede that involvement to a
point, but is either a welder observing an assembler or a machinist observing a
heat-treat operator an expert at the job they’re observing? How would either
one know if what the person they were observing was doing was safe or not?
Unfortunately,
many workers and victims fall prey to thinking they were the sole cause for an
injury or illness, but that’s not the whole story. I do admit that worker
behavior can be one of the many root causes of injuries and illnesses, but it
is never the only one.
The BS
Safety theory implies that it is not
hazards on the job that cause injuries and illnesses, but it is the behavior of
those exposed to the hazards (victims) that cause injuries and illnesses.
Workers are seen as the problem and not as the solution so the best way to
manage this problem is to change the worker, not address the hazard.
To assist
management in addressing the hazards, let’s suggest our own version of
behavioral safety that will address management’s behavior. Whenever a worker is
disciplined for a safety infraction, their supervisor should also be
disciplined in kind for allowing the worker to believe whatever happened was
acceptable. For major violations, the supervisor and their boss should
be disciplined.
Regarding
the safety incentive programs, they should be based on the number of hazards
identified and addressed using upper level controls like engineering or
elimination. No hazard can be reported without a solution.
Finally,
what to do with all of those Safety Stoplights? I think we should use the
stoplights ability to blink red to indicate a hazard has been identified by the
workers/union and how many days it has been unaddressed since it was reported. To
me, that would be a fitting end for an idea whose time has come and gone. I
hope your light is flashing green.
Steve
Mitchell.
To learn more about BS Safety and Caterpillar’s
OSHA history, go to http://www.uawlocal974.org/safety_chairman.asp