Let’s use a sports analogy. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal asks the question, “Is it time to retire the football helmet?”

The reason behind the suggestion: While helmets reduce the chance of death on the field, they also create a sense of invulnerability that encourages football players to collide more forcefully and more often, according to the article. If they weren’t wearing helmets, they’d be less likely to have head-on collisions with other players.

And research shows that, in the cases of these football players, brain damage isn’t necessarily the result of any one trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly minor blows to the head.

No one is really suggesting the NFL do away with helmets.

What is being suggested is changing some of the rules of football to make head-on collisions among players less likely.

Now, let’s apply this to workplace safety.

Here’s one example: Will fall protection equipment absolutely prevent a worker’s injury or death if that person is taking too many risks while wearing the equipment? Of course not.

Safety pros know that, but some workers don’t get it. Here’s a message workers have to hear every so often: Safety gear doesn’t make you invincible. Avoiding injury also requires proper use of the PPE, employees sticking to safety rules, not taking unnecessary risks, etc.

One of the most effective ways to counter workers’ thoughts that they’re invincible is to show them how others have been injured at work. Invite someone who suffered a serious — and possibly debilitating — workplace injury to speak at a safety meeting. Ask the person to explain in detail how the injury has affected his or her life — how everyday activities can no longer be taken for granted.

How have you dealt with employees who feel an injury “won’t happen to me”? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

A worker at David’s Cookies was assigned one day to pack biscotti into boxes after they passed through a chopping machine. Sometimes small bits of cookie caused the machine to get clogged.

The employee had worked at the cookie production plant for a year, but never near the biscotti machine. She didn’t speak or read English.

The biscotti machine got clogged. While it was still running, the employee reached her hand under the machine’s guard. Her hand came into contact with the blade, and its chopping motion caused her significant injuries.

The worker sued her employer for intentional harm.

David’s Cookies pointed out that the machine had a proper guard and a sign with a pictogram that showed workers they shouldn’t stick their hands into the machine. Workers’ comp should cover this case, the employer said.

The employee argued she’d never been given training on the biscotti machine.

The company won when the court threw out the lawsuit. The judge wrote an employer “could … assume that a rational person is not gonna stick his hand in a machine that’s being operated by electrical power” but would “call somebody or pull the plug or disengage the machinery.”

Cite: Cong Su v. David’s Cookies, Superior Court of NJ, 8/10/09.

Capanna worked for a contractor that had been hired by an oil refinery in Paulsboro, NJ.

Oct. 5, 1979 was his last day on the job there. He’d been concerned about some other injuries that had occurred at the refinery.

The final job: Remove an old water pump. The bolts that held the pump in place were so rusted they couldn’t be moved. So Capanna got the OK to use an acetylene torch to burn the bolts off.

He was burning off the last bolt when there was an explosion and flash fire.

Turns out, the pump wasn’t for water, it was for crude oil. Capanna was covered in crude oil, and he burst into flames.

The flash blinded him, but he managed to get out of the building that housed the pump. His flesh was engulfed in flames, and he fell.

Two other workers patted the flames out.

Capanna continued to burn for hours because the hot crude oil had stuck to him.

Through all this, he never lost consciousness. He felt everything, and burns are some of the most excruciating injuries because they leave nerves damaged and exposed.

As part of his treatment, his eyes were sewn shut for three months so his eyelids would not shrink while awaiting a skin graft. A pair of glasses worn during the blast saved Capanna’s sight.

In 1979, psychological treatment for severe burn patients was different than today. There were no mirrors anywhere in his hospital room where he could see himself. Even spoons were plastic so he couldn’t see his reflection in them.

One day while he was away from his room working with a physical therapist, Capanna slipped into a public restroom to look in the mirror.

The site of his own face made him throw up. He wasn’t prepared for what he saw in the mirror: missing ears, lips and nose.

“I was devastated,” Capanna said.

Over the course of 20 years, Capanna had 75 surgeries to close his skin and reconstruct his nose, ears and lips.

But reconstructive surgery has its limitations. Children would look at him and say, “Look mommy, a monster.” Adults would turn away from him.

Today, Capanna works with the Phoenix Society, a national organization that works with people who suffer burn injuries.

He recently told his story to The Pocono Record. It’s a story that’s sure to have an impact on workers.

When SafetyNewsAlert.com reported on the OSHA recordkeeping inspection program, readers responded with their best safety incentive ideas that don’t discourage injury reporting:

• Bill B.: True safety incentives are a positive reinforcement of the safety culture. We have set up a program for “on the spot” recognition for above and beyond safety actions. Seems to be working on our construction site with 20 contractors and over 70 workers.
• Dave B.: Supervisors should reward safe practices like wearing PPE, reporting hazards or developing safe solutions. When the employees wearing proper PPE and following safety procedures get all the free stuff, it doesn’t take long for the other employees to join in.
• Safety Sam: I developed a plan to base incentives on employee participation instead of simply not getting hurt. I made a list of things that I wanted to get done, and then presented that to the employee safety committee with the mandate to base getting the incentives on getting this stuff done. It was hugely successful and took away any edge that OSHA might have had in using our incentive plan against us. (Sam is at an OSHA Voluntary Protection Program site.)
• Tim H.: (1) Base the incentive on behavior (individual and collective) not injury reports, and (2) Structure a supervisor’s performance review so that a failure to make a required injury report is a negative.
• Alex: (Our plan is) based on proactive activities reported to and recorded and audited by the safety department. Measurements include number of near-misses reported, job/task observations, area inspections, safety team meetings, completion of compliance and awareness training, and monthly safety topics.

Even more comments had this general theme: Reward positive safety behavior, not a lack of injuries.

You can take our Quick Poll on safety incentive programs on our home page.

Now with just a couple mouse clicks, the whole world can see which U.S. companies had an employee fatality in the previous week.

Example: For the week of Aug. 28, 2009, OSHA’s Weekly Fatality Report lists 18 incidents. First on the list is an incident involving Tri-State Electrical Contracting, Inc., Bay Terrace, NY. The Web page lists Nature of Incident as “victim was operating a knuckle boom truck and was crushed between the boom and the controls.”

That’s all the information given.

While the Web page explains how OSHA receives the incident information, there’s no word (at least as of the writing of this article) on what purpose the agency thinks posting this information will serve.

So, we have two guesses:

1. OSHA hopes employers use the information in safety training to show workers the real-life consequences of various workplace hazards, or
2. OSHA is posting the information to call attention to companies that just experienced a worker fatality or other catastrophe.

There are two potential problems with either of these uses. If these are meant to be used as teaching lessons for employees, the items are light on detail. If this is meant as a Wall of Shame for the companies involved, OSHA is posting the information before investigations can be completed, and before exact cause for the incident can be determined.

One more note: When the page for the Weekly Fatality Reports first appeared on OSHA’s Web site, many may not have found it. To access it, you had to find a one-line clickable link among everything on OSHA’s home page. A few days later, OSHA made it highly noticeable, front and center, in a bright blue box in the middle of its home page.

While safety pros can agree that sharing information about workplace fatalities can help prevent similar incidents from happening, it’s not entirely clear what OSHA’s intention of posting the information is.

What do you think? Is this useful information for safety training? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

In its final report on the explosion, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) said ongoing releases of sugar from poorly designed and maintained dust collection equipment, conveyors, and sugar handling equipment led to the blast.

Inadequate housekeeping allowed highly combustible sugar dust to build up throughout the plant’s packing buildings.

A conveyor had been enclosed, creating a confined, unventilated space where sugar dust could accumulate to an explosive concentration. It’s likely the dust was ignited by an overheated bearing.

The initial explosion caused a cascade of secondary dust explosions in adjacent packing buildings.

On top of these problems, the CSB said Imperial hadn’t conducted evacuation drills for its employees and that the explosions and fires disabled most of the emergency lighting, making it difficult for workers to escape.

A 2006 CSB study identified 281 combustible dust fires and explosions between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 718, and extensively damaged industrial facilities. In April, OSHA started development of a combustible dust standard. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has recommended practices for preventing dust fires and explosions.

In its Position Statement on Distracted Driving in Motor Vehicles, ASSE calls on its members and other safety professionals to:

• encourage and support employer rules banning any employee use of electronic devices while driving
• support proposed public laws and regulations that effectively limit the use of electronic devices while driving, and
• back improved driver education that includes the risks of distracted driving and ways to avoid such risks.

ASSE’s views about distracted driving aren’t limited to cell phone use. It says, “The same safety risks posed by cellular phones also hold true for a vehicle operator who drives in an unsafe manner while eating, drinking, putting on makeup, reading a newspaper, operating any other electronic device, or some other type of distracting activity where the driver’s mind, eyes, and hands are engaged elsewhere than the road ahead and the steering wheel.”

ASSE cites various studies to make its point that distracted driving isn’t limited to electronic device use.

A Carnegie Mellon University study shows brain power used while driving decreases by 40% when a driver listens to conversation or music. A Nationwide Mutual Insurance study found 80% of drivers admit to blatantly hazardous behavior including changing clothes, steering with a foot, painting nails and shaving.

Does your company have a policy on employees and distracted driving? Do you think it’s a good idea to support laws banning use of cell phones while driving? Should those bans also cover other types of distracted driving? What are some examples you’ve seen of distracted driving? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The video, made by the police department of Gwent, Wales, is 30 minutes and shows the crash in graphic detail. Two passengers in the car of a young woman who is texting-while-driving are killed. The video also shows the aftermath for the surviving young woman and her family. (See our previous story.)

The film’s director, Peter Watkins-Hughes, told The New York Times, “Young people were telling us, ‘It needs to be more shocking, it needs to be more violent, it needs to be more truthful.’”

But some experts on safety and risk disagree. Kip Viscusi, who has studied risk for decades says one reason violent videos may not work is that people are already well aware that some activities are dangerous.

Ann McCartt, senior VP for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said, “Over time, people go back to their everyday behaviors.”

McCartt’s alternative? Strong laws. “What really gets people to change their behaviors is strong laws, strongly enforced,” she said.

Richard Tay, a road safety researcher at the University of Calgary said a violent video must also instruct people on how to change their behavior.

Others are calling for the cell phone industry to handle the problem through technology, such as prompts on phones reminding people not to text and drive, or a feature that allows automatic, “I’m driving now” responses in incoming calls.

This issue mirrors a question often asked by safety pros: Do bloody, graphic videos showing workplace injuries really encourage workers to follow safety rules?

What do you think? Do gory safety videos work? Will this video on texting have a positive effect? Let us know in the Comments Box below, and take our poll on Safety News Alert’s home page.

Between 1994 and 2007, between 1,343 and 1,442 American workers died in highway-related incidents in each and every year. That’s according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And 2007, which provides the most recent data, was right in line. The final tally: 1,414.

Why aren’t the numbers improving? One reason may be that business drivers are at best, apathetic about safety, and at worst, downright resistant.

A recent study suggests that more than 40% of those drivers would not be open to road safety training — or at least that their managers think they wouldn’t be. And less than a quarter of managers thought their drivers would “definitely be willing to take part in road safety training.”

The study was done in England, but based on the discouraging yearly numbers here, it’s reasonable to wonder whether we have the same problem.

What do you think? In your experience, how do business drivers respond to safety training? Is there a way to improve the numbers? Share your thoughts in the Comment Box below.

We polled our editors of safety publications at Progressive Business and came up with this list:

10. More research on dangers of nano-particles to exposed employees. Among the new studies, one that showed long, thin carbon nanotubes exhibited the same effects as long, thin asbestos fibers when injected into mice.

9. The National Institutes of Health says the superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is no longer limited to hospitals. Outbreaks of one strain — community-associated MRSA — have turned up in athletes, prison inmates, the military, daycare attendees and those who live in communal conditions such as college dormitories.

8. MSHA proposes and enacts a flurry of new mining rules in the wake of previous years’ mining disasters, such as Crandall Canyon, including: a policy letter on underground communication and tracking devices; a new final rule that increases the pounds per square inch that pressure seals must withstand in an explosion; a proposal to test miners for drugs and alcohol; and a final rule requiring additional safety equipment for rescue teams at underground mines.

7. California gets serious with heat stress on the job. The company that hired a pregnant teen who died of heat stroke this spring after working in a vineyard without enough shade or water was hit with the highest fine ever issued to a farming operation in the state. Merced Farm Labor’s license was also revoked until Aug. 24, 2011 after the death of Maria Jimenez.

6. The employer payment for most types of PPE rule takes effect. OSHA started enforcing the new rule May 15, 2008. The only exceptions: non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear; shoes or boots with built-in metatarsal protection requested by an employee; logging boots; and everyday work or ordinary clothing used solely for protection from weather.

5. An explosion at an Imperial Sugar Refinery near Savannah, GA, kills 14 people and injures dozens more. The blast destroyed a packaging plant. The cause, ignition of dust, placed an emphasis on workplace ignitable dust hazards.

4. Amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act to place burden on employers. The revision may dramatically increase the number of employees who can legally qualify as disabled. Action step for employers and those in charge of safety: Instead of an open-ended light-duty assignment that might define a worker as disabled, re-assess the returning worker’s condition every two weeks.

3. Distracted drivers prove fatal and costly. A Sept. 12 collision between two trains in California killed 25 people. The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating, but preliminary information shows the locomotive engineer of one train was using his cell phone to text within 30 seconds of the accident. In the wake of the crash, the Federal Railroad Administration enacted a new rule banning railroad employees from using cell phones (except in emergencies) and other electronic devices on the job. In another case, International Paper Co. agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle a personal injury lawsuit after one of its employees used her cell phone while driving for work. The employee hit another car, and its driver had to have an arm amputated as a result.

2. Now OSHA can multiply PPE and training fines by the number of employees. Under a new rule, OSHA can issue per-employee citations for those types of violations starting Jan. 12, 2009.

1. President-elect Barack Obama promises an “invigorated” OSHA. Obama supported the Protecting America’s Workers Act as a Senator. The bill would increase OSHA penalties. Obama has also called on OSHA to issue standards “in a timely and more effective manner.” While the financial crisis may delay some reforms the new administration may want, some changes can be made by just shifting existing funding.

Vote for your top safety story or nominate one of your own in the Comments Box below.

An official says UCLA is appealing the citations so that they can’t be used against the university in any future proceeding, such as a lawsuit or criminal prosecution, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lab assistant Sheri Sangji was transferring about 2 ounces of t-butyl lithium from one sealed container to another when a plastic syringe came apart in her hands.

The chemical ignited when it was exposed to air, setting her rubber gloves and synthetic sweater ablaze. She was burned over about half of her body and died 18 days later.

Part of the fine, $18,000, was for Sangji’s lack of a lab coat. UCLA was also fined for lack of proper employee training.

UCLA’s fear of further action against it is quite real. Cal-OSHA regularly refer workplace fatalities to district attorneys for review.

Sangji’s sister is calling for a DA investigation, and more than 1,300 people have signed an online petition calling for one.

Another possibility is a lawsuit by a labor union. Sangji’s family may be prevented from filing a lawsuit because of laws that make workers’ comp the exclusive remedy for relatives of a killed employee.

As part of its investigation, Cal-OSHA noted UCLA had not addressed deficiencies found in its own internal safety inspection two months before the fatal fire, including a finding that workers weren’t wearing lab coats.

Lesson for other companies: If your own internal safety audit finds deficiencies, not taking quick action can prove costly.

OSHA has established new requirements for trainers to become authorized to teach the 10- and 30-hour training courses in both general industry and construction.

Trainers are authorized by completing a one-week course through an OSHA Training Institute Education Center.

OSHA has also increased unannounced monitoring visits to verify that trainers are in compliance with program requirements. Trainers caught falsifying information and fraudulently issuing completion cards will face criminal prosecution. Penalties include fines and jail time.

A watch list of trainers who have received disciplinary action will be posted on OSHA’s Web site.

You can read more about OSHA’s Outreach Training Program here.

Wrico Stamping Co. of Grapevine, TX, has 15 days to decide whether to contest the fines.

OSHA cited Wrico for:

• one willful violation for failing to perform regular inspections of mechanical power presses
• one serious violation for failing to provide safety blocks on mechanical presses
• one serious violation for not providing adequate supervision while employees are working on hazardous equipment
• one serious violation for not giving employees adequate training for maintaining mechanical equipment, and
• one other-than-serious violation for failing to report an amputation injury within 30 days.

One way to counter that thought: Arrange to have employees hear important safety messages from a number of different sources.

A new report from the National Weather Service (NWS) backs that up.

NWS just released its internal report on the Super Tuesday tornado outbreak of Feb. 5-6, 2008. The report’s subtitle: Why Some People Don’t Heed Severe Weather Warnings.

Reason: Many people minimize the threat of personal risk through “optimism bias,” the belief that such bad things only happen to others.

This optimism bias was reflected in comments from several affected residents in the report, such as, “They [tornadoes] always seem to hit down the road,” and “We didn’t think it was going to be here.”

A prime example: A woman in Arkansas heard a tornado warning from the local TV news and then from a local radio station. Warning sirens sounded twice. Only after her son-in-law called did she decide to take shelter.

NWS theorizes an important factor in how people respond to warnings is whether they personalize the threat.

This example shows how some people require multiple sources of information to assess personal risk.

Here’s the good news: You don’t have to be the only one to repeat safety warnings to workers. Getting others to do it will help. How can you do this?

• Get outside expert speakers to address employees.
• Use other sources of information – such as this Web site – to back up your points.
• Make it really personal: Have an accident victim speak. If one isn’t available, ask workers how their lives would be affected if they were injured.

That’s the on-screen message at the end of each of the safety videos on YouTube. Warning: They’re disturbing.

Each short story addresses different safety topics in a variety of workplace settings:

1. Restaurant: Slip-and-fall and burn hazards.
2. Construction: Falls from heights and combustible materials.
3. Factory: Forklift and storage safety.
4. Retail: Ladder safety.
5. Electricity: A dead worker speaks from a coffin.

Contributed by Tom Hess, Safety Manager, Toll Packaging Group, Gibson City, IL.

Our safety program required that we have first responders. That wasn’t a problem in itself — I’d never have any lack of people who wanted to be first responders.

But here was the question: If employees never had any experience with emergency rescue, how would I know the volunteers would react properly in a real emergency?

I got the answer to my question by inviting some guest speakers to our monthly plant-wide safety meetings.

Over the years, I’ve used all sorts of experts who are here, right in our community, to provide expert lessons during our safety meetings.

They included representatives from our fire extinguisher provider and our workers’ comp insurance carrier.

So to address the employees who thought they wanted to be our first responders, I asked some paramedics from the local ambulance service to come in and speak.

They face the types of emergencies on a regular basis that our first responders would be called upon for.

Bringing in someone who faced emergencies on a daily basis created a new awareness for my volunteers.

After hearing from the paramedics, some employees decided maybe they weren’t the best candidates for the job because they couldn’t imagine doing some of the things the paramedics had to do.

After I brought in the guest speakers, I had my answer. I knew our first responders had a better idea of the types of situations they might encounter.

As a result, our company realized one more benefit from inviting outside speakers to our safety meetings.

OSHA has proposed more than $1.2 million in penalties relating to the handling of hazardous chemicals at G.S. Robins & Co., dba Ro-Corp, Inc., in East St. Louis, MO.

Ro-Corp faces 21 willful citations, 20 of which were cited on a per-instance basis:

• 8 instances of failing to provide employees with the correct PPE for transferring para-nitroaniline (PNA), a poison
• 4 instances of failing to provide training on the use of PPE and on working with hazardous chemicals
• 3 instances of failing to provide PPE training and training on specific PNA-transfer procedures, and
• 5 instances of failing to fit-test employees using respirators.

OSHA also issued a repeat citation for failing to provide an eyewash/shower in corrosive chemical areas and 16 serious citations for hazards associated with the transfer of PNA and other workplace practices.

PNA is highly toxic and can be fatal if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

OSHA investigated Ro-Corp after learning that employees had been admitted to several local hospitals after being contaminated with an unknown powder that turned out to be PNA. All employees recovered after treatment.

To learn more about OSHA’s ability to issue fines on a per-employee basis, click here.

Since we started SafetyNewsAlert.com several months ago, we’ve heard from many readers that OSHA needs to hold employees as well as employers accountable for safety to reduce injuries and fatalities. Now, OSHA has taken steps with one company to do just that.

OSHA has fined 160 Broadway Corp., dba Broadway Concrete, $750,000 as part of a settlement agreement for 13 repeat violations involving fall hazards.

The amount of the fine is enough to get any company’s attention. But that’s not all Broadway agreed to.

Broadway has also agreed to reduce the salary of senior job superintendents who fail to comply with applicable OSHA and job safety practices.

So if these supervisors don’t enforce safety rules, their pay will get docked.

More costs than just a fine

Broadway will have to spend even more money as a result of this settlement. It’s also agreed to:

• Employ a full-time chief of construction operations and a corporate safety director to have authority over senior job superintendents in safety and health issues.
• Employ a full-time site safety director on each large project and have a safety director inspect smaller projects at least once a week.
• Provide safety and health management training to superintendents and supervisory personnel working on each site, and train company and subcontractor employees on each site’s safety and health plan.

Is this a good first step to make supervisors accountable for the safety of the people they manage? Should OSHA go further to dock rank-and-file workers’ pay for safety infractions? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Ever need to show upper management that safety saves money? One employer recently quantified the savings realized after putting more emphasis on workplace safety.

Bradley County, TN, says it recently saved more than $125,000 in 2008 compared to 2007 because of its upgraded safety inspections. It’s a 47% drop in workers’ comp expenses, according to a report in The Chattanoogan.

The County Safety Department said it had a 23% decrease in workers’ comp claims.

The county attributes the savings to stepped up safety training, employee awareness and quarterly safety classes for all employees.

The safety director also inspected all 33 county buildings at least once during the year for hazards that could result in an injury.

The county says it’s been more thorough than the state OSHA inspections would be.

OSHA has resources available online to help businesses quantify how much safety saves.

How do you show that safety saves money for your business? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Certified Painting Co., Inc., of Alsip, IL, faces $225,000 in fines for 17 alleged violations — eight willful and nine serious.

That’s bad enough. But this is the 16th time the company has been inspected by OSHA since 1976. It’s been cited for more than 100 safety and health violations.

In the latest case, Certified has cited for failure to:

• have proper carbon monoxide monitoring devices
• provide and ensure workers were using personal protective equipment
• provide required hygiene facilities
• ensure workers conducted required hygiene practices after possible exposure to lead or other hazardous materials
• provide U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jackets and have a lifesaving skiff immediately available at locations where employees were working over or adjacent to water
• provide proper fall protection for employees working on scaffolding
• maintain a safety and health program
• provide a required training program before employee exposure to lead, and
• conduct regular inspections of the job site by a competent person.

You can read more about OSHA’s citations against Certified here.

“How do I get all my employees to wear their safety gear all the time?” It’s one of the top challenges safety pros face year after year. So we asked 290 of your peers about their experiences to find out the top reasons workers give for not wearing PPE.

And we also asked safety managers how they deal with the problem. Here are the results:

Fit/comfort

“It doesn’t fit right,” or “it’s uncomfortable” are the reasons 30% of safety pros hear most often when they ask workers why they aren’t wearing their PPE.

Solution: Get workers involved in PPE choice. Ask what the comfort and fit issues are with their safety gear.

Work with a few select employees to order several different trial samples of regulatory-compliant gear.

Then have these employees test it. If there isn’t a consensus, note whether people with certain physical characteristics prefer certain types. You may have to order more than one type to satisfy your workers.

‘I didn’t know’

Some workers will try to put the blame for their lack of PPE on someone else – many times their supervisors or trainers.

“I didn’t know I needed safety gear” was the top reason heard by 10% of safety pros.

Solution: When safety gear training is given, have workers sign a paper stating that they’ve received and understand the training.

To make this policy work, supervisors will have to follow up with disciplinary action when workers don’t wear PPE.

Time factor

“I didn’t have time,” or “it takes too much time” are the main reasons 18% of safety pros hear as excuses from workers without PPE.

The first step to solve this problem: Ask workers why and listen carefully to their answers. You may have a conflict between production and safety. In that case, ask production supervisors to emphasize that work doesn’t start until safety gear is on.

You may also find out these workers weren’t properly trained about donning PPE. Another possibility is that workers are rushing to get to their stations on time because of tardiness. Disciplinary measures may be necessary in those cases.

They’re invincible

“I won’t get in an accident” is heard most often by 8% of managers.

Oddly enough, this sentiment is expressed by two very different groups.

Young workers often think they’re invincible — that nothing bad will ever happen to them. If they haven’t been exposed to a serious injury, it may seem to them like “that only happens to other people.”

More experienced workers who have gone their entire career without a serious workplace injury adopt this rationale: I’ve always done it this way and haven’t been hurt so far.

Solution: Show them how it has happened. Invite someone who suffered a serious — and possibly debilitating — workplace injury to speak to an all-hands safety meeting.

Ask the person to explain in detail how the injury has affected his life — how everyday activities others take for granted are now much more difficult for him.

Another tactic: Tell employees to put an arm behind their back. Now, ask them to perform a simple task such as tying their shoes.

Memory lapse

The rest, 34%, say “I just forgot.” Check first if fit, comfort or time is a factor before accepting this excuse.

This is where a strong safety policy comes into play. Each workplace has to decide how often it’s acceptable for someone to “just forget” and what will happen to the employee each time. Universal enforcement — up to dismissal if appropriate — will send a message to others to always wear their PPE.

What’s the biggest excuse you hear from employees when they don’t wear their PPE? What has — and hasn’t — worked for you to make sure they wear it? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Starting Jan. 12, 2009, OSHA can issue per-employee citations for those types of violations.

While OSHA says it intends to use these new measures only in egregious cases, the standard doesn’t spell that out specifically.

The agency is relying on a directive to its inspectors to determine when per-employee citations will be made, but directives can change without going through the formal rulemaking process.

What will this mean financially to companies who have some workers who don’t always wear their PPE?

The multiplication factor is the number of employees.

In the case that sparked this rulemaking, an employer hired 11 undocumented Mexican workers to handle asbestos without providing each a respirator.

OSHA wanted to issue 11 separate citations, but a court consolidated them into one.

Under the new rule, the fine would have been 11 times as much.

All sorts of employers are affected by this. OSHA amends PPE and training standards for:

• general industry (Part 1910)
• shipyards (Part 1915)
• marine terminals (Part 1917)
• longshoring (Part 1918), and
• construction (Part 1926).

For now, OSHA claims it will rely upon its guidance document, Handling of Cases To Be Proposed for Violation-By-Violation Penalties.

That document says cases under consideration for per-employee fines must be classified as willful and meet at least one of these requirements:

• Violation resulted in worker fatalities, a worksite catastrophe or a large number of injuries or illnesses
• Violations resulted in persistently high rates of worker injuries or illnesses
• Employer has an extensive history of prior OSHA violations
• Employer has intentionally disregarded its OSHA responsibilities
• Employer’s conduct taken as a whole amounts to clear bad faith in the performance of its OSHA duties, or
• Employer has committed a large number of violations that significantly undermine the effectiveness of any OSHA safety or health program that might be in place.

When asked if they’ve ever observed anyone at their company failing to wear proper PPE when they should have been, 89% said yes. Specifically:

• 45% said it happens on numerous occasions
• 44% answered that it happens infrequently
• 8% said it doesn’t happen
• 3% answered “don’t know.”

Since many of your peers have this problem, what are they planning to do to boost compliance?

• Improve existing education and training: 70%
• Purchase more comfortable PPE: 69%
• Increase monitoring: 42%
• Tie compliance to individual performance evaluations: 32%
• Purchase more stylish PPE: 31%
• Develop incentive programs: 24%
• None of these: 2%.

The survey was conducted at this year’s National Safety Council Congress on Sept. 23 by Kimberly-Clark Professional Safety among safety managers in attendance.

Mel Deng lost his right arm just a few inches below his elbow. He was working at a box machine when it chewed up his hand and forearm, destroying muscles and nerves.

Paramedics tried to save the forearm. But he was bleeding to death, and they had to amputate his arm right at the scene of the incident, according to The Kansas City Star.

Now, Deng thinks that he hasn’t just lost his arm; he’s lost his future, too.

He wonders how he’ll be able to work and says he feels like half a man, no good to anyone.

Deng doesn’t want his wife or children to see him without a hand. He immigrated to the U.S. from Sudan years ago and became a U.S. citizen. His wife and children are still in Sudan.

He has to wear a stretch “sock” on the stump to help it heal.

Four months after the accident, he’s undergoing physical therapy. When the physical therapist prods and pokes at what’s left of his forearm, he grimaces, trying to hide the pain.

He’ll still need more surgery, and then he’ll be fitted with a prosthetic forearm and hand.

While there are prosthetics made to look like a real hand, they’re not as useful as those that end with a hook. Deng is resigned, for usefulness purposes, to the idea of a hook.

Doctors have given Deng some hope for his future. But it’s a tough road.

But that’s exactly what Australian forklift driver Matthew Ward did.

Ward set up a video camera at work to record his exploits, which included some wheelies, burnouts and crashing into a stack of concrete pipes.

He must’ve been proud of his forklift maneuvers because he posted them on YouTube.

Word spread, and his employer, a Melbourne-area company that makes pipes, turned him over to police and fired him.

A court has fined him the equivalent of about U.S. $800. He lost his license to drive forklifts.

He pleaded guilty to a single count of failing to take care of his own health and safety. He also has to take a week-long occupational safety course and perform 50 hours of community service.

Oh, and his YouTube video? It’s been pulled

If a similar incident happened in the U.S., an employer could go after him for damage to the pipes he drove into. But the possibility of fining a worker for such safety infractions and requiring him to attend safety courses doesn’t exist in the U.S.

Do you think it should? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

A recent Purdue University study may provide some clues.

When it comes to speeding, many people don’t worry about safety. They just worry about getting caught.

That’s one of the messages researchers took away from surveying almost 1,000 people.

They also found this correlation: The faster people think they can go before getting a ticket, the more likely they are to think safety’s not compromised at higher speeds.

As a safety pro, you know what happens after employees complete safety training. Many workers take the training to heart and follow the rules, such as always wearing their protective gear, or locking and tagging out equipment every time they perform maintenance.

But there’s always at least one in a crowd who has rationalized not following the rules. They think they’ll never get hurt. The only reason they might follow a safety rule is because of stiff consequences if they don’t.

Another finding by the researchers may be even more troubling. Getting stopped for speeding didn’t seem to have an effect on whether or not someone speeds again.

The researchers say this is probably because people who habitually speed aren’t significantly deterred by being stopped. Those who are inherently more conservative are more likely to slow down after getting a ticket.

What’s the lesson here? Perhaps it’s a call for a “two strikes and you’re out” policy when it comes to safety rules. Depending on the nature of the infraction, a second chance might be in order when a worker violates a safety rule.

But if they break the rule again, you may have someone who doesn’t care about safety – all they care about is whether they’ll get caught. Since no one can watch these workers every minute while they’re at work, the second strike may be a sign to let the worker go.

What do you think? Let us know in the Comments Box.

Wreckedexotics.com (more about the Web site later in this post) pursued the task of listing the top 10 most expensive accidents in the history of the world, measured in today’s dollars.

You’ll recognize many of the incidents: the Titanic, the two space shuttle disasters and the Exxon Valdez make the list.

And safety pros can use the info on the Web site to start safety discussions with workers. The authors have included a sentence or two in many of the accident descriptions that describe the safety procedure that were broken.

Example: In the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, the incident was officially attributed to power plant operators who violated procedures and didn’t know all the safety requirements needed.

A note about wreckedexotics.com’s purpose: The site has more than 6,000 photos of exotic cars involved in accidents to show the real consequences of reckless driving. The photos represent almost a quarter of a billion dollars worth of damage to vehicles such as Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Porsches.

The entry about the most expensive accidents is here.

Two studies by Purdue University professors confirm that Hispanics — and younger workers — don’t understand all the industry-specific terms and acronyms used in 10-hour safety training required by OSHA for all construction workers.

Training too often takes for granted that they know MSDS refers to material safety data sheets and that lockout/tagout refers to eliminating energy sources to machinery.

A new report by the Conference Board of Canada finds when it comes to safety, companies don’t do enough to compensate for employees who are functionally illiterate.

Illiterate workers are at risk because they can’t read and understand machinery operating instructions, safety procedures, first-aid instructions, or policy manuals on workplace health and safety.

The Canadian study suggests employers must spend more money on improving employees’ literacy where necessary.

The Perdue reports include two suggestions:

• When dealing with new employees, make sure they know the definitions of terms before training begins.
• For Hispanic workers, it’s important not to discontinue use of the terms and acronyms because they’ll need to know them. Instead, trainers can look into using visuals during training to match pictures with unfamiliar jargon.

What have you done to help Hispanic, new or functionally illiterate workers when it comes to safety training? If you want to share your ideas, you can do so in the Comments Box below.

More info: http://snipurl.com/jargon330 for the Purdue studies and http://snipurl.com/literacy330 for the Canadian study.

Work Safe Alberta hopes 15- to 19-year-olds will be driven to the Web site www.bloodylucky.ca in an effort to drive home important workplace safety messages.

The Web site’s slogan is “Some days are bloodier than others.” And a warning before you watch the videos: They’re much bloodier than others, too.

The ads feature a deli worker cutting off his finger, a shoe store clerk falling off a ladder in a stock room and a gas-station attendant getting burned in the face with cleaning solution.

The same ads were set to launch in September 2007 but was pulled because some members of the Conservative party felt they were too offensive, according to The Calgary Herald. One election and one new employment minister later, it’s all systems go.

A government spokesman says the launch at Halloween is purely coincidental, but the shocking videos do rival some slasher films.

Safety pros know there’s nothing new about videos showing bloody workplace accidents to shock employees into following safety rules.

But this campaign is a little different for a few reasons. It’s target audience is teens, and all the accident victims portrayed are young people. The videos incorporate rock music and are edgy. And they were made primarily for Web viewing.

So we’d like to know: What do you think of the videos? Do these types of videos drive home the safety message for employees? Have you used similar videos and how did they work for you? You can write your thoughts in the Comments Box below.