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.

“Silence clause aims to keep Turkey Point workers quiet” claims a recent headline in the Miami Herald about a nuclear power plant in Florida.

A former employee, Thomas Saporito claims that a clause in bonus agreements has caused workers to be afraid to make complaints about safety. Saporito has sued Florida Power & Light, the plant’s owner, numerous times claiming he was fired because of his persistent complaints about safety. FPL has repeatedly won in court.

The newspaper obtained one bonus agreement that contained this language: “The employee shall not, at any time in the future and in any way … make any statements that may be derogatory or detrimental to the company’s good name.”

An FPL spokesman says the utility encourages anyone working at one of its nuclear power plants to identify safety concerns without fearing reprisal.

What do you think? Could such language contained in a contract discourage employees from speaking up about safety? 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.

With a new administration coming to the White House, it’s likely companies will see some changes from OSHA. Among the possibilities: higher fines for workplace fatalities and injuries.

President-elect Obama has supported the Protecting America’s Workers Act as a Senator.

The bill would increase OSHA penalties:

• maximums for serious and repeat violations would go from $7,000 to $10,000
• top fines for willful violations would increase to $100,000 from $70,000, and
• fines for workplace deaths would be a minimum of $50,000, a maximum of $250,000, and up to ten years in prison.

OSHA fines low by comparison

Elected officials who support increases in OSHA fines say they would act as a deterrent to companies that want to skimp on safety. While responsible companies, like yours, are paying for all the necessary safety tools to prevent injuries, other bad actors see an occasional employee injury as just the price of doing business because it’s cheaper that way.

Elected officials also argue that current fines aren’t enough of a deterrent. Some examples:

• Employee dies at railroad crossing, company fined $2,250
• Trench cave-in kills two employees: company fined $11,200, and
• Fatal electrocution: company fined $37,000.

Compare those fines to some issued by other federal agencies.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can fine a TV or radio station up to $325,000 for indecent content.

In other words, having a potty mouth on TV can garner a fine that’s ten times worse than when a person dies or is seriously and/or permanently injured at work.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fines for incidents in which no employees were injured or killed are also higher than OSHA fines. Some recent examples:

• Company dumps untreated hazardous wastes: Owner could face up to 15 years in prison and $750,000 if convicted
• Company fails to inspect its diesel fleet for compliance with smoke control rules: $114,000, and
• Mishandling hazardous waste and used batteries leads to $190,000 penalty for another firm.

So, we’d like to hear from you on this issue. We all know that some companies put their employees’ lives at risk every day by not taking proper safety precautions. Here’s the question: Should the federal government increase OSHA fines for deaths and serious injuries? Would this be a deterrent to companies that don’t pay enough attention to worker safety? You can let us know what you think by dropping us a note in the Comments Box below.

For more information on the Protecting America’s Workers Act, click here.

The scenario:

The sheepish look on supervisor Glen Sherwood’s face told manager Mike Kelly a problem was about to be laid on him.

“You know I like to handle this stuff myself,” Glen began, “but this is a tricky situation.

“You remember Scott who was in that car accident?”

“Sure,” Mike said. “What a shame. The other car ran a red light, slammed into Scott’s car. He’s had, how many surgeries, three, four?

I understand he’s come back to work.”

“Right,” said Glen. “We’re real glad to see him. He’s a great guy who’s been through hell. But  … ”

He’s slowed down a lot

“But what?” asked Mike.

“Scott can’t get around like he used to. He’s walking without the cane now, but he’s slowed down a lot. I didn’t think he could return to his old position, so I’ve got him doing some lighter stuff.

“He keeps pushing to return to his old job. It obviously means a lot to him. But I don’t think he can move quickly enough if he needed to. I don’t want something else to happen to him on the job – or worse to him and someone else.”

Mike knew a decision had to be made about whether Scott could return to his previous tasks without affecting safety.

If you were Mike, what would you do next?

Edward Gill, Jr., Safety Director, East Boston, MA
What Edward would do:
I wouldn’t just take him at his word that he’s ready to get back to work. I would send him to one of our own doctors for an examination, and have the doctor give me his opinion.
Reason:
If he’d been walking with a cane, I’m not gonna put him back on his regular job anyway. But if I say no, he might just think I’m picking on him. An outside evaluation would clear that up independently. 

Eric Gislason, Vice President, Wilmington, NC
What Eric would do:
If he’s just gotten back from a serious car accident and surgery, it’s just a fact he’s going to need more time before he’s ready to get back to full duty. So after some time, I’d check up with his doctors and also get a second opinion to see where he’s at in his recovery.
Reason:
My background’s in safety, not medicine. So it’s a good policy to talk to the people who know best.

Wes Sparkman, Manager, Perryville, MO
What Wes would do:
You have to be careful that you’re not restricting a worker who’s been medically cleared. I’d follow doctor’s recommendations.
Reason:
If he’s been cleared for regular work, but we keep him on light duty, then essentially we’re treating him as a disabled employee. And that opens up a whole new can of worms.