Comments on: Where is OSHA targeting its inspections?

By: Safety Man

Safety Man — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:19:11 +0000

OSHA is not “back in the enforcement business”. They never left. In fact, when Clinton left office OSHA enforcement jumped up immediately and has steadily increased every year since.

Although George W. Bush let the enforcement budget slip a little, over his eight years the important enforcement indicators – number of inspections, numbers of violations, percent of inspections with violations, total fines, etc. – all went up substantially compared to the Clinton version of OSHA.

The numbers to back this up are available on http://www.osha.gov and elsewhere.

By: Forist

Forist — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:17:09 +0000

One would think that going home intact is sufficient a motivator to encourage safe work habits. It isn’t. One would also think common sense would prevail over unsafe acts. It doesn’t. And disciplinary action, for unsafe behavior, is a stop for ill performance. It isn’t.

No one goes to work to intentionally harm themselves or others. All to often we allow ourselves to be influenced by conditions we have control over. Taking short cuts to get the job done for the sake of production or not wearing PPE because it will only “take a minute” to get it done are common practices in any industry. Supervisor’s turn a blind eye because his performance is weighted on production first. Work habits develop overtime, and if they are not checked they become individual procedures used until someone is injured or killed.

Safety requires procedures, practices, encouragement and enforcement, be it from government, union or management.

By: Guy

Guy — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:23:01 +0000

To Robert G
I must take issue with your statement, “why anyone would think that more government enforcement means a safer workplace. It is just not so.” Prior to OSHA, I worked in a foundry without safety glasses and relined furnaces with asbestos with no PPE of any sort – that’s right, no respirators, etc. People in the machine shop also worked without eye protection. It was only OSHA forcing the employer to implement safety practices that caused change. So yes, government enformcement DOES mean a safer workplace.

By: George P.

George P. — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:42:01 +0000

Interesting commentary regards labor unions. After working intensively with several union apprenticeship groups, I can attest that worker/site safety is high on the list of attributes imparted to participants. In the field of electrical contracting, one can imagine that an individual without proper knowledge and/or training is downright dangerous to themselves and to the site in general. In this case it is safe to say that individuals rather than companies can contribute to a significantly unsafe work site, and yep, companies take the hit. It is safe however to say that there are companies who across the board and whose practices are unsafe and unethical. The greed motive cannot be overlooked, and this holds true for unions as well. On a philosophical note, an individual who can rise above “their nature” is what competence, and hopefully safe practice is about. While an advocate of union apprenticeship training rather than unions as a whole, individuals generally can and do perform at a higher level when they are trained correctly. Federal intervention for the sake of safety is laudable, but intervention for the sake of intervention is not. Many organizations do not, for whatever reason, police themselves, and unions may indeed support their members “no matter what.” We are talking safety concerns and whether or not the fed’s influence through site inspections contributes to a safer work environment. On an idealistic plane I have to think it does, but on a realistic plane it may not, but what is the alternative? I have to advocate for minimal federal interference whose intervention can scapegoat a truly competent business, but I wonder about the alternative as by “end of the day” there are many individuals (and corporations and agencies) who are motivated by things other than supporting their family, safety, ethical behavior and making a decent living.

By: Robert G

Robert G — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:03:24 +0000

It is more true that due to the work practices by some of the employees of contractors, others must suffer the consequences. However, I’m trying to understand why anyone would think that more government enforcement means a safer workplace. It is just not so. People that haven’t relied on government to “take care of my needs” and have gotten up everyday to better themselves and their families without intervention from the feds or organized labor unions, are the ones that are going to pay a price. Organized labor groups shall protect their members regardless of the actions by that member and it is the companies fault regardless. Now this sounds like a true labor union employee with just another axe to grind, “Many larger contractors are union represented and used to higher standards.” Give me a break. People want to go to work and make a decent living for their families and go home at the end of the day, intact. That is our nature. Statistics have shown over the years that the actions of one employee may put the health and safety of many at risk ans that it is not always the fault of the company. Quit blaming everything on someone else.

By: George Pickett

George Pickett — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:42:56 +0000

As a grant writer I get to research all kinds of interesting material. The current safety initiative included in the DOL Susan Harwood OSHA grant cycle is but one. I live and work in El Paso, Texas, where there is a military base currently undergoing expansion due to BRAC. Much of the work is in the construction of new infrastructure. Due to shoddy practices by some contractors, many must suffer the consequences, but all in all, more enforcement seems to promise a safer and less injury prone environment. Many larger contractors are union represented and used to higher standards. It is a good thing to maintain competence. It is interesting to note that the DOL is back in the enforcement business. Personally, I think it is a reasonable idea. There are many in the industry here from another country where standards are much lower and site injuries are the norm. Here, they face tighter standards or go out of business. It would be truly unfortunate for our troops to lose their life because of inadequate checks and balances in the industry. Thanks – gpickett