Is this a good method to reduce workplace injuries?
January 25, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: Special Report, Transportation safety, What do you think?, Who Got Fined and Why?, cost of safety, enforcement
Criminal prosecution of companies where safety violations cause serious injuries or fatalities are rare in the U.S. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note how such cases are handled in another democracy.
In the last seven years, more than 70 plea bargain deals have been cut in Queensland, Australia, between companies with serious workplace accidents and the state government.
The Queensland state government recently settled with an electrical contractor, Stowe Australia. One of its workers was left a paraplegic after a 2007 industrial incident. The worker was helping unload an almost 900-pound switchboard when the equipment fell on him, causing severe spinal injuries.
In exchange for dropping criminal charges, Stowe agreed to make a formal statement of regret, improve its health and safety standards, publish an article on the incident, and provide funding to the Spinal Injuries Association.
For comparison, the trucking company that was transporting the switchboard was prosecuted in court and fined $45,000.
In another case, Sea World was initially prosecuted for a workplace injury case on charges that carried a maximum penalty of two years in prison and more than $1 million in fines. The government withdrew the criminal charges. In exchange, Sea World promised to spend almost $300,000 on safety improvements.
A spokesman for the government defended the settlements, saying they “require the employer to carry out a range of safety measures that extend well beyond the original breach. They are only entered into when the benefits for workers, the industry and the community can be clearly shown.”
The spokesman said the settlements pave the way for “long-lasting and more wide-ranging safety changes.” The government totals the number of safety enhancements at companies due to these settlements at more than $17 million.
What do you think about this method of holding companies responsible for serious injuries and fatalities? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: Australia, criminal prosecution, serious injury or death
Loading ...
January 25th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Corporations are not the enemy. Entitled people with no sense of personal responsibility, who elect crooks for their leaders decade after decade, are the real culprits.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I think this method would work if the companies who “promised” to improve their safety culture were scrutinized on specific issues in the future. Allocating a dollar amount and making promises in exchange for reduced charges in no way demonstrates actual improvement. It’s unclear from this post, but it seems like these concessions are made on a case-by-case basis, which doesn’t set expectations for violators and doesn’t standardize which improvements are necessary. The defensive statement from the government official is also incredibly vague. Hopefully when these types of deals are made they include formulating a specific plan and sticking to it - with oversight and evaluation by government organizations.
January 25th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
i believe there should be criminal charges levied against NEGLIGENT employers. there are several good owners/gc’s who do their best to follow applicable standards and keep employees going home. it’s been said repeatedly, and with absolute merit, that until the employee faces the same punishment/charges as employers, nothing will change. employers can follow every regulation under the sun but can’t regulate the employees’ choice.
January 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
The worker was helping unload an almost 900-pound switchboard when the equipment fell on him, causing severe spinal injuries.
I’d hate to be the guy getting this to fall on me. But there should have been safety protocols implemented to prevent heavy payloads from hurting personnel. Was the truck sturdy? Was the dock in good repair? Did the truck back up close enough to the doc to allow easy unload? There are too many variables to make an outright decision but everything is cause and effect. If the company had no safety protocols present and they deal with heavy payloads daily - shame on them and yes the company should be held liable. Alternatively, if the company has a good safety program and pushes the use of PPE and other safety protocols that are blatantly disregarded by employees then the company should not be held liable.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:08 am
I can’t agree more. The best safety device ever invented is an alert and informed employee. I have always found that the best way to find a safety issue is to ask the employee who sticks thier finger in the process. They can tell you where every sharp edge, pinchpoint, and slick spot is in their work station. Just make sure that you are ready to at least try to fix some of them or it may be the last time they tell you about it. Unfortunately all too many workers get complacent. Dupont has it right.; the vast majority of accidents in mature work site are worker lapse of attention related.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:18 am
The central question asked by the article seems to be: does the possibility of criminal prosecution, jail and large fines motivate companies to monitor safety more carefully and deliberately, as say, in comparison to OSHA who levies relatively small fines and cannot legally prosecute?
In terms of incentives and disincentives, it will probably cause companies to focus on those hazards that could maim or kill and expose company’s and management to prosecution, but I see nothing in this that would move companies toward a stronger safety culture.
I also question the court’s competence in prescribing appropriate corrective actions and monitoring successful compliance. All this is, of course, is back-end safety management - after injury or violation. I hear nothing of front end incentives (VPP) or disincentives (wall-to-wall inspections) that can potentially correct problems before they kill or maim.
In cases of willful and repeat offenses that causes serious injury, I believe it’s appropriate to refer the cases to the justice department, perhaps more frequently than they are now.
As far as employees who don’t take responsibility - the job of management is to manage, and irresponsible employees should be managed out of the company.
January 26th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I agree with john - There is no greater threat to workers than a Union environment with an I’m entitled” environment. We’ve taken the stats from dozens of years and the greatest and most severe injuries are from the Unions. The latest money maker for them is to instruct their soon to retire personnel of the advatages of having an on the job injury. Preferably one that is imposible to dispute like a back injury. This tactic is meant to put non-union General Contractors out of business. Isn’t working against our company because we fight every one of them.
I also agree with murrkitty in that the employee who ignores his training and gets injured should be held accountable (100%) and the employer who tried to enforce the safety protocol should be totally off the hook.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Canada doesn’t mess around… If the supervisor knew that there was an existing violation, and an employee was fatally injured from it while working there - guess what happens…? Nothing wrong with that approach. Companies are liable - safety is the first concern… Supervisors are in charge of the well-being of its employees and held liable. Employees need to be overseen by management and employees need to comply with the rules and safe working practices. If they don’t want to comply and continue to violate causing a safety risk - down the road… There are workers out there that will comply and want to work right. Even owners of businesses will sometimes violate the regulations and get hurt - or fined personally when caught. Sorry - but I don’t feel any remorse for them… USA is lenient in many cases - they rely on heavier fines as an incentive - and many times those are negotiated down….
January 26th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
US is not always lenient. I have a 800,000 SF facility. In a 5 hour targeted electrical walkthrough the inspector found 1 damaged outlet that was not being used and 2 extention cords. We have not had an OSHA violation in 15 years, never had a fatality in 41 years of operations and had all three fixed before he left; including 2 new outlets where the extension cords were. Net fine $7500.
January 26th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Canada also fines employees (~$50) found not wearing their PPE during random inspections, something OSHA should consider…
January 27th, 2010 at 8:03 am
I think this approach lets companies off the hook after an injury because they promised to do what they should have been doing to begin with. Where is the “penalty” in that?
January 27th, 2010 at 10:50 am
The Act that created OSHA requires workers to work in a safe and responsible manner. Has there ever been a case where the worker has been held accoutalb e by OSHA??? An employer can implement an effective safty program and maintain a workplace resonalbe free of hazards. BUT the greatest hazard in the workplace is the irresponsible employee. BUT in todays society no one has to take responsibllity for their actions!
January 27th, 2010 at 11:07 am
I work mostly on the MNM mining side and was an enforcer for 24 years - 43 years of mining experiences. I have done a lot of fatal accident investigations. Rumor has been that MSHA was kicking around fining employees for such things as not wearing their seat belts (which has caused several fatal accidents - no excuse for not wearing seat belts.) Wow! Wouldn’t that be something for a change… Don’t know though if that will ever come to be. On the mining side - anything that the inspector writes is assessed. The very minimum fine is $100.00, but sometimes can go up toward $50,000 for not cleaning a spill on a walkway. Sometimes inspectors write ridiculous things, if they don’t find much. That really frustrates me because there are plenty of serious issues. MSHA enforces very strongly in the USA. And, they show up once, twice, or 4 times a year at each operation. So basically, mines need to be kept as perfect as possible - or they will get hit hard… MNM mining had a record year of only 16 fatalities this year - the lowest since 1910. Without MSHA enforcing strictly - this would really not have happened though, being realistic. OSHA would need 700,000 inspectors to do it the way MSHA does - which of course is not feasible…
January 28th, 2010 at 1:06 am
SAFETY SAVES MONEY! The true force of change, bottom line, is always the dollar. It isn’t the $5,000 to $75,000 OSHA willful violation fine that stops a company from being a bad player, it’s the $3 million wrongful death lawsuit that will. The biggest improvement in compliance that I’ve seen has come about because of contracts between general contractors and their subcontractors. The insurance industry has motivated the GCs towards compliance by telling them they will not be able to receive insurance without stricter safety requirements. No insurance, no work. The GCs pass on that same language to the subcontractors and enforce stricter safety regulations, sometimes stricter than OSHA regulations. If we put safety in at the beginning of the job and make it separate from the bidding process so that everyone pays the same amount for it, safety will become part of our work practices. There is no bigger asset to a company than its skilled labor force and, without the labor force, there is no company. Working together, everyone can go home at the end of the day safely. (WORK, smart, proud and safely)
January 28th, 2010 at 11:45 am
An important element in any safety program is the “human” element. Fines against the employer is a sosurce of generating revenue. Is it the Federal govenment’s position to punish employers? Generate revenue to sustain OSHA? Or should the emphasis be on improving safety? If safety is the primary issue? It should be obvious that fines do not owrk. If that were true no one would be speeding on the highways.
The Act that created OSHA gives them the authority to hold each employee responsible for their own safety.Has there ever been a case where an employee has been fined for a safety violation? Why not? Canada does it. In 1987 there was a memo gnerated from top command that “OSHA would be a self-sustaining agency” How else could they do that? By issuing fines!
January 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
E.S, this is one area where the EPA ahs it all over OSHA. The EPA will offset fines by allowing companies to do Supplimental Environmental Projects, SEP’s, which either reduce their emissions, clean up pollution, or improve the environment. If OSHA really cared about workplace safety as much as the money they would establish a SSP program.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:55 am
Under MSHA and OSHA the employers are held accountable because they are “in charge” (hire, fire, direct the workforce, provide the environment, tools, and equipment, their products produced, required to comply with all regulations, pay their employers for working, etc. There are good employers out there - and there are not-so-good employers out there. There are many irresponsible people out there are running a business. Running a business, and running it right is a great honor and responsibility. Running it irresponsibly and without enough funds to run it safely - they don’t belong in business… Some people think the government runs on the fine money. I know MSHA would be done for if they were to rely on fine money to stay alive. The government sets a budget for MSHA and OSHA and it doesn’t matter what fine money comes in. All fine money goes to the “general fund”. If employees do not comply with safety regulations and company safety policies - they need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible - the company liability and responsibility is at stake. The only area where employees are fined in mines is smoking in a nonsmoking area that is posted - and that is barely enforced… The operations are as safe as the top management person - and the trickle down to all other supervision/agents. That is why the law holds them all personally responsible - and that is the right thing to do. Employees need to be held accountable for their noncompliance - they need to be effectively trained and if they won’t or don’t comply - they need to be gone… That’s how the good employers operate. The poor ones just whine about it - and look the other way. Canada has some good laws - they lay it out on the line. I have gotten comments up there from some supervision (Aw! They don’t enforce that…so, that tells me something about that supervisor…) There is always room for improvement, and we must continue that.