Ten most dangerous jobs

Going by the sheer number of on-the-job deaths, the truck drivers and sales drivers classification was by far the most dangerous, accounting for nearly 1,000 (987) deaths in 2017. However, the chances of a fatality are much higher in specific industries when the fatal work injury rate, calculated per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, is used. According to a recent report in EHS Today, the ten most dangerous jobs of 2019 are:

No. 1 – Fishers and related fishing workers

Moving up from number 2 to become the most dangerous profession, fishers and related fishing workers experienced 41 fatalities in 2017, an increase of almost 58% from 2016. The fatality rate was 99.7 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers. Risks: drowning, struck by lightning, crushed by equipment.

No. 2 – Loggers

Falling from the most-dangerous profession to number 2, loggers experienced 55 fatalities, a drop of almost 65% from 91 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 84.3. Risks: falls, struck-by, dangerous tools such as chainsaws and axes.

No. 3 – Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Pilots and flight engineers experienced 59 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 58.6, a drop from 2016. Risks: crashes.

No. 4 – Roofers

Roofers experienced 91 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 45.2, slightly lower than in 2016. Risks: falls, struck-by, and heat.

No. 5 – Refuse and recyclable material collectors

Refuse and recyclable material collectors experienced 30 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 35.0, very similar to 2016. Risks: dangerous machinery, crushed by equipment, struck-by, traffic accidents, struck by vehicle.

No. 6 – Structural iron and steel workers

Steel and ironworkers experienced 14 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 33.4, a slight decrease from 2016. Risks: falls, struck-by, heat, crushed by materials.

No. 7 – Truck drivers and other drivers

Employees who drive for work – including truck drivers – experienced 987 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 26.8 out of 100,000 workers, which was higher than in 2016. Risks: traffic accidents, struck by vehicle, other drivers, construction zones, sleep deprivation, texting/talking while driving.

No. 8 – Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers

Agricultural workers experienced 258 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 24.0 out of 100,000 workers, very similar to 2016. Risks: dangerous machinery, chemicals, heat.

No. 9 – Grounds maintenance workers

Grounds maintenance workers experienced 244 fatalities in 2017 for a fatality rate of 21.0, a decline from 2016. Risks: heat, cold, noise, chemical exposure, ergonomics-related issues, machinery.

No. 10 – Electrical power-line installers and repairers

New to the list, electrical power-line installers and repairers experienced 26 fatalities for a fatality rate of 18.7. Risks: electrocution, falls to a lower level, transportation incidents.

Supervisors of construction workers (which ranked at #9 last year), fell off the list of the top 10.

Other key findings:

  • There were a total of 5,147 fatal work injuries recorded in the United States in 2017, down slightly from the 5,190 that were registered in 2016.
  • Fatal falls were at their highest level in the 26-year history of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), accounting for 887 (17 percent) worker deaths.
  • Transportation incidents remained the most frequent fatal event in 2017 with 2,077 (40 percent) occupational fatalities.
  • Violence and other injuries by persons or animals decreased 7 percent in 2017 with homicides and suicides decreasing by 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively.
  • Unintentional overdoses due to non-medical use of drugs or alcohol while at work increased 25 percent from 217 in 2016 to 272 in 2017. This was the fifth consecutive year in which unintentional workplace overdose deaths have increased by at least 25 percent.
  • Fatal occupational injuries involving confined spaces rose 15 percent to 166 in 2017 from 144 in 2016.
  • Crane-related workplace fatalities fell to their lowest level ever recorded in CFOI, 33 deaths in 2017.
  • Fifteen percent of the fatally-injured workers in 2017 were age 65 or over – a series high. In 1992, the first year CFOI published national data, that figure was 8 percent. These workers also had a higher fatality rate than other age groups in 2017.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

A new approach to serious injury and fatality prevention

Since the advent of Heinrich’s Injury Pyramid in 1931, it has been generally accepted that there is a predictive relationship between the frequency and types of non-injury, minor injuries and the serious, life-altering or threatening injuries, at the top of the triangle. The safety triangle theorizes that for every major injury there are 29 minor injuries and 300 non-injury incidents. Though this triangle is considered a gold standard, many safety professionals realize that all non-injury or minor incidents are not equal and some have more potential to result in a serious injury or fatality (SIF).

A recent report by the Campbell Institute, Serious Injury and Fatality Prevention: Perspectives and Practices recommends a redesign or enhancement of the model. The new SIF prevention model would look at all incidents – namely, precursors to accidents, recordable injuries, lost-time injuries and fatalities – and seek out those with serious injury and fatalities potential. It encourages organizations to focus on the process factors that lead to SIF, rather than human error, which will always occur. They should focus on repairing gaps in their safety management system, workplace culture, and changing or modifying work processes that eliminate human error.

For example, a workplace with a production problem may ignore or even condone shortcuts and speed, which can lead to bad decisions by workers. A forklift operator may drive too fast and not wear a seatbelt, which can lead to a serious accident. While there can be a tendency to blame the worker, the production demands were the proximate cause and the precursor to the event. According to the author of the paper, Joy Inouye, a key to lowering the fatalities in the workforce lies in an organization’s ability to look inward. “Instead of blaming the worker for not putting on his seatbelt, start to look at those organizational factors that contributed to that.” The report includes examples of companies that have successfully revamped strategies for identifying risk factors.

Trends in injury patterns validate the need for a shift in thinking. While employers have done a good job in reducing the total recordable incident rate, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of workplace fatalities and catastrophic injuries. Diving deeper into near misses and smaller, less serious incidents could help prevent on-the-job deaths or catastrophic injuries. By identifying potential precursors to such events and educating employees about those precursors, companies can focus on eliminating the potential for such incidents to occur.

The report recognizes that isolating incidents with the potential for SIF requires serious groundwork. It suggests next steps like organizing a think-tank that defines “serious injury”, “precursor” and “potential.” To determine whether an incident is a potential SIF or not, it may make sense to define and use a Severity Scale that can be consistently understood by anyone, one that is tied to potential outcomes. For example, most severe could be an injury that would lead to the death of an individual, and the least severe could be first aid and immediate return to work. Including specific injury examples can be helpful.

Implementation raises the bar of safety management and requires a proactive, rather than reactive approach. It will take careful planning – both around the processes used and the responsibilities assigned.

What employers can do

  • Review and evaluate your near miss reporting system
    • Do workers fear the consequences of reporting something they may be blamed for or is there a culture of trust and all workers participate in reporting?
    • Is near miss training part of new hire orientation?
    • Are supervisors and management onboard and do they foster a reporting culture?
    • Is reporting simple and straightforward?
    • Does the report provide a solid log of what leads up to the incident?
    • Is the definition of near miss clear?
    • Is there a thorough investigation that identifies the root cause?
    • Are corrective actions taken and employees notified?
  • Have supervisors explain to employees why the company is focusing on the smaller incidents and near-misses, and how a minor incident can turn major. Explain the importance of looking at potential rather than actual outcomes for minor incidents.
  • Think-outside-the box. A recent article in Risk and Insurance described how Wente Family Estates vineyards teamed up with the criminology department at Holy Names University in Oakland to take a look at workers’ comp data to analyze injuries and near misses, pinpointing problem areas and gathering insight on how to prevent future losses. The idea was based on a partnership between United Airlines and the University of New Haven that used interns from the criminology department as part of a data visualization project, leading to a 23 percent reduction in employee injuries and a 29 percent reduction in aircraft damage on the ground.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com