The ten most dangerous jobs

While it is generally known that the highest number of workplace fatalities occur among truck drivers and material moving occupations, 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 are:

No. 1 – Loggers

The most-dangerous profession, loggers experienced 91 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 135.9 out of 100,000 workers, an increase of 33% since 2011, when it was ranked number two. Risks: falls, struck-by, dangerous tools such as chainsaws and axes

No. 2 – Fishers and related fishing workers

Fishermen experienced 24 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 86 out of 100,000 workers, which was a decline of 29% since 2011, when it was ranked number one. Risks: drowning, struck by lightning, crushed by equipment

No. 3 – Aircraft pilots and flight engineers

Pilots and flight engineers experienced 75 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 55.5 out of 100,000 workers, a slight drop from 2011. Risks: crashes

No. 4 – Roofers

Roofers experienced 101 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 48.6 out of 100,000 workers, an increase of 50% since 2011. Risks: falls, struck-by, and heat

No. 5 – Refuse and recyclable material collectors

Refuse and recyclable material collectors experienced 31 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 34.1 out of 100,000 workers, a decrease of 17% since 2011. Risks: dangerous machinery, crushed by equipment, struck-by, traffic accidents, struck by vehicle

No. 6 – Structural iron and steel workers

Steel and ironworkers experienced 16 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 25.1 out of 100,000 workers, a slight decrease from 2011. Risks: falls, struck-by, heat, crushed by materials

No. 7 – Truck drivers and other drivers

Employees who drive for work – including truck drivers – experienced 918 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 24.1 out of 100,000 workers, which is similar to 2011. 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 260 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 23.1 out of 100,000 workers, a slight decline from 2011. Risks: dangerous machinery, chemicals, heat

No. 9 – Supervisors of construction workers

First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers experienced 134 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 18 out of 100,000 workers. Risks: struck-by, falls at height and on level, heat, use of large equipment

No. 10 – Grounds maintenance workers

New to the list, grounds maintenance workers experienced 217 fatalities in 2016 for a fatality rate of 17.4 out of 100,000 workers. Risks: heat, cold, noise, chemical exposure, ergonomics-related issues, machinery

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

Court decision: OSHA not legally bound by five-year look back for repeat violations

A recent court decision indefinitely extending the time limitation for OSHA to assess repeat violations has serious implications for employers. The case, Triumph Construction Corp. v. Sec. of Labor, involved a repeat excavation-related citation issued to Triumph Construction Corp. in 2014. A prior citation of the same evacuation standard was issued to Triumph in 2009.

Triumph argued that the repeat citation was not appropriate because the amount of time that had passed from the original 2009 citation to the new 2014 alleged violation was outside OSHA’s stated repeat look-back policy in its Field Operations Manual (FOM), which was three years at the time. Under the Obama administration in 2016, the FOM was updated to expand the look back period to five years.

However, an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the repeat citation. The court pointed out that neither the Occupational Safety and Health Act nor the regulations OSHA had issued under the Act spelled out any time period that limited the issuance of repeat citations. The time limitation set forth in the enforcement manual “is only a guide” and “is not binding on OSHA or the commission.”

In effect, the ruling means OSHA has the discretion, to go as far back as it wishes to identify any prior substantially similar violations to serve as the basis for a “repeat” violation.

Why it’s important

Repeat violations can harm employers in a number of ways. First, the maximum penalties are ten times higher than serious and other-than-serious violations – $129,336 compared to $12,934. Plus, a violation at one location of a multi-establishment company can be used as the basis for a repeat violation at any other location in a fed OSHA state within that organization, a policy established under the Obama administration that still stands.

Yet, even more important is the way that repeat violations are used. OSHA continues to issue the shaming press releases for significant offenses and that includes repeat violations. Also, it increases the possibility of an establishment being placed into the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP), where they are publicly branded as severe violators, subject to more inspections, and have no way to get out. Further, it can affect insurance premiums and the ability to compete for contracts.

What employers should do

The best practice, of course, is to avoid OSHA inspections and citations. However, if an inspection occurs and minor penalties are issued, don’t assume that the best course of action is to pay the penalty. The court decision has made it clear that the FOM is not binding on OSHA or the Commission and does not create any substantive rights for employers. If a serious citation is issued and confirmed, the risk of a much more costly and damaging repeat violation exists indefinitely. When there is a good faith defense, it may be well worth contesting the violation.

If a citation is confirmed, employers should be vigilant to ensure that citations regarding the same hazards don’t reoccur.

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

Prequalifying your business can be money in the bank

Companies are constantly looking for ways to give themselves a competitive advantage. Often times, it’s their Experience Modification Factor (MOD). It’s easy to overlook since employers tend to be somewhat uninformed when it comes to Workers’ Compensation. Although it’s certainly a significant employee benefit, on one hand, it’s also a powerful business benchmark that is carefully scrutinized by possible business partners.

The MOD is the biggest driver of a company’s workers’ compensation rates; the lower the MOD, the lower the rates. Therefore, companies with lower modifiers have a lower productivity cost structure, which makes them more competitive and profitable by securing more jobs. The exact opposite is true as well; a higher MOD leads to higher costs, and makes it more difficult to compete. However, there are more dire consequences for those with high MOD’s – no work.

Let’s face it. Companies and risk managers are using the MOD as a significant determining factor to disqualify firms from bidding on projects. If an experience modifier is over 1.00, the company may be viewed as unsafe, and, therefore, does not get the job. Companies know they must do something about their MOD, but don’t know what to do. The good news is that the MOD is as manageable as any other business function, as long as people are motivated to do so.

Here are a few examples of what we’re talking about:

  • A machine shop with a 1.3 MOD six years ago has seen it drop to 0.745, which is the third-best in PA within its classification, out of 228 companies. Before implementing changes to improve their MOD, they were unable to receive a multi-million-dollar contract, even as the low bidder, since the purchasing company’s risk manager viewed them as an unsafe company and questioned the quality of their work. They now have been able to win that contract and have grown from 58 to 110 employees.
  • An asbestos abatement and insulation contractor had a 1.02 MOD, barely above 1.00. Despite being low bidder, they were unable to receive 11 jobs in a three-year period because they were “disqualified” as “unsafe”. The contractor could not qualify for private work and, therefore, had to try and compete in the very low-profit margin, highly competitive government arena. Working with the owner to implement a “zero-accident” safety culture and adding processes to address lost time injuries, within three-years, the contractor had one of the best modifiers in the state. Recently, they were even asked to take over a job from a contractor who was thrown off of it because the contractor’s MOD went over 1.00. The company went from barely surviving, to thriving.
  • A 55-employee cable and fiber optic line installer with a 1.65 MOD was informed by the telecommunications company that they had two years to be in compliance with their safety guidelines, which included a requirement of a MOD less than 1.00. Since the telecommunications company represented 90% of their work, losing the contract most likely would put the company out of business.

    Step one was working with the contractor and the telecommunications company. The contractor was given an extension to four-years, but they had to hit benchmarks in terms of number of injuries that would be verified through loss runs from their insurance company and their OSHA logs. The second step was putting in an aggressive behavior-based safety program as their injury frequency had to be cut by 60% to be in compliance in the first year, and 80% in two years. Based on their results, they were compliant and actually went 19 months without an injury. They will be in compliance with a MOD below 1.00 in three-years as well and are looking forward to bidding on work from other telecommunication companies now.

Each of these companies is far better positioned to compete by improving its Workers’ Compensation performance.

With such striking results, what keeps companies from achieving stellar performance? Our experience points to two primary factors:

  • Lack of owner support and commitment to improving the organization’s operations. This includes difficulty in scheduling training sessions, meetings consistently being canceled and an overall company culture that is driven primarily by the owner’s unwillingness to change, focusing on productivity issues only, or having “too many irons in the fire”.
  • The insurance company’s reluctance to support an appropriate claims management process. Claims adjusters often feel threatened by a consultant’s claims management staff and avoid communicating with them. Unfortunately, any insurance company can have “unseasoned” adjusters, who don’t fully understand the Workers’ Compensation laws and don’t have any “skin in the game”.

But it doesn’t need to be this way. Things can go right under the right conditions:

  • Obtaining the full support of owner and executive management staff to implement cultural changes within an organization.
  • Appropriate consultants are given the time necessary to conduct specific training programs with front-line supervisors and implement necessary policies and procedures.
  • Conducting a comprehensive loss trending analysis to identify those losses that are driving the company’s claim frequency and severity. Then, with an evaluation of the findings, develop and implement processes to change the negative culture that is driving both claims frequency and severity.

There are a number of significant factors that help transform a company’s culture:

  • Management commitment is the most important factor in changing the attitude of the workforce. Management commitment is the first and most important thing.
  • Next is installing the necessary elements to achieve the desired results. Usually, business owners fail to recognize the impact accident costs have on the business. This is why they need to see the data to understand that injury prevention and injury management are 100% controllable expenses. Since these are employee costs, it starts with hiring, training, and monitoring employees for continuous improvement: Plan, Do, Check, Act.
  • Since companies differ, it’s critical to gain an understanding of how to formulate a plan that produces the desired results.
  • Another important consideration in the whole process is that all companies are different, both culturally and functionally. Identifying these differences in the early stages of engagement is important in order to formulate an effective plan to achieve the desired results. This includes developing standardized operating procedures and then conducting training in hiring, accident investigation, workplace inspections, audits, etc.

All of this is anything but an academic exercise. It’s the process of creating a happy, productive and injury-free workforce, along with a business that is successful because it has a competitive advantage that makes it attractive to customers.

And behind it all is the Experience Modification Factor. The MOD is used rather than OSHA Recordable and DART (Days Away, Restricted Time) rates by risk managers as a benchmark. Unlike the OSHA log, third parties promulgate the MOD, such as the state Workers’ Compensation rating bureau and insurance companies that create and provide the data, which are viewed as reliable sources.

Unfortunately, however, the MOD is subject to the severity of claims or even a single large claim, where frequency (the number of injuries adjusted for individual size for comparison) may be a better indicator as to safety performance. However, many risk managers view these records as unreliable, feeling that they can be altered by a company. As a result, the modifier is viewed as a reliable basis for review.

The bottom line is clear: making a diligent effort to get a company’s Experience Modification Factor to the lowest allowable level may determine whether a company gets a job or not.

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

OSHA’s removal of the term “unexpected energization” from the LOTO standard likely to lead to more citations

Under the Obama administration, OSHA began an effort under the Standards Improvement Project 4 to fix minor, noncontroversial issues in several existing regulations, including the lockout/tagout regulation. While these issues typically include correcting typos, eliminating redundancies and clarifying vague language, the proposal to remove the term “unexpected energization” from the lockout/tagout regulation is a significant change, according to many experts.

There was a 6th Circuit court case in 1996, Reich v. GM Delco interpreting the term “unexpected energization” that is used in the standard. Employers have relied upon this decision for over 20 years. In this case, the court found that alarms and flashing lights provided sufficient warning of a machine starting up and removed the risk of unexpected energization and overturned the willful lockout/tagout violations.

In so doing, the court noted that the standard “unambiguously renders LOTO inapplicable where an employee is alerted or warned the machine is about to activate.” It went on to say that it applies “where service employee is endangered by a machine that can startup w/out employee’s foreknowledge.” It is not unexpected if:

  • Alarm gives clear, audible, timely warning
  • Controls located so servicer is necessarily aware of start-up
  • Equipment unplugged & exclusively controlled by servicer

Experts postulate that the change will result in more citations because it removes one well known method of addressing hazardous energy. OSHA also is scheduled to complete its Standards Improvement Project IV in FY 2018.

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

Getting LOTO wrong is costly: Here’s how to get it right

Many companies believe they are in compliance with OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) standard; yet, it is one of the most difficult to comply with and is the number five violation in general industry and construction. To give you an idea of the standard’s complexity, a compliance directive to explain the enforcement policy and inspection procedures for compliance officers is 136 pages long, whereas the standard is only a few pages.

An increased focus on violations of Lockout/Tagout (1910.147) and Machine Guarding (1910.212, .213, .217, and .219) began in 2006 with the Amputations National Emphasis Program (NEP). This became even more pronounced when OSHA changed the requirements for reporting work-related fatalities and severe injuries in 2015. Employers must report any in-patient hospitalization, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours of learning of the incident.

When an amputation is reported, it’s almost certain that an inspection will take place. In 2017, more than 10% (3,596) of all OSHA inspections were under the Amputations NEP, 75% of which were in manufacturing, and 1,247 were triggered by employer reports.

What’s important to note is that this resulted in 7,850 citations, including 302 willful and repeat violations, which carry maximum fines of $126,749. The proposed total cost of the citations is over $55 million. In addition to the potential for costly fines is the even more ominous possibility of being placed in OSHA’s Severe Violators Enforcement Program (SVEP).

One of the criteria OSHA uses to place an employer in the SVEP is 2+ Willful, Repeat, or Failure to Abate violations related to high emphasis hazards. There are only nine high emphasis hazards and amputations is one of them. According to a Conn Maciel Carey PLLC webinar, 68% of the SVEP cases fall under this qualifying criterion.

When OSHA puts an employer in the SVEP, it issues a press release before employers can contest the citation(s). This can have a negative impact on recruiting employees, obtaining bids and permits, and be devastating to a company’s reputation. Moreover, there are mandatory follow-up inspections, inspections at related facilities, and corporate-wide abatements. It’s not a place employers want to be – once designated as a severe violator, there is no clear-cut method for getting out of the program. And it’s not only large employers that are affected. Small employers make up the majority, with about 75% having 100 or fewer employees and roughly 55% having 25 or fewer employees.

Lastly, LOTO is among the most frequent OSH Act criminal violations.

What employers get wrong

When OSHA conducts an inspection, it’s relatively easy to spot LOTO violations. In 2017, the most frequent standard section cited was related to machine-specific procedures: 1910.147(c)(4)(i) – procedures shall be developed, documented, and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy. Employers that are cited often misunderstand the scope of activities covered by LOTO. They often focus exclusively on electrical hazards, but the standard covers a broad range of energy sources, such as mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, thermal, or other types of energy.

The program must include written equipment-specific LOTO procedures for all equipment, including vehicles such as forklifts and trucks, with hazardous energy sources and must include all energy sources. While it is possible to group equipment and machinery that have the same hazardous energy sources and the same or similar methods of controlling the energy, some employers do not understand the criteria for grouping that is set forth in section IX of OSHA’s compliance directive, or may neglect to list all covered machinery in the scope of the energy control procedure.

In some cases, employers neglect to document key elements of the procedure. There are also specific rules that apply when a contractor services the machinery and noncompliance leads to citations.

Employers and employees may mistakenly believe a procedure falls under the minor servicing exception. The standard contains specific criteria that must be met for the minor servicing exception to apply and all elements must be satisfied for an exception. Other common mistakes include not updating the procedures when changes occur, applying the construction rather than general industry standard, and overlooking facility support and operational equipment, such as HVAC machinery, boilers, and compressors.

The second most frequently cited standard is 1910.147(c)(6)(i) – the employer shall conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirements of this standard are being followed. In this case, annual means every twelve months. Some companies have the wrong person conducting the inspection. It must be an “authorized employee” other than the workers utilizing the lockout/tagout procedure being inspected.

If machines are grouped together the inspection must be of a representative number of employees implementing the procedure. “Representative” is subject to interpretation, so it’s important to have a rationale for the number chosen (complexity, older procedure, etc.). Moreover, the outcome of the inspection must be reviewed with all authorized employees as part of the periodic inspection. Employers also must “certify” that the inspections include the machine or equipment on which the energy control procedure was being utilized, the date of the inspection, the employees included in the inspection, and the person performing the inspection. And inspections must take place for each one of the LOTO procedures.

The third most cited standard is 1910.147(c)(1) – The employer shall establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performs any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup, or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.

A written lockout procedure is not required when a machine only has one energy supply that’s easy to identify and lock out. The machine can’t have any potential for stored energy and locking that one energy isolating device completely de-energizes the machine. Even if an employer uses an outside contractor for servicing and does no in-house servicing, a LOTO program is required because there are affected employees.

Fourth is related to training. 1910.147(c)(7)(i) – The employer shall provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by the employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by the employees.

Employers do a good job of training authorized employees, but sometimes overlook affected employees (who operate equipment being serviced) and all other employees who may be present in areas where LOTO is utilized, including management. Also, temporary employees often are forgotten. Another common problem is failure to develop “Group Lockout” procedures when more than two employees service a machine or to require use of a Group Lockout device.

Other common citations include wrong use of locks, wrong use of tags, and working under someone else’s lock.

Complying with OSHA’s Control of Hazardous Energy policy is difficult and the consequences for violating the regulation can be severe. Proposed changes in the regulation (see next article) may lead to more citations. An effective program will reduce the potential for employee injury as well as regulatory liability.

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

OSHA watch

Civil penalties increase to adjust for inflation

OSHA is required to annually adjust civil penalties under a 2015 law that significantly increased the maximum penalties allowed for violations. In January, the maximum penalty for willful and repeat violations increased from $126,749 to $129,336. The maximum fines for other-than-serious, serious, and failure to abate violations rose from $12,615 to $12,934 per violation.

The updated regulatory agenda for fall 2017 contains fewer changes than the previous agenda

The fall agenda shows 16 regulations in three active stages: pre-rule, proposed rule and final rule – up from 14 in the previous agenda. Two rules were moved from “long-term action” status: amendments to the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard (now in the proposed rule stage), and Rules of Agency Practice and Procedure Concerning OSHA Access to Employee Medical Records (final rule stage).

The following regulations moved from the proposed rule stage in the previous agenda to the final rule stage in the new agenda:

  • Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
  • Crane Operator Qualification in Construction
  • Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol: Amendment to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection
  • Technical Corrections to 16 OSHA Standards
  • Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

The status of Standards Improvement Project IV, (Lockout/Tagout) the only regulation listed in the final rule stage in July, has not changed.
New fact sheet: Housekeeping, sanitation practices in commercial fishing

The new fact sheet, Commercial Fishing: Safe Housekeeping and Sanitation Practices, states that over half of the recordable injuries in commercial fishing are preventable through good housekeeping and sanitary practices.
New publication warns of fatal confined space hazards on farms

An addition to the Fatal Facts series emphasizes the hazards of working in confined spaces on farms. These spaces include grain and feed silos, sump pits, and manure storage tanks. The fact sheet examines an incident in which a worker asphyxiated inside a whey storage tank.
Safety reminders for snow removal activities

Wintry weather has taken hold across much of the country and employers and workers are reminded to stay mindful of safety during snow removal activities.
Enforcement notes

California

  • International Polymer Solutions Inc. in Irvine received five citations related to failing to properly control hazardous energy when a moving machine part flew off and struck a worker in the chest, causing serious injury. Proposed penalties are $55,650.
  • Hadley Date Gardens Inc. in Thermal was cited for serious workplace safety and health violations following a bee swarm that stung and killed a tree worker. The company faces $41,310 in proposed penalties for failing to evaluate the worksite for hazardous bee and insect exposure, and failing to establish appropriate safety protocols, which include providing protective equipment and training.

Florida

  • Action Concrete Construction Inc. of Panama City Beach faces proposed penalties of $59,864 for exposing its employees to fall hazards and eye injuries.
  • A fatality investigation involving the death of five workers at the Big Bend River Station electrical power plant in Apollo Beach resulted in citations to Tampa Electric Co. and Gaffin Industrial Services Inc., totaling over $160,000. The fines related to energy control procedures and PPE.

Georgia

  • Koch Foods of Gainesville L.L.C. was cited for multiple safety and health violations at its poultry processing plant, including a repeat violation for exposing employees to amputation hazards by failing to provide machine guarding. Proposed penalties are $208,977.
  • Stalwart Films LLC faces proposed penalties totaling the maximum allowable fine of $12,675, for the company’s failure to provide adequate protection from fall hazards. While filming the television show, “The Walking Dead.,” a stuntman was fatally injured after falling more than 20 feet.
  • Social Circle-based Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. faces proposed penalties of $69,058 for exposing its employees to burn, hazardous energy, amputation, and caught-in safety hazards.
  • Thomson-based auto parts manufacturer HP Pelzer Systems Automotive Inc. faces penalties for safety violations and proposed penalties totaling $129,336 after an employee suffered a finger amputation.

Illinois

  • A pallet manufacturer, New Lenox-based Supplyside USA, which operates as Prime Woodcraft Inc., faces $91,862 in penalties after an employee was injured while performing maintenance on equipment.
  • A mechanic, who alleged he was terminated after voicing concerns about unsafe working conditions at a bowling center owned by Lucky Strike Entertainment LLC, in Lombard, will receive a total of $40,000 in back wages as part of a consent judgment.

Indiana

  • An administrative law judge affirmed citations against Fort Wayne-based commercial construction company, CME Corp, after a temporary employee was injured when he fell through an unguarded hole, but lowered the assessed fine to $6,500 in total penalties because of the company’s strong safety record. The company had contested the fine, arguing the opening was a point of access to the upper level from the pit and did not need to be guarded under the applicable regulations.

Massachusetts

  • Schnabel Foundation Company faces $212,396 in proposed penalties for failing to protect employees against crushing hazards while they installed permanent foundation supports beneath the Woburn Public Library. A 2,600-pound rock dislodged from the foundation and fatally struck an employee.

New York

  • Marshall Ingredients LLC faces over $300,000 in proposed penalties after a temporary worker suffered a hand amputation. The company was cited for failing to protect employees against amputations and other hazards at its Wolcott facility. The temporary staffing agency, People Ready, was also cited with two serious violations for lack of hazardous energy control and fire extinguisher training. Proposed penalties totaled $24,020.

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

OSHA and EEOC regulatory updates and enforcement stats on first year of Trump administration

OSHA

Rule and policy status

  • Maximum penalties for violations increased to adjust for inflation as of Jan. 2, 2018.OSHA is required to annually adjust civil penalties under a 2015 law that significantly increased the maximum penalties allowed for violations. In January, the maximum penalty for willful and repeat violations increased from $126,749 to $129,336. The maximum fines for other-than-serious, serious, and failure to abate violations rose from $12,615 to $12,934 per violation.
  • General industry compliance date for Beryllium Standard – March 12, 2018
  • General industry compliance date for Silica rule – June 23, 2018
  • Certification of crane operators – Nov. 10, 2018
  • Elements of Walking-Working Surfaces & Fall Protection – Nov. 19, 2018
  • Rewrite of Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) remains active in the final rule stage under the Standards Improvement Project to make non-controversial changes to confusing or outdated standards. The proposal is to remove “unexpected energization” language from the standard.
  • Injury Data Electronic Submission. OSHA is working on a draft of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to “reconsider, revise, or remove provisions of the “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” final rule. While July 1, 2018 remains the deadline for the next data submission, OSHA recently changed its website to read: “Covered establishments with 250 or more employees are only required to provide their 2017 Form 300A summary data. OSHA is not accepting Form 300 and 301 information at this time.” Pundits are speculating that changes will include increasing the thresholds for high hazard industries and small employers, limiting submission to Form 300A, and eliminating the Anti-Retaliation provisions.
  • There has been no pullback in the criminal prosecution of employers for willful violations that result in a fatality. A.G. Sessions has not archived the Yates memo, which was issued under the Obama administration and expanded individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing and encouraged use of the tougher environmental statutes. Many expect continued criminal prosecutions.
  • There has been a shift away from the enforcement-heavy philosophy of the Obama administration and an increase in compliance assistance programs and alliances. NBC News recently reported that the number of OSHA inspectors fell 4 percent over the first nine months of 2017; 40 inspectors had left the agency and not been replaced. Impact varied by region, with the Southeast region losing 10 inspectors and experiencing a 26% decline in inspections in the first eight months of the Trump administration. However, inspections in 2017 did increase overall.
  • To date, there has been no change to the expanded scope of the Obama administration’s repeat violation policies. However, this should be watched as many expect a return to the treatment of individual, independent workplaces rather than an umbrella corporate approach and a lookback period of three, rather than five years.
  • There is an effort underway to revitalize the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP).
  • There was a significant shift away from public shaming. Only 45 press releases related to fines were published in 2017, compared to an average of 463/year for the previous five years. (Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P.)
  • Even though Fed OSHA is reducing the emphasis on enforcement, some state OSH programs, such as California, are increasing enforcement.

Enforcement stats

A recent webinar by the law firm, Washington-based Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P. took a look at OSHA enforcement action in 2017 and the results may surprise you:

  • While the number of OSHA inspections declined each year from 2012 to 2016, they increased 1.4% from 31,948 in 2016 to 32,396 in 2017
  • The number of violations issued has declined since 2010. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of violations declined from 59,856 to 52,519 or 12.2%
  • The percentage of inspections that resulted in no citations issued has remained relatively stable – between 23% and 27%
  • The average penalty per serious violation was $3,645 in 2017, up from $3,415 in 2016
  • The cases with proposed penalties of $100,000 of more jumped dramatically from 154 in 2016 to 218 in 2017, but million-dollar cases fell from an average of 8.4 per year to 6 in 2017
  • The number of repeat violations dropped from 3,146 in 2016 to 2,771 in 2017

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Rule and policy status

  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has vacated the EEOC’s wellness rule effective Jan. 1, 2019, instructing the agency that its goal of revising the rule by 2021 is too slow
  • The Obama rule for large companies to report wages by race and gender on the EEO-1 form was stayed by the Office of Management and Budget in August 2017, except for the new March 31 filing deadline. Covered employers must file their 2017 Form EEO-1 no later than March 31, 2018 and the snapshot period used to compile data should be one pay period during the period from October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
  • A pullback on efforts to expand Title VII to cover sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is expected

Enforcement stats

  • Retaliation charges accounted for the largest number of charges (41,097) filed in fiscal year 2017 for the seventh consecutive year and represented 48.8% of all charges
  • While the overall number of charges filed declined by 7.9%, there was only a slight decline in retaliation charges
  • Following retaliation, race was the second most frequent charge filed with the agency in fiscal year 2017 (28,528) – 33.9% of the total. This was followed by disability, 26,838, or 31.9% of the total; sex, 25,605, or 30.4% and age, 18,376, or 21.8%.
  • The agency also received 6,696 sexual harassment charges and obtained $46.3 million in monetary benefits for victims of sexual harassment

According to the 14th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report issued by Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P, key 2017 trends were:

  • The monetary value of top workplace class action settlements rose dramatically, with the top 10 settlements in various employment-related class action categories totaling $2.27 billion, an increase of more than $970 million from 2016’s $1.75 billion
  • Evolving case law precedents and new defense approaches resulted in better outcomes for employers in opposing class certification requests
  • There was no “head-snapping pivot” in filings and settlement of government enforcement litigation despite the change in administration. In fact, government enforcement litigation increased in 2017
  • Several key U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the past year were arguably more pro-business than past year’s decisions

Despite the change in the administration and the Trump deregulatory agenda, the enforcement stats suggest workplace issues are still a high priority for OSHA and the EEOC. Some speculate this will change when new leadership is fully in place. Others suggest that significant enforcement will continue since the language and requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act make deregulation difficult without legal challenges and even if the risk of being subjected to systemic EEOC litigation lessens, employers who do not have robust and effective anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and practices will remain at significant risk of litigation from private attorneys.

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

Things you should know

Fatal work injuries reach highest level since 2008

Workplace fatalities increased for the third year in a row in 2016, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, rising to 5,190, a 7% increase from the 4,836 fatal injuries reported in 2015. Double-digit increases were reported in workplace violence and overdose fatalities.

Work injuries involving transportation incidents remained the most common fatal event in 2016, accounting for 2,083 fatalities, or 40% of the overall total. But violence and other injuries by persons or animals increased 23% to 866 cases, becoming the second-most common fatal event in 2016. Fatal work injuries from slips, trips and falls were the third-most common fatal event last year.

Texas was the state with the highest number of worker deaths (545), followed by California (376), Florida (309) and New York (272). In all, 36 states experienced increases in deaths due to workplace injuries in 2016.


Operation Airbrake puts 2,700 CMVs out of service for brake-related violations

An unannounced inspection blitz of commercial motor vehicles resulted in 14 percent being placed out of service for brake-related violations, according to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. On Brake Safety Day, which took place Sept. 7, CVSA inspectors checked 7,698 trucks and buses in the United States and Canada. The inspections resulted in 1,064 vehicles being taken out of service for brake violations and 1,680 (22 percent) for other infractions.


New video for tower workers: Safe use of snow-tracked vehicles

A new video highlights the proper operation of snow-tracked vehicles when accessing remote tower locations.


NIOSH withdraws proposed rule on respirator leakage standards

NIOSH has withdrawn a notice of proposed rulemaking that would have established standards for total inward leakage of half-mask air-purifying particulate respirators. According to NIOSH, the public comment period produced enough evidence to convince the agency to rescind the notice.

 

 

State News

California

  • A new law lowering the corporate officers’ ownership threshold for opting out of work comp coverage to 10%, from a current 15%, will be effective July 1.
  • The closed drug formulary for workers’ compensation will be updated quarterly by a committee of three doctors and three pharmacists who will meet several times a year, according to the Division of Workers Compensation.
  • The Department of Industrial Relations announced 376 workers died on the job in 2016, down slightly from 388 deaths in 2015 but still higher than the most recent low of 344 in 2014.

Florida

  • The Office of Judges of Compensation Claims reported that claimants’ attorney fees increased 36% in the latest fiscal year, following the state Supreme Court’s April 2016 decision in Castellanos v. Next Door Co., which reinstated hourly fees for claimants’ attorneys.

Illinois

  • Medical payments per workers compensation claim were 24% higher than the median for other states examined in a new study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI).

Kansas

  • In 2016, there were 74 fatal work-related injuries according to the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), 50% of which were transportation incidents.

Michigan

  • Workers’ compensation medical payments are among the lowest in the country, according to a WCRI study medical payments per claim, limited to 2.2% per year, due in part to lower prices paid for professional services as well as lower payments per service for hospital outpatient services.

Missouri

  • The Department of Insurance is recommending a 3% decrease in workers’ compensation insurance loss costs for 2018, on top of a 4% decrease that took effect on Aug. 1.

Minnesota

  • Minnesota experienced 92 workplace fatalities in 2016, a 24.3% increase over the prior year and 48.3% above the 2015 rate. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting accounted for the most deaths, followed by construction.
  • The Workers’ Compensation Assigned Risk Plan has issued a notice regarding rates for new and renewal policies, effective Jan. 1 through March 31. Because certain classification codes have been eliminated and two new classification codes created, MWCARP is publishing new rate pages, effective Jan. 1. The eliminated classification codes are 1655, 1853, 3175, 3223, 4053, 4061, 4101, 6017, 7228, 7229 and 9149.The new classification codes are 7219 and 7225.

Mississippi

  • Workers die on the job at a rate double that of the national average, according to the National Employment Law Project. The national average is 3.4 deaths per 100,000 workers, while Mississippi’s rate is 6.8, the fourth highest number in the country for 2015, behind North Dakota’s more than 12, Wyoming’s 10 and Montana’s 7.5. The leading fatal work injuries by occupation were 35% for transportation/material moving and 17% for construction/extraction.

New York

  • Gov. Andrew Cuomo has signed legislation that will require workers’ compensation insurers to notify policyholders 30 days before hiking their renewal premiums by more than 10%.
  • The medical share of total workers’ compensation benefit costs dropped to 37% in 2015 and 2016 from a high of 42% in 2007, while the national average is 51.4%, according to a report by the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board.

North Carolina

  • Medical payments per workers compensation claim decreased 6% per year from 2013 through 2015, according to the WCRI, likely due to fee schedule rules.
  • The Industrial Commission reminds stakeholders of a new employee misclassification statute that went into effect Dec. 31.

Pennsylvania

  • Acting Insurance Commissioner Jessica Altman has approved an emergency loss cost increase of 6.06%, effective Feb. 1, in response to the state Supreme Court’s Protz decision.

 

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

OSHA watch

Industry challenge to silica rule rejected by court

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected all industry challenges to the silica rule and ordered the agency to explain why it omitted medical removal provisions. Industry groups had challenged the rule on several points, including whether there was evidence it would reduce a significant risk of material health impairment, whether it was technically and economically feasible, and if it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It also challenged whether substantial evidence supports two ancillary provisions of the rule: allowing workers who undergo medical examinations to keep the results confidential from their employers; and prohibiting employers from using dry cleaning methods unless doing so is infeasible.

Labor unions challenged two parts of the silica rule: the requirement that medical surveillance for construction workers be provided only if the employee must wear a respirator for 30 days for one employer in a one-year period; and the absence of medical removal protections. The court rejected the first, but asked for an explanation of the second.


New and revised fact sheets on silica now available

More than a dozen fact sheets that provide guidance on the respirable crystalline silica standard for construction have been released.


Redesigned webpages make it easier to find training resources

Employers and employees can get information on job safety classes, trainers, tools, and 10-hour and 30-hour cards on the redesigned training webpage.

Tips to protect workers from winter hazards

The Winter Weather webpage provides information on protecting employees from hazards while working outside during severe cold and snow storms, including information on staying safe while clearing heavy snow from walkways and rooftops.


Alliance participants issue alert on use of multi-gas monitors in the oil and gas industry

A new hazard alert explains how multi-gas monitors can protect workers from atmospheric hazards in oil and gas operations.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Following the collapse of a temporary mold and vertical shoring at an Oakland construction site, which hospitalized 13 workers, Cal/OSHA issued serious and serious accident-related citations to subcontractors Largo Concrete Inc. and N.M.N. Construction Inc. for $73,365 and $70,320, respectively. General citations were issued to general contractor Johnstone Moyer Inc. for $3,630.

Florida

  • Inspected under the NEP on Trenching and Excavation, Tallahassee-based, R.A.W. Construction LLC faces proposed penalties of $148,845 for exposing its employees to trench collapse hazards.

Georgia

  • Inspected under the NEP on Trenching, Dustcom Limited Inc., a Garden City construction company, was cited for failing to protect its employees from trench collapse hazards and faces proposed penalties of $130,552.

Illinois

  • Three companies working on the renovation of Chicago’s Old Post Office were cited for failing to comply with respiratory protection, provide training, and properly handle PPE. American Demolition was also cited for failing to establish a written lead compliance program. Proposed penalties for American Demolition Corporation, Valor Technologies Inc., and Tecnica Environmental Services Inc. are $105,765, $64,538, and $50,194, respectively.

Indiana

  • A Jeffersonville home and farm supply center, Rural King Supply, is facing proposed fines of $14,000 after state safety inspectors allegedly found elevated carbon monoxide levels at the facility due to emissions from improperly maintained forklifts.

Kansas

  • A comprehensive settlement has been reached with Bartlett Grain Company LP requiring the company to implement safeguards, training, and audit procedures at its 20 grain handling facilities in six states.The agreement resolves contested citations issued in April 2012 after six individuals were killed and two injured as a result of an explosion at the Atchison grain elevator. Bartlett Grain has also agreed to pay $182,000 in penalties.

Michigan

  • MIOSHA issued a second Cease Operations Order, the strongest enforcement action the agency can levy, against Sunset Tree Service & Landscaping, LLC of Bay City for continuing to operate without abating hazards on the jobsite.

Missouri

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed citations issued against Wentzville-based Auchly Roofing Inc. for failing to use fall protection, but reduced the penalties from $7,482 to $2,494 based on the small size of the employer, good faith safety efforts, and a clean record for 20 years. The company contested the citations, arguing that the violations were de minimis in nature and that compliance with the fall protection standards cited presented a greater hazard to the employees.

New York

  • A jury and judge ordered Albany-based asbestos abatement and demolition company, Champagne Demolition, LLC and its owner, Joseph A. Champagne, to pay $173,793.84 to a former employee who was fired in June 2010 after reporting improper asbestos removal practices at a school worksite in Gloversville.

Pennsylvania

  • US Environmental Inc. was cited for 12 safety violations, including willfully exposing workers to confined space and fall hazards at its Downingtown location. Proposed penalties are $333,756.
  • The owner of Pittsburgh-based, A Rooter Man, pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge of willfully violating an OSHA regulation, resulting in the death of a worker. Sentencing, which could include prison, is scheduled for February 2018.

 

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

OSHA news

Deadline for electronic injury, illness reports was Dec. 15 now Dec. 31.

OSHA delayed reporting requirement until Dec. 31 for employers to electronically submit injury and illness data. The agency’s final rule was published in the Nov. 24 Federal Register. According to OSHA, the delay allows “affected employers additional time to become familiar with a new electronic reporting system.”

The Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final rule, as it is formally known, mandates that employers with 250 or more workers, as well as those with 20 to 249 employees in high-risk industries such as agriculture, forestry, construction and manufacturing, electronically submit OSHA’s Form 300A. OSHA then would make the information public on its website.

OSHA is currently reviewing the other provisions of its final rule and intends to publish a notice of proposed rule-making to reconsider, revise or remove portions of that rule in 2018.

For the next reporting deadline of July 1, 2018, if you want to be able to more easily and efficiently manage reporting work related injuries and OSHA recordables, please feel free to look at our Free OSHA Software at http://www.stopbeingfrustrated.com/osha-logs.html

 

Few citations given under the anti-retaliation provisions of the electronic record-keeping rule

The electronic record-keeping rule’s anti-retaliation provisions went into effect Dec. 1, 2016 and required employers to inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses free from retaliation, specifically barred employers from retaliating against employees, and mandated that employer procedures to report work-related injuries and illnesses must be reasonable and not discourage reporting. Employers were encouraged to evaluate employee incentive programs related to injuries to be sure they did not violate the rule.

In addition, OSHA’s interpretations of the anti-retaliatory provisions warned that post-incident drug and alcohol testing could deter employees from reporting injuries and illnesses. Therefore, post-injury drug and alcohol testing policies should be limited to situations in which there is a reasonable possibility that an employee’s drug or alcohol use was a contributing factor to a reported incident.

These provisions were controversial and the basis of some litigation against the rule. However, according to a recent article in Business Insurance, OSHA has issued only a handful of citations under anti-retaliation provisions since they went into effect last year, with several open investigations.

The article noted that Ann Rosenthal, associate solicitor for the division of occupational safety and health with the Labor Department’s Office of the Solicitor in Washington, told attendees of the American Bar Association’s annual Labor and Employment Law Conference some citations were issued against unnamed employers related to incentive programs in which employees were penalized for injury and illness reporting. This included one employer whose program gave bonuses to employees who did not report lost-time days while those who reported them did not get bonuses. But several employers quickly settled these complaints by agreeing to change their policies and giving employees the incentives. “The rule can’t really outlaw the incentive programs,” Ms. Rosenthal said. “You can have the policy – you just can’t apply it to penalize the workers who report the injuries.”

She also noted she was not aware of a single drug testing case under the federal OSHA plan since the anti-retaliation provisions went into effect. Even though this information is encouraging for employers, it does not mean the rule can be ignored. Implemented properly and in compliance with the rule, incentive programs and post-accident drug testing are possible.
Fatality and serious injury reporting rule lessons from past three years

OSHA’s Fatality & Significant Injury Reporting Rule, which went into effect January 1, 2015, required employers to report all work-related fatalities within 8 hours and all work-related inpatient hospitalizations, amputations and losses of an eye within 24 hours. A recent webinar by Conn Maciel Carey, a boutique law firm focused on Labor & Employment, Workplace Safety, and Litigation, noted that each year the rule has been in effect, the number of reports has increased. This, in spite of the fact that overall workplace injuries have declined.

Through October 2017, there were 7,248 hospitalizations reported and 2,403 amputations reported. On an annualized current year basis, this is projected to be 11,581 total reports, compared to 10,395 in 2015. Once a report is made, one of three things happen: a mandatory inspection occurs, the Area Director has discretion to decide a course of action, or a rapid response investigation letter is sent. In 2017, there is a 47% inspection rate for reported amputations and a 26% inspection rate for fatalities.

In the webinar, Conn Maciel Carey noted that there are several instances where reports are submitted when they are not required under the rule. For example, the rule requires reporting “formal admission to the inpatient service of a hospital or clinic for care or treatment.” It does not include admission for observation or testing (even after receiving medical treatment in ER), outpatient care or care in a hospital prior to formal admission, and no longer requires overnight stay. An example they obtained from OSHA:

“Employee breaks leg, goes to ER where he begins to bleed out. ER replenishes blood before setting leg, but sends patient from ER to a ward where he is admitted for monitoring because of blood loss – NOT Reportable”

Timing is also a source of non-mandatory reporting. Injuries/fatalities are reportable only if:

  • Fatality results within 30 days of the day of the incident
  • Hospitalization occurs within 24 hours of the incident
  • Amputation / eye loss occurs within 24 hours of incident

Hospitals will often delay admissions because reimbursements for emergency services are higher or they may do major medical treatment in the emergency room followed by in-patient admission for observation only. For this reason, it is important to determine if the incident is truly reportable before making the report.

In addition to the over reporting of hospitalizations, other common mistakes include failing to report minor fingertip amputations, reporting non-employee injuries, making verbal or written admissions in the report, and only identifying “employee misconduct” as the reason. It’s important to note, that California has stricter rules and the federal rules should not be followed there.

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