A study released by the RAND corporation looking into California’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) indicates failures to “look beyond paper compliance with its provisions.” The paper points to training by employers and enforcement by regulators as having the most pronounced impact on injury rates under the program.

The IIPP law has required for the last 20 years that California employers develop an injury and illness prevention program and share it with employees. It also mandates training employees on safe practices. OSHA has made a priority of adopting a similar program at a federal level, I2P2, and has looked to California’s implementation as it considers moving forward with its plan.

The study into the impact of Cal/OSHA’s 20-year-old IIPP finds negligible impact on workplace deaths as a direct result of the program and cites more than 20 percent improvement in injuries — but only for workplace injury rates in workplaces that received citations and inspections.

John Mendeloff, study author and director of the RAND Center for Health and Safety in the Workplace, suggests a more involved enforcement mechanism to increase compliance and reduce injuries. However, along with the benefits of enforcement, he adds, “the training requirement appeared to have the greatest impact on injuries.”

The study, sponsored by the California Commission for Health, Safety and Workers’ Compensation, is the first evaluation of Cal/OSHA’s IIPP program. It paints a picture of effective I2P2 implementation that may require a more involved enforcement mechanism and emphasizes training and employee involvement as businesses implement an injury and illness prevention program.

Safety Services Company offers custom-built IIPP manuals for your organization so that your safety team can focus on implementation and training and see the benefits of IIPP without costly citations or inspections.

Workers’ compensation costs per claim for Louisiana grew at a double-digit rate in recent years, the fastest growth among all states in a new study by Cambridge, Mass.-based Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI).

The 16-state study, CompScope™ Benchmarks for Louisiana, 12th Edition, reported that costs per claim rose 11 percent per year from 2007 to 2009 with increases involved in all key cost components – medical, indemnity (payments for lost wages), and expenses per claim.

WCRI speculated that this rapid growth may reflect some impact from the recession, although it noted that the recession’s effects appear to have been less severe in Louisiana than in other states in part due to the post-Hurricane Katrina recovery.
The study said that indemnity benefits per claim rose nearly 11 percent per year in Louisiana during the period, a faster growth rate than in other study states during these observable recession years.

The main driver in the growth of indemnity benefits per claim was an increase in the average duration of temporary disability of nearly two weeks.

Medical payments per claim also grew faster in Louisiana during the period than in other study states — 26 percent compared to about 16 percent in the typical study state. These costs were among the highest of the 16 study states, 14 percent higher than typical.

The study noted that state officials and system stakeholders view medical treatment guidelines enacted in 2009 as a step toward possibly improving medical care for workers and reducing costs to employers and insurers.

Another factor in the higher medical payments per claim is that Louisiana has the highest prescription payments per claim.

Among other key findings, benefit delivery expenses per claim in the state were among the highest of the states studied, especially defenses attorney payments. Louisiana also had higher-than-typical average medical cost containment expenses and medical-legal expenses.

Along with its final report on three accidents that left five dead and three injured in a Tennessee metals plant, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board called on the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to develop and publish a combustible dust standard that includes coverage for metal dusts.

The Hoeganaes powdered metal plant in Gallatin, Tennessee was the site of one elevator accident and two flash fires during 2011. Following the accidents, regulators undertook a series of investigations into workplace safety at the facility. In the report, the regulatory body cites the explosive quality of fine metal powders as a significant factor in all three accidents.

Along with the report, the regulatory body issued a number of safety recommendations including one to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that encouraged OSHA to “Ensure that the forthcoming OSHA Combustible Dust Standard includes coverage for combustible metal dusts including iron and steel powders.”

While no OSHA standard exists that specifically covers the type of dust responsible for the accidents at the plant, CSB points to a number of National Fire Protection Association standards that could have prevented the fires if they were followed. “The three accidents at the Hoeganaes facility were entirely preventable,” CSB Chairperson Rafael Moure Eraso said, pointing out that while plant officials were aware of the hazards posed, “the company did not institute adequate dust control or housekeeping measures.”

Eraso added that while the explosion hazards of combustible dusts are widely known, they are often not included on material safety data sheets. The CSB last month joined OSHA’s support to aligning the existing hazard communication standard with the United Nation’s Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Both regulatory agencies support adding an “unclassified hazards” category to the system, which would include hazards like those posed by combustible dust.

Hazard communication standards and material safety data sheets change as hazards are recognized and regulations change, and it is up to businesses to respond promptly to remain in compliance with these changes. Safety Services Company helps businesses of all sizes with their hazard communication documentation and training to support workplace safety and be 100% compliant with all applicable regulations.

For more information call 877-397-9450.

The United States Department of Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) recently released a white paper affirming their belief that requiring all employers to maintain an Injury Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) will lead to both a decrease in occupational injuries and death and a cost savings for employers.

To substantiate these claims the paper pulls from multiple studies to illustrate the cost of workplace injury and effectiveness of I2P2 programs.

Highlighted studies pointing to the cost of injury, death and illness include a study by the Liberty Mutual Research Institute stating the most disabling workplace injuries in 2008 cost employers $53 billion.

A second study by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), estimates the annual workers’ compensation benefits paid for all compensable injuries and illnesses in 2009 at $58 billion (National Academy of Social Insurance, 2011). NASI further reports the total costs paid by employers for workers’ compensation increased from $60 billion in 2000 to $74 billion in 2009.

In terms of savings OSHA both looked at independent studies and examined the injury and illness prevention programs in eight states where the state had either required a program or provided incentives or requirements through its workers’ compensation programs.

In researching state programs OSHA found reductions in injury and illness from 9 to 60 percent by implementing an I2P2.

A few examples of state programs and their effectiveness include:

• Alaska which experienced a 17.4 percent decline injuries after requiring an I2P2
• California which experienced a 19 percent decline in injuries after requiring an I2P2
• Colorado which employers witnessed cumulative annual reduction in accidents of 23 percent and a cumulative reduction in accident costs between 58 and 62 percent.
• Hawaii which witnessed a net reduction in injuries and illnesses of 20.7 percent.

Currently thirty-four states require or encourage employers to implement I2P2 programs.

The basic elements of these programs are management leadership, worker participation, hazard identification and assessment, hazard prevention and control, education and training, and program evaluation and improvement.

Each element is important in ensuring the success of the overall program, and the elements are interrelated and interdependent.

OSHA began working on requiring employers to maintain an I2P2 in 2010. However, OSHA Director David Michaels told a house subcommittee in November 2011 that he was unable to provide a timeline for future activity on I2P2. Considering that some of the pushback from Congress has surrounded the I2P2 proposal in particular, the standard’s progress may depend on the as-yet undecided federal FY 2012 budget.

If you would like more information on purchasing an I2P2 program call 877-201-8923.

Read OSHA’s entire white paper below.

 
 
OSHAwhite Paper January 2012 Safety Manual

Michigan, Vermont, Florida, Arizona, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, California, Rhode Island, Kansas, Montana, New York, Illinois, Maine and several other states are rolling out changes to required labor law postings in January.

The changes included increases to minimum wage, updates to youth employment standards and more.

Employers are required by law to post the latest up-to-date rules and regulations from multiple government organizations. Failure to comply is punishable by fine.

To ensure your company maintains compliance with these constantly changing posting requirements we offer a federal and state poster service.

Through this program you receive two posters containing all you federal and state requirements, plus a year of our update service. Through the update service we send you any changes to the posters needed to maintain compliance.

For more information call 877-397-9450.

Exercise may be a recordable form of treatment, according to a letter of interpretation recently published by OSHA.

The letter dated May 20, 2011 and posted a few weeks ago on OSHA’s website states that  an exercise regime directed by a Certified Athletic Trainer (ATC) to an employee due to signs and symptoms of a work-related injury is considered medical treatment and recordable on the OSHA 300 log.

This is not the first time OSHA has looked at therapeutic exercise as a viable first aid treatment for workplace injury.

In January, 19 2001, OSHA discussed the issue in the preamble to the final rule revising OSHA’s injury and illness recordkeeping regulation

In the preamble the government safety organization stated it considers therapeutic exercise as a form of physical therapy and intentionally did not include it on the list of first aid treatments.

Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(M) states physical therapy or chiropractic treatment are considered medical treatment for OSHA recordkeeping purposes and are not considered first aid.

In the letter OSHA states that if a treatment is administered as a purely precautionary measure to an employee who does not exhibit any signs or symptoms of an injury or illness, the case is not recordable.  For a case to be recordable, an injury or illness must exist.

For example, if, as part of an employee wellness program, an ATC recommends exercise to employees that do not exhibit signs or symptoms of an abnormal condition, there is no case to record.  Furthermore, if an employee has an injury or illness that is not work-related, (e.g., the employee is experiencing muscle pain from home improvement work) the administration of exercise does not make the case recordable either

In the letter OSHA also addresses the following questions about exercise as a first aid treatment.

Would the providing of an employee with a written home exercise program (including sets/reps and resistance) constitute first aid or medical treatment?

This constitutes medical treatment.

If the ATC utilizes stretching to relieve their symptoms, does this service constitute medical treatment or first aid?
This constitutes medical treatment.

Is the number of times seen for care significant in determining recordability?

No. The number of times seen for care is not a factor when determining OSHA recordablity. The focus is on the type of treatment rather than the number of times such treatment is administered.

Is the duration or intensity of the care significant in determining recordability?

No. The duration or intensity of the care does not determine recordablity. Again, the focus is on the type of treatment.

One in four Canadian workers say they are highly stressed, according to a recent released study by Statistics Canada.

In the survey, 27 percent of workers, or almost 3.7 million working adults in Canada, said they were “quite a bit” or “extremely” stressed. Another 6.3 million (46 percent) reported being “a bit” stressed.
The one-in-four ratio is about the same as reported in two earlier surveys from 2002 and 2005. It represents a worrisome persistence of high workplace stress levels that over time can lead to absenteeism, reduced productivity, and rising disability claims, the Statistics Canada study said.

About 62 percent of the 3.7 million stressed workers identified their job or workplace as their main source of stress, the study found.

Among the remaining 38 percent of highly stressed workers, 12 percent said financial concerns were their main stressor, 12 percent pointed to not having enough time, and 8 percent indicated family matters.

Overall, the highly stressed workers who said their job or workplace was their main stressor were well-educated (nearly 75 percent had college or university education) and had white-collar jobs (over 50 percent).

According to a recent blog post by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, David Michaels, OSHA will begin to target texting while driving to crack down on employee injuries and death.

In 2009, distracted driving accounted for more than 5,400 traffic fatalities, or 16 percent of traffic fatalities. In terms of workplace fatalities motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause each year.

To battle this potent workplace hazard OSHA has partnered with the Federal Department of Transpiration (DOT) to create a campaign against distracted driving.

According to Michaels OSHA is first targeting texting while driving because it takes your cognitive focus, eyes and hands away from the work of driving.

A Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration study backs the dangers of driving while texting. The study found drivers’ eyes were off the road for 4.6 out of every 6 seconds while texting. At 55 mph, that’s like driving the length of a football field while wearing a blindfold.

“We want to send a clear message to managers, supervisors and workers that their company must neither require nor condone sending or reading text or e-mail messages while driving,” Michaels said.

The government occupational safety department is encouraging employers to enact policies prohibiting texting, establish times when employees can text and train employees on the dangers of texting and driving.

OSHA’s focus on the dangers of texting while driving come on the heels of  President Obama instituting a Federal Government-wide ban on the use of text messaging while driving on official business.

In addition to the mandate put in place by Obama 34 states and the District of Columbia have texting while driving bans in place.

According to Michaels OSHA will find companies in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act if, by policy or practice, they require texting while driving, or create incentives that encourage or condone it, or they structure work so that texting is a practical necessity for workers to carry out their job.

“When OSHA receives a credible complaint that an employer requires texting while driving or who organizes work so that texting is a practical necessity, we will investigate and where necessary issue citations and penalties to end this practice, “Michaels said.

Employees are more willing to report their employers for fraud, corruption and general unsafe workplace conditions according to data from Department of Labor.

The data shows the number of whistle blower cases per year has steadily increased the past five years, with 2011 on pace to hit nearly 2,400 filings or nearly more than 300 claims than years prior.

If a new study proves true those claims could continue to rise.

In its annual survey on litigation trends, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP said the 25 percent of respondents anticipating an increase in whistleblower actions in their industries was up from 19 percent in its 2010 sampling and includes 31 percent of U.S. participants and 12 percent of U.K. participants.

The main culprit behind increasing whistle blower cases according to the report is the recent government reforms to encourage reporting of illegal activities.

One such reform is the Dodd-Frank Act that allows the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission to provide a financial reward ranging from 10 to 30 percent of the amount of the enforcement penalty to whistleblowers who provide original information leading to monetary sanctions that exceed $1 million.

The law also provides protections against retaliatory actions by employers against whistleblowers.

In addition to the new SEC provision, OSHA has also recently released a series of enhancements to existing whistleblower provisions.

“The ability of workers to speak out and exercise their legal rights without fear of retaliation is crucial to many of the legal protections and safeguards that all Americans value,” said OSHA Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels. “The new measures will significantly strengthen OSHA’s enforcement of the 21 whistleblower laws that Congress charged OSHA with administering.”

Employers terminating employees who have reported them for improper practices is a costly proposition.

For example the Department of Labor recently entered into settlement agreement with Houston-based Goodman Manufacturing Co. LP for $150,000 to resolve findings by OSHA the company illegally terminated an employee for complaints about record-keeping practices.

Another example is Bank of America who in August had to pay a whistleblower $930,000 in interest and back wages and reinstate the employee.

To protect your company from whistleblower claims it is important to not only follow all government regulations, but to document your company’s compliance of these regulations.

If you would like a free safety consultation call 877-201-8923.

A recently released study on rates of business in non-compliance of Cal/OSHA’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program standard show a large portion of employers are failing to meet the standard.

The study, by Rand Corp. was commissioned by a body known as the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) in advance of the IIPP standard’s 20th anniversary this year. The regulation was among the first in the nation, and California still is one of only a handful of states to have such a regulation on its books.

The study looked at compliance rates from 1993 to 2002 and found that in the year-and-a-half after the state began enforcing the standard approximately 40% employers were not in compliance.

In subsequent years, the percentage dropped to about 30% and has stayed at that level since.

The study also links failure to have an IIPP in place to increased levels of workplace fatalities.

This is the first study that has looked at the effectiveness of the IIPP standard and could result in stepped-up enforcement by Cal/OSHA.

Here at Safety Services offer custom safety and health manuals designed to bring companies in compliant with Cal/OSHA’s IIPP requirement.

For more info call 877-201-8923.