Industry is having a great year – according to statistics.  It doesn’t matter whether you are making steel, rubber, paper, chemicals or motorcycles or if you are refining oil or building bridges – industry has had the safest decade ever – according to statistics.  The overall injury rate has fallen 48% – according to statistics.   In fact, according to the  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) you are twice as likely to be injured working in a food mart (average of 5.7 recordable injuries, 2008) as in a paper mill (average of 3.7) or chemical plant (average of 2.7) – according to statistics.  Yep, pretty damn impressive – according to statistics. 

Maybe a little too impressive, even for the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) which until recently has touted the improving numbers.

 “The statistics we have on workplace injuries are incomplete and, in some cases, inaccurate,” says David Michaels, recently appointed Assistant Secretary of labor who heads OSHA.

The Secretary’s comments were in response to a recent report (Nov., 2009) by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional research agency.

The report found that employers consistently underreported injuries to reduce their insurance premiums and that workers underreported injuries because of job fear.  As of 2008, the GAO concluded, “OSHA’s efforts to verify the accuracy of the data were not adequate.” 

What did the GAO find?  (Click here for the entire GAO summary)

OSHA overlooks information from workers. 

OSHA annually audits the records of 250 out of 130,000 worksites in high hazard industries to verify accuracy.  But it doesn’t regularly interview workers on those audits – missing the only source of data not provided by the employer.

OSHA is too late.

Inspectors report that they rarely learn about injuries and illnesses from workers since the records audits are conducted about 2 years after the incidents are recorded.  Many workers are no longer even employed at the site. 

OSHA’s list of high hazard industries is outdated.

Audits are not performed in at least eight recognized high hazard industries because their list has not been updated since 2002.  According to OSHA, it would require a regulatory change that is not currently an agency priority.

OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements are poorly understood.

OSHA must increase education and training for employers.

Disincentives cited as prime factors affecting accuracy of reported data

Workers’ fear of job loss or discipline plays a large role in underreporting injuries on the job.  This effect increases even more when mandatory drug testing following incidents is required often without any evidence or suspicion of drug use.

Incentive programs that reward workers when their work groups have few or no recordable injuries discourage reporting by peer pressure from the group who all lose their prize if an individual reports an injury.

Another disincentive to reporting is the possible raising of insurance premiums for employers if incidents are reported.  Also, in some industries, the ability to win new contracts can be impacted by the injury rate.  This can result in efforts to hide injuries or on pressure on healthcare givers to downplay the severity (recordable vs non-recordable) of an injury.

OSHA has agreed with all the findings of the GAO report and is working to implement their recommendations.  In addition their National Emphasis Program (NEP) on Recordkeeping (Oct. 2009) will be expanded to take a close look at the effect of incentive programs on incident reporting.

Only when OSHA includes input from workers in their audit of recordkeeping compliance and forbids the kind of company incentive programs that drives down reporting will the worker injury statistics gathered by the BLS and other agencies really have any meaning.  Maybe then the phrase, “according to statistics”, won’t mean “disregard anything you read”.

At last year’s District 2 Spring Conference, the Coordination Adaptation Training and Support (CATS) team met with our members face-to-face to talk about the Hazard Mapping and other safety training offerings through the District’s Kevin Wilson Initiative. We had a table set up for members to look at and discuss safety with CATS Team members and sign up for further information if they were interested.

One of our members, Brother Gary Godfrey, stopped by each day to talk safety and arrange for the Hazard Mapping training for his Local 9529. I contacted Gary after the conference to follow up on his interest in our trainings. Our last conversation ended with Gary going to talk to his local and company to set up a training.

Within a few weeks after the conference and a few days after the call, Brother Godfrey was killed on the job. The tragic loss of a great safety activist really hit home for the members of our CATS team when we discussed this at our next meeting.

In the following months Local 9529 member Alan Ashbaugh attended the Hazard Mapping Training at a District 2 mini-training day. The sobering account Alan gave to our members that day will stick with me forever. “Nobody ever thought this could happen to a guy like Gary; he was the one that was always there and took care of things.” It underscored the importance of safety in every one of our workplaces. 

We are currently conducting the Hazard Mapping Training at Local 9529. By the time this training is completed there will be over 125 of Gary’s coworkers from his Local and management trained. Belinda Nadeau stated after the first week that the training was very well received by everyone. “It is great to see everyone here rolling up their sleeves, working together, and attending this training.  Many of the people here don’t always get to talk to others in this room.  The high energy and level of participation surrounding the union-led training is amazing.”  

The trainings have been such a success that we are now scheduling four weeks of Near Miss Investigation Training in April. A great relationship has been forged between the K.W. Initiative, Local 9529, and the management at Gary’s company. While I think of Gary and his passion for the safety of his coworkers and the effort to make this happen, I drive away knowing that he would have been very proud of his Local and the Management leadership who took his vision and put it into the sight of the people he was concerned about so much.

Submitted by Steve Doherty, Local 1096 and USW District 2 Kevin Wilson Initiative Training Coordinator.

March 25, 1911 – 99 years ago today – 146 garment workers lost their lives in one of the nation’s worst industrial accidents that became known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.

The Asch Building (now known as the Brown Building of Science) at 23-29 Washington Place in New York City housed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory on its eighth, ninth and tenth floors.  Five hundred workers – mostly young immigrant women – made shirtwaists (women’s blouses) working nine hour shifts.

How the fire started is still unknown but there was no alarm system and while office workers were able to warn workers on the eighth floor, the upper floors could not be reached. 

There were 2 main exits but one stairway was blocked by the fire and the other was kept locked to keep the women from seeking fresh air during smoking breaks.  Many crowded onto a flimsy fire escape on the side of the building that collapsed under their weight and dropped them to the pavement over 100 feet below.

Two elevator operators saved many lives by traveling three times to the ninth floor to make rescues but after the third trip the heat buckled the rails of one elevator and the weight of the bodies of women who pried open the elevator doors and jumped into the shaft to avoid the flames kept the other elevator from being able to rise again.

Fire engines arrived at the scene but had ladders that could only reach the sixth floor.  Crews manned life nets but the falling bodies tore right through them.  In the end 62 people jumped or fell to the streets below.

The owner – operators of the factory were put on trial but acquitted.  In a civil suit compensation in the amount of $75 per deceased victim was awarded.  The owners received $60,000 more than their reported loss from their insurance – or about $400 per victim. 

 Consequences

Early fire safety and worker’s compensation laws were pushed into effect through the efforts of the young International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU) and others.  Also the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) was founded three years later partially in response to the tragedy.

The names of these 146 victims have mostly been forgotten, but those of us in Labor must keep the memory of their loss alive for it is stories like theirs’ that drive us on.

Read the History Magazine account of the fire.

Have you ever read part of a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)? Probably most of you have since this is a part of Hazardous Communication training under 29 CFR 1910.1200.   Have you ever had to read an entire MSDS? Probably there are a few less of you now who can answer this question affirmatively.

Was it easy to find the information you needed on the MSDS? Was it easy to understand? Bet there are even fewer of you answering yes now.

The reason I can make those assumptions is that I have literally asked these questions hundreds of times, each time I have taught a Hazard Communication class and the answers are always the same.

MSDS’s are a valuable tool; one that allows us to be proactive in safety and health by giving us the opportunity to know the chemical hazards we are exposed to in the workplace. This is required by the hazard communication standard and is why it’s called the “Right to Know”. But if it’s not easy to find and understand the information that we need, an MSDS is an incomplete tool for our needs.

To help the average worker’s comprehension of MSDS’s the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed revisions to the Hazard Communication Rule, Docket No. H022K-2006-0062. The concept behind this revision is as simple as it is effective:  regulate a standard format for MSDS’s and write them in an easily comprehendible manner for the average worker.

The wheels of regulation turn slowly and one of the first parts of the process is to seek comments to be entered into the record. This is a formal process held by the Department of Labor and moderated by an administrative law judge with any interested party welcome to comment for the record. Recently representatives from the United Steelworkers,  including members of the USW Health and Safety Department and Tony Mazzocchi Center and members of USW Local 9477 were able to participate in this process in Washington D.C.  The formal comment process will continue in Pittsburgh, PA, as well as other venues.  The USW will be there to offer comment for the record with other interested parties.

Hopefully when the process is completed we will have a more comprehendible, user friendly MSDS under the hazard communication rule. I cannot express what this will mean any more eloquently then one of our brothers from USW Local 9477 when he said: “We have the right to know, we need the right to understand!”   

Submitted by David Cassidy, TMC.

Hot work[1] has always been hazardous, but do it close to or inside a tank and the odds danger increases.  After investigating several fatal incidents involving such work (see: Partridge Raleigh Oilfield Explosion and Fire; Bethune Point Wastewater Plant Explosion; Motiva Tank Explosion; Packaging Corporation Storage Tank Explosion ) the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has issued seven key lessons to make the work as safe as possible.

 ”Tragically, most of these accidents are readily preventable with better hazard assessments, proper gas monitoring and other straightforward safety measures,” CSB board member William Wark. 

 Key Lessons Learned from recent hot work accidents: 

1. Use alternatives – avoid the hot work altogether and consider other methods.
2. Analyze the hazards – identify potential hazards and methods of control.
3. Monitor – effective gas monitoring of the area is vital
4. Test the area – drain and purge equipment and piping before the hot work.  Test and possibly continuously monitor all surrounding tanks, or adjacent spaces (not just the tank being worked on)    
5. Use a written Hot Work Permit system – permitting carried out by truly qualified personnel.  The permit must identify the work to be done and all required precautions.
6. Train thoroughly – not just on the job but on hot work policies and procedures, use and calibration of gas detectors, safety equipment, and job specific hazards and controls. 
7. Supervise contractors – Provide safety supervision for contractors doing hot work.  Make sure they understand site-specific hazards and procedures.

 Note:  For more on this topic, download the CSB video:  Death in the Oilfield. 

---

[1] Work involving burning, welding, cutting, brazing,  grinding, soldering or any other operation that is capable of creating flame or spark that can initiate fires or explosions.

Green Jobs, are they the cure-all for our economic woes?  Where are they?  How many jobs exist?  When will they be more available?  Where can I apply for one?  What will they look like?  These questions and many more are heard all over a nation badly in need of good jobs.  And these jobs are good for the economy and exciting – right?   Well, not so fast.

 Take a close look at some green jobs and they suddenly look very familiar.  As described in “Greenwash” in the December, 2009 issue of Hazards Magazine, the waste industry with one of the highest fatality rates in the US (36.8 workers per 100,000 – that’s 10 times the national average) has suddenly morphed into the “greener” recycling industry.   “Green” wind turbine industry jobs may be very similar to existing manufacturing, construction and erection jobs in a green wrapper. And the manufacturing of solar cells currently uses chemicals like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and ammonia.

 OSHA Director, David Michaels, spoke at a NIOSH Going Green Workshop and stated the following, “It’s not a matter of choosing either a green future or safe jobs. It’s both. It’s all or nothing, and NIOSH, OSHA and everyone else needs to play a role in building this sustainable economy – an economy that will provide sufficient jobs, green jobs, and jobs that are safe for all workers.”

 As unionists we don’t need to fear “green” jobs, in fact our economy and our future may depend on them, but we do need to be aware that a Green label does not necessarily mean safe and that workers in these new industries need the union’s help and protection as much the traditional industries where our members work.

United Steelworker Health, Safety & Environment Activists are not always recognized or thanked for the amount of time and effort they devote to their jobs.  And it is not just about safety, it’s also about truly caring – caring for their local union brothers and sisters, for their community and for others around them.

 A prime example of this is shown in a note just received by the USW Health Safety and Environment Department regarding a group of HSE Activists that attended the 2009 HSE Conference in Houston (August 17-21).  This group gave 2 tickets to the Houston Astros baseball game “free of charge” to a couple in Houston.  The couple was in Houston for a check-up following heart surgery.  We don’t know who the group was and neither did the couple, but they thought very highly of the union and health and safety activists as a result.  So highly, that they took the time to contact the USW to thank you.  You made their day.  In their note, they stated:

 “This was a very nice thing for them to do and I have wanted to pass ‘my thanks’ to them.  One was called Big John … He did say he loved to fish for bass and had come to a tournament in Shreveport, LA BassMaster tournament, I believe.  Thanks to them for sure!!!”

 So, this for you Big John and your group, whoever you are, thanks for showing compassion to this couple not only in your own friendly way but while being in Houston for representing the USW so well. 

 Submitted by Sharon Thompson, USW Health, Safety & Environment Department

Have you (or do you know anyone who) has filed a complaint with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) because you were retaliated against by your employer for your health and safety activities?  The USW Health, Safety and Environment Department wishes to hear from workers, union members, as well as health and safety professionals about your experiences with discrimination protection from OSHA.  

 The Occupational Safety and Health Act section 11(c) states, “No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this Act.”  In other words, you have a right to demand a safe workplace without fear of punishment. You should not be transferred, denied a pay raise, or have your hours reduced as a result of health and safety action.  This is legally protected by section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 

 Examples of protective activities include; reporting an injury, requesting an OSHA inspection/filing an OSHA complaint, requesting information from your employer like an OSHA 300 log, discussing health and safety matters with your co-workers, responding to questions from an OSHA inspector, or some instances of refusing unsafe work¹.

 Over the years, the protections of section 11(c) have been sometimes successful, but often unsuccessful in protecting workers and union representatives who try to use the whistleblower protection provisions at OSHA.  This was highlighted in a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled, Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data and Improved Oversight Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency.

 More information about 11(c), is provided from several sources including:

•  OSHA fact sheets titled, Worker Rights Under The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and Your Rights As a Whistlelbower
•  A fact sheet from the USW titled, A Workers OSHA Rights
•  Fact sheets from the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (the umbrella organization of various Committees/Coalitions on Occupational Safety and Health (COSH) groups) titled, Whistleblower Protection: Protection from Retaliation for Reporting Safety Hazards and Using Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

 Send us an email with your OSHA 11(c) and discrimination for safety and health experiences – the good, the bad and the ugly – to safety@usw.org.  Include OSHA 11(c) examples (or concerns) in the subject line. 

__________________

 ¹Refusing an assignment that a “reasonable person” would see as creating “a real danger of death or serious injury,” when there is not enough time to file an OSHA complaint and when you have requested that your employer correct the condition, but it remains dangerous.

The United Steelworkers, New Jersey Work Environment Council, and the Blue Green Alliance, along with 103 other labor and environmental organizations from across the nation, are urging U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to enforce an existing law encouraging worker and union participation during EPA inspections of facilities using highly hazardous substances.  Such participation is a requirement of Section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act, yet only New Jersey enforces it at this time. 

 Since 1970, The Occupational Safety & Health Act has required such participation in health and safety issues – and with great success.  The inclusion of those working with the hazards to control or eliminate them just makes sense.  In this case, we hope that the EPA will take a lesson from OSHA during inspections. 

 To learn more, read the letter to Administrator Jackson, here.