Do Employee Safety Incentives Discourage Workers from Reporting Injuries? Download GAO Report Below!

Many employers are in the dark over whether their safety incentive programs encourage or discourage the reporting of injuries and illnesses by their employees, or if they have no effect.

But a new report says employers, and the federal officials who oversee workplace safety, should care what effects the incentives are having.

In March 2005, 15 workers died and 180 others were injured in an explosion at the BP Texas City refinery. A safety incentive program at the refinery rewarded workers with bonuses for achieving low rates of injuries and illnesses. A 2007 study after the explosion found that workers feared reprisals for reporting potentially risky conditions at the refinery.

That accident also prompted members of Congress to ask the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into safety programs. In 2009, GAO issued a report that found that safety incentive programs “can provide disincentives for workers to report injuries and illnesses to their employers.”

The GAO has again visited the issue of injury reporting and in its latest study out this week is recommending that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) do more to shed light on the effects of incentives and other programs on reporting.

Knowing the effects is important not only for employers, but also for OSHA, which relies heavily on workers to report injuries and illnesses to their employers, and on employers to accurately report this information to OSHA.

Since it does not currently address incentive programs in its guidance and field operations manual, OSHA could be recognizing some employers as having exemplary safety systems without realizing the negative effects on reporting of some of their incentive programs, GAO warned.

“Without accurate data, employers engaged in hazardous activities can avoid inspections and may be allowed to participate in voluntary programs that reward employers with exemplary safety and health management systems by exempting them from routine inspections,” GAO said.

Insurers are also interested in knowing if injuries are being accurately reported since they use employers’ illness and injury rates among other factors in setting workers’ compensation premiums.

Although OSHA is not required to regulate safety incentive programs, GAO urged OSHA to address the potential effects of such programs and other workplace safety policies on injury and illness reporting.

In response to GAO’s inquiries, OSHA recently issued a memo, warning employers that some programs that discourage employees from reporting their injuries are problematic because an employer may not “in any manner discriminate” against an employee because the employee exercises a protected right, such as the right to report an injury.

In addition, OSHA warns, “if the incentive is great enough that its loss dissuades reasonable workers from reporting injuries,” the program could result in an employer being in violation of recordkeeping responsibilities.

OSHA issued this memo to regional and whistleblower program officials in March and published it on its website but it has not yet incorporated it into its field operations manual. OSHA also has guidance under its whistleblower section on retaliation by employers against employers who report injuries.

OSHA said it has received reports of disciplinary action against employees who are injured on the job, such as where an employee does not report an injury or illness in a timely manner. OSHA said employers have a legitimate interest in establishing reporting procedures but they may “not unduly burden the employee’s right and ability to report.” For example, the rules cannot penalize workers who do not realize immediately that their injuries are serious enough to report, or even that they are injured at all. Nor may enforcement of such rules be used as a pretext for discrimination.

OSHA acknowledges that some employers establish programs that “unintentionally or intentionally provide employees an incentive to not report injuries.” For example, an employer might enter all employees who have not been injured in the previous year in a drawing to win a prize, or a team of employees might be given a bonus if no one from the team is injured over a period of time.

“Such programs might be well-intentioned efforts by employers to encourage their workers to use safe practices. However, there are better ways to encourage safe work practices, such as incentives that promote worker participation in safety-related activities, such as identifying hazards or participating in investigations of injuries, incidents or ‘near misses,’” OSHA says.

OSHA’s guidance for its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) cite various positive incentives, including providing t-shirts to workers serving on safety and health committees; offering modest rewards for suggesting ways to strengthen safety and health; or throwing a recognition party at the successful completion of company-wide safety and health training.

 Types of Incentives

There are basically two types of safety incentive programs. Experts distinguish between rate-based safety incentive programs and behavior-based programs.

Rate-based programs provide rewards such as bonuses and prizes for having no or a low number of work-related injuries and illnesses during a specified period. For example, an employer may reward workers with $100 bonuses for having no reported work-related injuries or illnesses in a given year.

Behavior-based programs provide rewards for demonstrating safe behaviors but are not tied to low injury and illness rates. For example, an employer may reward workers with gift cards for identifying hazardous conditions and suggesting safety improvements. These systems may also include demerit systems that discipline workers for failing to follow safety procedures.

In 2010, from its survey, GAO estimated that 25 percent of U.S. manufacturers had safety incentive programs, and most had other workplace safety policies that, according to experts and industry officials, may affect injury and illness reporting. Safety programs and policies are more common among larger manufacturers.

GAO found that there is little definitive research on the effects of safety incentive programs and other workplace safety policies on workers’ reporting of injuries and illnesses, but some of the 50 experts and industry officials GAO interviewed suggested that rate-based programs may discourage reporting.

Several experts told GAO that there may be an unintended consequence of rate-based programs. For example, when workers’ injuries are relatively minor or easy to hide, and if the rewards provided under the program are relatively large, workers may not report their injuries to preserve their rewards.

They also warmed of potential underreporting of injuries and illnesses when an incentive creates peer pressure on workers to not report injuries. “When all workers on a team get a reward only if no one on the team has an injury, there may be pressure on all team members to not report injuries,” the report says.

The experts also suggested that that certain polices, such as post-incident drug and alcohol testing, as well as demerit programs that are used to discipline unsafe workers, may discourage workers from reporting.

But how safety is managed in the workplace, including employer practices such as fostering open communication about safety issues, may encourage reporting of injuries and illnesses.

Quantifying the effects safety incentive programs may have on injury and illness reporting is difficult because researchers do not have access to workers’ medical records, according to GAO.

The GAO report may be downloaded here:  GAO-on-OSHA-Safety-Incentives

Response to the Open Letter From the 4695 Fatalities

Reblogged from Phil La Duke's Blog:

Click to visit the original post

St. John’s Cemetery, New Orleans

Dear Victims of Workplace Fatalities:

I received your letter last week, and while nothing I say or do will ever erase your tragedy I do hope I can help you to understand the state of workplace safety today. I hope you can receive this in the spirit in which it is intended. First, you are right I am a safety guy, but I am not THE safety guy.

Read more… 1,107 more words

The only thing I would add to this, is that the Safety person "MUST" be a hands on, on the floor type of person who is willing work with, and get to know his employees as well as earn their trust. They also need to know that you are approachable so that they don't look at us as "the enemy, or cop on the beat." When you include employees "as a part" of your safety program, and have them give safety talks, be a part of safety committees, etc.., you will indeed get excellent results. Once they begin to take ownership of their own safety, results will occur! I've done it this way, and it works! ~ Jack Benton

Job Opening! – Safety Manager – Des Moines, Iowa Area

Note: Please contact Recruiter Directly – I am posting this as a favor to them!

Safety Manager

JOB DESCRIPTION: Like living in a smaller rural community working for an excellent company? If so, we have an immediate opening for a Safety Manager who will be responsible for directing, supervising, and administering the company’s safety program.

RESPONSIBILITIES include but not limited to:

  • Supervise professional team up to 12 individuals
  • Formulate, write, and audit safety practices, polices, and measures for each work unit.
  • Conduct studies, maintain records, analyze accident causes and health hazards, and make recommendations on corrections.
  • Conduct plant inspections to detect potential accident and health hazards. Follow up on proper correction.
  • Implement OSHA Standards and Directives and keeping up to date with these and other standards organizations.
  • Establish and maintain records and reports required by Occupational Safety and Health Act.
  • Initiate safety practices and programs to conform OSHA requirements and follow-up to see they are carried out.
  • Maintain, including update, of WEB based documents.
  • Maintain Safety Manual, participate in Job Safety Analyses, Manage Safety Discipline/Retraining/Counseling Programs.
  • Implement Company Best Practices
  • Additional Duties as assigned

REQUIREMENTS:

  • BA/BS in Occupational Safety or related field
  • “Must” have broad knowledge of industrial safety
  • “Must” have minimum 3 years of supervisory experience PLUS 5+ years safety experience in a manufacturing environment
  • “Proven” experience managing a safety team

Must have ALL qualifications to be considered. Opportunity for advancement. Excellent benefits. Need ASAP!

Please include cover letter!

Call Curt Fuller (319) 351-5300 or email cfuller@fullerrecruitment, with any questions.

Click here to apply online

Update! – OSHA’s Vision for the Future & Opinion on “Safety Incentive Programs”

{Watch this video! It explains things that you can do to motivate people to be a part of over all safety in the workplace!}

MAR 12 2012
MEMORANDUM
FOR:
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM MANAGERS
FROM: RICHARD E. FAIRFAX
Deputy Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Employer Safety Incentive and Disincentive Policies and Practices

Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because the employee reports an injury or illness. 29 CFR 1904.36. This memorandum is intended to provide guidance to both field compliance officers and whistleblower investigative staff on several employer practices that can discourage employee reports of injuries and violate section 11(c), or other whistleblower statutes.

Reporting a work-related injury or illness is a core employee right, and retaliating against a worker for reporting an injury or illness is illegal discrimination under section 11(c). Other whistleblower statutes enforced by OSHA also may protect employees who report workplace injuries. In particular, the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) prohibits railroad carriers, their contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against employees for reporting injuries. 49 U.S.C. 20109(a)(4).

If employees do not feel free to report injuries or illnesses, the employer’s entire workforce is put at risk. Employers do not learn of and correct dangerous conditions that have resulted in injuries, and injured employees may not receive the proper medical attention, or the workers’ compensation benefits to which they are entitled. Ensuring that employees can report injuries or illnesses without fear of retaliation is therefore crucial to protecting worker safety and health.

There are several types of workplace policies and practices that could discourage reporting and could constitute unlawful discrimination and a violation of section 11(c) and other whistleblower protection statutes. Some of these policies and practices may also violate OSHA’s recordkeeping regulations, particularly the requirement to ensure that employees have a way to report work-related injuries and illnesses. 29 C.F.R. 1904.35(b)(1). I list the most common potentially discriminatory policies below. OSHA has also observed that the potential for unlawful discrimination under all of these policies may increase when management or supervisory bonuses are linked to lower reported injury rates. While OSHA appreciates employers using safety as a key management metric, we cannot condone a program that encourages discrimination against workers who report injuries.

1. OSHA has received reports of employers who have a policy of taking disciplinary action against employees who are injured on the job, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury. Reporting an injury is always a protected activity. OSHA views discipline imposed under such a policy against an employee who reports an injury as a direct violation of section 11(c) or FRSA. In other words, an employer’s policy to discipline all employees who are injured, regardless of fault, is not a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that an employer may advance to justify adverse action against an employee who reports an injury. In addition, such a policy is inconsistent with the employer’s obligation to establish a way for employees to report injuries under 29 CFR 1904.35(b), and where it is encountered, a referral for a recordkeeping investigation should be made. Where OSHA encounters such conduct by a railroad carrier, or a contractor or subcontractor of a railroad carrier, a referral to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which may conduct a recordkeeping investigation, may also be appropriate.

2. In another situation, an employee who reports an injury or illness is disciplined, and the stated reason is that the employee has violated an employer rule about the time or manner for reporting injuries and illnesses. Such cases deserve careful scrutiny. Because the act of reporting the injury directly results in discipline, there is a clear potential for violating section 11(c) or FRSA. OSHA recognizes that employers have a legitimate interest in establishing procedures for receiving and responding to reports of injuries. To be consistent with the statute, however, such procedures must be reasonable and may not unduly burden the employee’s right and ability to report. For example, the rules cannot penalize workers who do not realize immediately that their injuries are serious enough to report, or even that they are injured at all. Nor may enforcement of such rules be used as a pretext for discrimination. In investigating such cases, factors such as the following may be considered: whether the employee’s deviation from the procedure was minor or extensive, inadvertent or deliberate, whether the employee had a reasonable basis for acting as he or she did, whether the employer can show a substantial interest in the rule and its enforcement, and whether the discipline imposed appears disproportionate to the asserted interest. Again, where the employer’s reporting requirements are unreasonable, unduly burdensome, or enforced with unjustifiably harsh sanctions, they may result in inaccurate injury records, and a referral for a recordkeeping investigation should be made.

3. In a third situation, an employee reports an injury, and the employer imposes discipline on the ground that the injury resulted from the violation of a safety rule by the employee. OSHA encourages employers to maintain and enforce legitimate workplace safety rules in order to eliminate or reduce workplace hazards and prevent injuries from occurring in the first place. In some cases, however, an employer may attempt to use a work rule as a pretext for discrimination against a worker who reports an injury. A careful investigation is needed. Several circumstances are relevant. Does the employer monitor for compliance with the work rule in the absence of an injury? Does the employer consistently impose equivalent discipline against employees who violate the work rule in the absence of an injury? The nature of the rule cited by the employer should also be considered. Vague rules, such as a requirement that employees “maintain situational awareness” or “work carefully” may be manipulated and used as a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Therefore, where such general rules are involved, the investigation must include an especially careful examination of whether and how the employer applies the rule in situations that do not involve an employee injury. Enforcing a rule more stringently against injured employees than noninjured employees may suggest that the rule is a pretext for discrimination against an injured employee in violation of section 11(c) or FRSA.

4. Finally, some employers establish programs that unintentionally or intentionally provide employees an incentive to not report injuries. For example, an employer might enter all employees who have not been injured in the previous year in a drawing to win a prize, or a team of employees might be awarded a bonus if no one from the team is injured over some period of time. Such programs might be well-intentioned efforts by employers to encourage their workers to use safe practices. However, there are better ways to encourage safe work practices, such as incentives that promote worker participation in safety-related activities, such as identifying hazards or participating in investigations of injuries, incidents or “near misses”. OSHA’s VPP Guidance materials refer to a number of positive incentives, including providing tee shirts to workers serving on safety and health committees; offering modest rewards for suggesting ways to strengthen safety and health; or throwing a recognition party at the successful completion of company-wide safety and health training. See Revised Policy Memo #5 – Further Improvements to VPP (June 29, 2011).

Incentive programs that discourage employees from reporting their injuries are problematic because, under section 11(c), an employer may not “in any manner discriminate” against an employee because the employee exercises a protected right, such as the right to report an injury. FRSA similarly prohibits a railroad carrier, contractor or subcontractor from discriminating against an employee who notifies, or attempts to notify, the railroad carrier or the Secretary of Transportation of a work-related personal injury. If an employee of a firm with a safety incentive program reports an injury, the employee, or the employee’s entire work group, will be disqualified from receiving the incentive, which could be considered unlawful discrimination. One important factor to consider is whether the incentive involved is of sufficient magnitude that failure to receive it “might have dissuaded reasonable workers from” reporting injuries. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006).

In addition, if the incentive is great enough that its loss dissuades reasonable workers from reporting injuries, the program would result in the employer’s failure to record injuries that it is required to record under Part 1904. In this case, the employer is violating that rule, and a referral for a recordkeeping investigation should be made. If the employer is a railroad carrier, contractor or subcontractor, a violation of FRA injury-reporting regulations may have occurred and a referral to the FRA may be appropriate. This may be more likely in cases where an entire workgroup is disqualified because of a reported injury to one member, because the injured worker in such a case may feel reluctant to disadvantage the other workgroup members.

Please contact the Office of Whistleblower Protection Programs at (202) 693-2199 if you have further questions.

OSHA Residential Construction Safety Video: OSHA Fall Protection Standard

 

 
Regulation

Directive

Presentations

Compliance Aids

Fall Protection in Residential Construction

Fall Protection in Residential Construction. OSHA Fact Sheet. [PDF - 259 KB]

Fall Protection in Residential Construction [Spanish]. OSHA Guidance Document. [PDF - 1 MB]

Other Resources

OSHA Training – Introduction To Fall Protection

Fall Protection Guidelines

guardrail_systems
A synopsis of OSHA’s Fall Protection Standards (OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.501 through 503).

Fall protection is generally thought of as:

  1. Guardrail systems
  2. Safety net systems
  3. Personal fall arrest systems
  4. Positioning device systems, and/or
  5. Warning line systems

The standard:

  • Covers most construction workers except persons inspecting, assessing, or investigating the workplace conditions prior to the start of work or after the completion of work.
  • Identifies areas or activities where fall protection is needed.
  • Sets a uniform threshold height of six (6) feet
  • Allows employers to select fall protection measures that are best suited for the work being performed.

Guardrail requirements:

  • Top edge height of top rails must be 42 inches (+/- 3 inches) above working/walking level & support 200 lb. force (use at least 2″x4″ lumber for wood top rails).
  • Mid rails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or equivalent emmbers shall be installed mid-way between the top rail and working/walking level & support 150 lb. force (use at least 1″x6″ lumber for wood mid rails).
  • Toe boards shall be 3.5 inches high & support 50 lb. force.
  • Posts shall be no more than 8 feet apart (use 2″x4″ lumber for wood posts).

gaurdrail_requirements
Fall Arrest Systems: Harness, Lanyard, Connectors & Anchors

  • Shall be inspected prior to each use.
  • Attachment point to body shall be in the center of the wearer’s back.
  • Limit fall to six (6) feet and prevent contact with lower levels.
  • Limit maximum deceleration distance to 3.5 feet.
  • D-rings & snaphooks must have minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds.
  • Lanyards & lifelines must have minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds.
  • Self retracting lifelines & lanyards that limit fall distance to 2 feet or less must have minimum tensile strength of 3,000 pounds applied to the device with lifeline fully extended. Greater than 2 feet the minimum tensile strength must be 5,000 pounds.
  • Anchorages must be capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds.
  • Body belts & other positioning device systems are not a part of the personal fall arrest system.

Positioning Device Systems

  • Should limit falls to no more than 2 feet.
  • Secured to an anchor capable of supporting a potential impact of 2x the impact load of the employees fall or 3,000 pounds (whichever is less).
  • Requirements for d-rings, snaphooks & other connectors must meet those of  personal fall arrest systems.

Covers

  • On roadways, capable of support 2x the maximum axle load of the largest vehicle expected to impact the cover.
  • Capable of supporting 2x the weight of employees and equipment.
  • Must be secured when installed.
  • Color coded and marked “HOLE” or “COVER”.

Alternative Measures to Personal Fall Protection

Three alternatives include warning line systems, controlled access zones, and safety monitoring systems.  The employer must prove conventional fall protection is not feasible or would cause a greater hazard & develop a written fall protection program.  Does not include roofing, overhand bricklaying or residential construction practices.

Warning line systems

  • Only allowed on low-sloped roofs (less than or equal to 4×12 pitch).
  • Must be erected around all sides and not less than six (6) feet from the roof edge.
  • Flagged at least every 6 feet with high visibility material.
  • Rigged and supported so the line is between 34 inches and 39 inches.
  • Stanchions must be able to support a 16 pound horizontal force.
  • Warning line must be able to support a 500 pound minimum tensile strength.
  • Must be used in conjunction with another fall protection system.

Controlled access zones

  • Erected between 6 -25 feet from the unprotected/leading edge.
  • Control lines must consist of ropes, wires, tapes, or equivalent.
  • Flagged at least every 6 feet with high visibility material.
  • Rigged and supported so the line is between 39 inches and 45 inches.
  • Capable of support a minimum 200 lb. stress.
  • Extend along the entire length of the unprotected or leading edge and connected to each side of the guardrail system or wall.

Safety Monitoring Systems

  • Competent person is responsible for recognizing and warning employees of fall hazards.
  • Competent person must be on same working level.
  • Competent person must be able to communicate orally with workers.
  • Competent person must not have any other duties which distract from the monitoring duties.