| Setting Safety &
Health Programs Aside |
Ronald J Lott Ph.D, CPE
|
Introduction
Safety & Human Resources Managers are reporting significant difficulty
in maintaining their health and safety programs in these economic
times. It seems that the first programs to be “cut” by management, or
given less priority, are those which will it up costing the company
the most in the near and long term. These cost relate to increasing
workers’ compensation claims and enforcement activities by regulatory
agencies.
Due to increasing social and occupational uncertainties with layoffs,
etc. workers are making many more claims; many directly to the
divisions of Workers’ Compensation at State levels. Once made to these
agencies, this prompts involvement by the regulatory agencies, i.e.
OSHA. Attorneys are advertising specific legal services to investigate
potential workplace exposures and/or injuries. I recently spoke with a
State Division of Workers’ Compensation at which the representative
stated, “they were bombarded with claims.” Within a few days, the OSHA
is onsite with multiple follow-up visits yielding numerous citations.
Uncertain workers, particularly those who fear layoff, begin to think
of what might be wrong related to their health and feel that they must
get it taken care of in case they are unemployed. It is the workers’
compensation system that not only insures that medical treatment is
provided, but also monetary compensation for any impairments present.
Already in recent years employers expend nearly $170 billion dollars
annually on workers’ compensation cost, the average cost of a death is
$250,000.00, and a recordable case, $28,000.00. With an increase in
claims it is anticipated that their will be increased workers’
compensation insurance premiums.
Regulatory Enforcement
Ignoring activities required by federal and state law in the area of
health and safety is synonymous to deciding to ignore the tax laws by
the IRS; penalties may ensue. This is particularly risky at the
present time considering that the US Congress will likely pass the
Protecting American Workers' Act, which provides for increased
monetary penalties against employers for regulatory violations. Hilda
Solis, the new Secretary of Labor, has pledged to "put enforcement
back into the Department of Labor" - including more OSHA inspections.
It is expected that under the new administration, employers must get
ready for a shift away from the cooperative atmosphere of the recent
past to a more aggressive, citation-based approach. This in fact has a
direct correlation with the activities to change the Health Care
System—injuries and illnesses cost much more than prevention.
Worker protection regulations are simply guidelines which essentially
state, if you have these types of hazards and you follow these
guidelines, you will protect your workers, increase the longevity of
your workforce, limit workers’ compensation cost, and limit company or
personal liabilities. At any rate, the guidelines are regulatory
requirements and not optional activities; standards state, “the
employer must or shall or will.” Just as most citizens do not elect to
violate laws such as going through “red lights,” taking other’s
things, tax fraud, murder, etc. it is ironic that some will choose to
ignore worker protection laws. Often decisions by management to allay
or delay health and safety compliance are made naively or because they
do not realize the potential consequences (civil and criminal) and the
cost of such decisions. In addition they may not understand the
correlation between the enhancement of production and the maintenance
of both the occupational and non-occupational health of their
workforce.
Elimination or delay of health & safety programs will inevitably lead
to increasing costs of workers’ comp and if the New OSHA does increase
its activities to identify violators of standards, additional cost
will occur.
What to Do?
Just as with any prudent managerial decision, an evaluation of the
potential consequences of a decision, one way or another, should be
conducted. In other words, if it is deemed necessary to decrease or
abate a program one must consider what the economic, moral, and
regulatory outcomes will be. In the case of health & safety, which
programs have the most direct effect on a facility’s maintenance of
the workforce’s health and safety and its regulatory compliance
status.
There are multiple sources of epidemiological and statistical data
from which inferences can be made in the conduction of such
evaluations. These data can help managers make more specific and
reliable decisions in determining what actions should be taken. If
training sessions are to be stopped, which ones? If audits are to be
decreased, which ones? If non-compliance with the facility’s or
corporate written policies is to occur, which ones? If non-compliance
with regulations is to occur, which ones?
By reviewing the potential hazards to which a workforce may be
exposed; the correlation between the demographics of the workforce and
these hazards; the epidemiology of disorders related to these hazards;
regulatory agency activities pertinent to the particular type of
industry; the policies set forth in the facility’s or corporate
written policies and procedures; the applicable regulations pertinent
to the facility; any advertisement activity by attorneys in the area,
etc. are but a few that need to be evaluated.
Even if layoffs have already occurred, if they are planned, or even
if programs have been “cut,” such aforementioned evaluations are in
order. Our staff is experienced in the conduction of such assessments
in order to validate decisions already made or being considered.
Please contact me directly at 931-624-4293.
Dr. Ronald J Lott
Feel free to call for an initiation consultation at no
charge.
Office—931-552-4655 (888-247-4655)
Mobile—931-624-4293
|
