|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/eei/ |
Upload File : |
<body> <BODY Bgcolor ="e3e4fa" TEXT = "#000000"> <p>The following article was written by David D. Wood, MSIE of Ergonomic Engineering, Inc. and can be found in New England Workplace Safety (summer 1996).</P> <p> <hr size=4> <!-- DW's article on companies --> <H1>What Size Company has the Greatest Need to Improve Their Safety and Ergonomics Programs?</H1> <p> All companies in the same type of industry have similar injury rates, right? Wrong. According to data from the Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries (1994), companies that have between 50 and 250 workers have the highest injury rate (9.2 per 100 full-time workers) and those companies with more 250 and less than 1000 workers have the second highest rate highest injury rate (8.1 per 100 workers). Companies with more than 1000 workers had only 4.2 injuries per 100 full-time workers. Companies with less than 11 workers have the smallest injury rates but they are not legally required to keep records of injuries. </p> <CAPTION><B>Table 1. Injury data by size of company [Modified from the Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries (1994) Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Table 3]</B></CAPTION> <TABLE ID=1 BORDER=2> <TR><TD>Industry Division<TD align=center>1 to 10<TD align=center>11 to 49<TD align=center>50 to 249<TD align=center>250 to 999<TD align=center>1000 or more <TR><TD>Private Industry Avg.<TD align=center>2.8<TD align=center>6.2<TD align=center>9.2<TD align=center>8.1<TD align=center>4.2 <TR><TD>Manufacturing<TD align=center>4.4<TD align=center>8.3<TD align=center>10.1<TD align=center>7.0<TD align=center>3.4 <TR><TD>Trans. & Utilities<TD align=center>NA<TD align=center>6.5<TD align=center>9.6<TD align=center>14.2<TD align=center>6.7 <TR><TD>Retail trade<TD align=center>2.1<TD align=center>5.6<TD align=center>10.7<TD align=center>13.2<TD align=center>6.8 <TR><TD>Services*<TD align=center>NA<TD align=center>4.0<TD align=center>8.6<TD align=center>9.0<TD align=center>5.1</TABLE> * Includes: hospitals, hotels, museums and other service industries <H2>What is the Source of These Occupational Injuries?</H2> <p>You might be wondering what are the causes of these injuries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides a breakdown of the causes of non-fatal injuries. Nationally, in 1992 roughly 2/3 of the injuries were safety related (e.g. cuts, burns, crushing injuries, and slips, trips and falls) and 1/3 were ergonomically related (e.g. back sprains, muscle pulls, and Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTDs) such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome). </p> <B><CAPTION>Table 2. Sources of non-fatal injuries resulting in Lost Days (National totals from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992)</CAPTION></B> <TABLE ID=2 BORDER=2> <TR><TH>Safety Injuries<TH>Percentage <TR><TD>Contact with Equipment (cuts, bruises, etc.)<TD align=center>27.0% <TR><TD>Slips, Trips, and Falls<TD align=center>18.5% <TR><TD>Other<TD align=center>13.0% <TR><TD>Exposure to toxins<TD align=center>5.0% <TR><TD>Fires and violent acts by other people<TD align=center>1.2% <TR><Th>Ergonomic Injuries <TR><TD>Overexertions (muscle pulls, back injuries)<TD align=center>28.0% <TR><TD>CTD's (such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome)<TD align=center>4.0%</TABLE> <p>Within a company, who is most likely to get injured? OSHA (1995) believes that new hires are the ones most likely to get hurt and the 1992 Massachusetts injury data support this claim. In Massachusetts 12,780 of a total 52,285 (or 24.4%) injuries happened to workers during their first year of service with a company. These new workers may not have understood the procedures or may not have been conditioned for the physical nature of the task. We helped a small parts buffing and grinding company reduce their ergonomically related injuries by instituting a conditioning program. The grip strength of new hires was monitored, and they were held back from working at full production rates until a specific level of strength was reached. Their injury rate has decreased.</p> <CAPTION><B>Table 3. Injury data by size of company [Modified from the Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries (1992) Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Table 8]</B></CAPTION> <TABLE ID=3 BORDER=3> <TH>Years of Service <TH>Number of injuries <TR><TD align=center>0 to .25 <TD align=center> 4830 <TR><TD align=center>.25 to 1 <TD align=center> 7950 <TR><TD align=center>1 to 2 <TD align=center> 5089 <TR><TD align=center>2 to 3 <TD align=center> 5089 <TR><TD align=center>3 to 4 <TD align=center> 5089 <TR><TD align=center>4 to 5 <TD align=center> 5089 <TR><TD align=center>more than 5 <TD align=center>15441 <TR><TD align=center>not available <TD align=center>3710</TABLE> <H2>Why Do Companies Small Companies have more Injuries (on a relative basis)?</H2> <p> Small companies (those with less than 50 employees) are thought to have similar injury rates as their larger counterparts (OSHA, 1992) because they may not have the personnel to accurately fill out the paperwork. The largest companies tend to have more developed safety programs which might include a full-time safety engineer, industrial hygienist, and an ergonomic engineer. These larger safety and ergonomic programs help prevent injuries and save money for the companies.</p> <p>Safety managers at small companies often wear many different hats and may not be able to dedicate enough time to solve all of the problems he or she faces. Sometimes a safety manager may have a strong background in a particular area but may be required to manage all aspects of the companies safety and ergonomic programs. Another factor we have seen, is the safety department at small companies may have a small or non-existent budget to hire a specialist, purchase consultation, or safer equipment.</p> <H2>Why Improve Your Companies Safety and Ergonomic Programs?</H2> <H3>Reason #1</H3> <p>OSHA has some new ideas to reduce the injury rates in America. The Maine Top 200 Program targets and follows the companies which produce the most injuries. This program is in different stages of development in all New England states. Maine and New Hampshire have already targeted their largest producers of injuries. In Maine, 1% of the companies produced 45% of Maine's occupational injuries (OSHA Week, 1996). Other NE states are in varying stages of compiling the data and deciding who to target.</p> <H3>Reason #2</H3> <p>Good safety and ergonomic programs can save your company money. Meat packing and processing plants tend to have physically demanding jobs that traditionally have numerous ergonomic problems. In 1991, OSHA published ergonomic guidelines to help companies reduce the rate of injuries in meat packing plants (these guidelines are general and can be applied to any type of industry). Jerome Foods, which grows and processes turkeys, reported saving $3 for each $1 spent on ergonomics (Henderson and Cernohous, 1994).</p> <H3>Reason #3</H3> <p>In a small company, each injury is important. It may be harder to replace the injured worker in a small company. Each injury in a small company can have a large effect on workers compensation experience, making the rate more volatile.</P> <H2> How do you know if you need to improve your safety and ergonomics programs? </H2> <p>Develop action plans which specify your company's goals for safety and ergonomics. Some companies attempt to reach an injury rate of zero, others simply try to meet their industry's average. You may want to set your goals in line with the larger companies in your field. You should use a database program to track injury rates by type of injury (to determine if you need ergonomic, safety or industrial hygiene improvements) and by department or job (so that you target the worst problems first). If your current injury rates are out of line with your goals, then it is time to make some changes. </p> <H2>How Can You Improve Your Company's Safety and Ergonomic Programs?</H2> <p>There are several components which are strongly recommended by numerous government and non-profit organizations to build sound safety and ergonomic programs:</p> <UL> <LI>Develop strong management commitment <LI>Involve workers <LI>Hazard identification and control <LI>Training of all involved employees <LI>Medical management </UL> <p> If your company safety director does not have training in a specialty area such as ergonomics, you may need to consult with an expert. An expert can help you sell the need for improvement to top management by studying your injury logs and discussing the return on investment with you and top management.</p> <H3>Select the consultant best suited to your company's philosophy and needs</H3> <p>The last issue of New England Workplace Safety (Jan/Feb issue) had several good articles on how and why to select a consultant. Selecting a consultant can be like selecting a suit. In general, the more tailored and customized it is, the better it will make you look (by helping you reduce the number of injuries). Also, higher quality suits tend to be a better value, but may cost more. The results you would obtain from an off-the-shelf video training tape are probably quite different from the results you would expect from customized training presented by an expert in the field. With consultants, you need to be confident of their credentials. To be sure that you are getting a quality ergonomist ask if they are certified by the Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics (they can be contacted at (360) 671-7601).</p> <H2>Our philosophy:</H2> <p> In our experience, state of the art production and service often requires a quantitative approach to task and product design. We recommend that our clients use more advanced and quantitative tools when they need to deal with a "serious" ergonomic problem (i.e. a problem that): 1) cannot be readily identified; 2) can be identified but is not easily abated; 3) can be identified, can be abated, but there is resistance; 4) is identified, controls put in place, and problems continue. More quantitative tools help target the most hazardous aspect of the task. This allows you to focus and make changes to that part of the task that was the root cause of the injuries. Also, quantitative tools allow you predict the biomechanical stresses before and after changes are made (or to predict the changes before the first mock-up is built). Our goal is to assist companies by identifying or foreseeing ergonomic hazards in order to institute a sensible, customized program of ergonomic design, training, and management. At every step of our services, the premier consideration is to support company personnel in achieving successful, self-sufficient programs of ergonomic improvement.</p> <H2>Summary</H2> <p> It is not surprising that small companies have these problems. Ergonomic and safety programs can not only reduce injury experience but can increase productivity and quality. Improving ergonomic and safety programs provides a competitive advantage that will help a small company outgrow it's competitors.</p> <H2>References</H2> <CITE><p>Henderson and Cernohous: "Ergonomics: A business Approach" Professional Safety, January 1994, pp 27-31 <p>Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries (1992) Occupational Injuries and Illnesses <p>Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries (1993) Occupational Injuries and Illnesses <p>Massachusetts Department of Labor & Industries (1994) Occupational Injuries and Illnesses <p>OSHA (1991) Document Number 3123: Ergonomic Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants <p>OSHA (1992) Document number 2209: OSHA Handbook for Small Business. <p>OSHA (1995) Document number 2254: Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and Training Guidelines. <p>OSHA Week (1996) March 11 Volume 1 number 11 Maine Top 200 Program Set to go National. </CITE> <!-- DW's article on companies -->