ASSE Hawaii Newsletter, Safety News, OSHA News, newsletter

Click on a topic below - then use the back feature/button on your browser to return to this menu/view.

More California workers’ compensation carriers submit rate filings averaging a head-spinning 15 percent decrease in pure premium rates for policies renewing and incepting on July 1. That’s the steepest average decrease since SB 899 took effect last year.

The trend should continue, provided legislative schemes and frivolous litigation do not reverse it. Just over 100 carriers have filed with the California Department of Insurance, comprising over three-fourths of the market.

Over 30 carriers filed for an 18 percent decrease or more. Some of the higher decreases and their percentage of the California market share include Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois, 26.1 percent, and Zurich American Insurance Company, 22.7 percent (4.9 percent); The Hartford, 18 percent (1.5 percent); St Paul Travelers Group, 18 percent (3.7 percent); American International Group’s eight carriers decreased rates 15.1 percent (6.7 percent); Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. 14.3 percent (1.8 percent).

The average decrease of 15 percent is slightly higher than the California Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau recommended rate, and slightly less than California Insurance Commissioner Garamendi’s advisory rate decrease of 18 percent. But the fact that carriers are willing to file for double-digit increases is a sign of their growing confidence in a market on the mend thanks in large part to the recent reforms.

It should also serve as a clear warning to the legislature that any legislation designed to cap rates is both counterproductive and, judging by the July decreases, unnecessary. SB 46 authored by Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Van Nuys), scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Insurance Committee on Wednesday puts a ceiling on the rates workers’ comp carriers can charge.

State Compensation Insurance Fund, the largest California carrier, earlier announced a 14 percent decrease and Zenith Insurance Company announced a 12 percent decrease.

-30-

Filed by Bess Shapiro in Sacramento

Five former NIOSH and MSHA administrators sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson last week to protest the Center for Disease Control's plan to move the National Institute for Occupational Safety deeper into the bureaucracy of the CDC.

The CDC's new reorganization plan includes the decision to cluster NIOSH with several environmental health agencies into the Coordinating Center for Environmental Health, Injury Prevention, and Occupational Health, one of four coordinating centers that will report directly to the CDC administrator.

The former administrators were joined by a wide range of individuals and organizations, including the United Auto Workers, American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, American Industrial Hygiene Association, AFL-CIO, and the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors, who charged that the move will curtail NIOSH's autonomy, undermine its influence on regulation, and perhaps impact its budget. Furthermore, concern was raised that the move fails to meet the intent of Congress as set out in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. "Clustering NIOSH with a number of environmental health programs would undo the intent of Congress and place it essentially where it was thirty-four years ago," the board members of NIOSH's Board of Scientific Counselors stated in a letter to CDC Director Julie Gerberding.

NIOSH was established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 as a separate institute that reported directly to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare with the mission "to conduct research, experiments, and demonstrations, develop plans, establish criteria, promulgate regulations, authorize programs, and publish results and industrywide studies." President Gerald Ford later moved NIOSH under the CDC, even though occupational health and safety has very little to do with the CDC's primary goals of disease control and prevention. Moving NIOSH deeper into the CDC would only further de-emphasize the agency's importance, visibility and autonomy.

Can an Injured Worker Who Violates a Safety Rule Collect Workers' Comp Benefits?

When Peter Mars first joined Bowman Company as a machine operator, his supervisor, Jim Larson, gave him a tour of the workplace. "You're going to find that we're very committed to safety around here, Peter. Here's the safety manual. Look it over before the first safety meeting." Mars dutifully read the manual, including a section on how to lock out the conveyor system before fixing a jam. At the safety meeting, the instructor reviewed the company's lockout procedures. He also provided Mars with a padlock of his own.

"You should never put your hands inside the conveyor until you shut down and lock out the machine with this padlock," the instructor warned Mars as he handed him the lock. "If you don't follow these rules, you could get docked a day's pay if you're caught. If you're caught a second time, you're fired. And you could get seriously hurt. Understand?"

Mars worked diligently at the job over the next couple of years. He attended several other safety meetings where lockout procedures were reviewed and emphasized. He did follow the lockout rules on a couple of occasions when the conveyor jammed.

Then, one day, Mars was at his workstation when the running conveyor system jammed up because a piece of wood became stuck. He was too rushed to get his padlock at the other end of the plant. He quickly placed his hand into the conveyor to dislodge the wood.

As he did so, the conveyor suddenly started moving again. It grabbed his hand and crushed it before he could pull it out. Mars was rushed to the hospital, where his hand was amputated.

While recovering from his debilitating injuries, Mars filed for workers' comp benefits. Much to his surprise, his employer fought the claim. "What do you mean they won't give me workers' comp?" Mars complained to his attorney. "Look at me. I lost my hand because of this job. I deserve workers' comp!"

Mars's attorney filed an appeal before the state supreme court. At the hearing, Bowman's counsel explained the company's objections:

As a result, Peter Mars's injury was caused by his willful misconduct and he should not be allowed to benefit from his actions.

DECISION: Benefits denied for the machine operator, ruled the Alabama Supreme Court. It was undeniable that Mars willfully disobeyed a mandatory safety rule. In fact, he even admitted under oath that he knew at the time he was injured that the safety rules required him to lock out the conveyor before attempting to remove the piece of wood. The undisputed evidence showed that if the conveyor had been locked out, said the court, Mars's injury would not have occurred.

COMMENT: Here the company did everything right with their safety program and yet a serious injury occurred anyway due to employee misconduct. Because the company had documented all training sessions, it was able to prove that it was not responsible for the accident.

According to a July 30 memo from OSHA Deputy Assistant Layne Davis to OSHA Regional Administrators, field officers for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration must contact OSHA's Enforcement Directorate before issuing a citation of violations of new respiratory protection requirements for tuberculosis. This requirement further enervates a system of safeguards that has been increasingly weakened over the past year.

Last December, OSHA withdrew a rule aimed at limiting occupational exposure to tuberculosis. In its explanation, the agency argued that "the rate of TB has declined steadily and dramatically since OSHA began work on the proposal in 1993," so the rule is no longer necessary. Furthermore, the agency claimed, "An OSHA standard is unlikely to result in a meaningful reduction of disease transmission caused by contact with the most significant remaining . . . risk: exposure to individuals with undiagnosed and unsuspected TB. . . ." [68 Fed. Reg. 75,767 (2003)]. Moreover, the agency stated that workers would still be protected from TB by the respiratory protection requirements, which requires the use of CDC-certified respirators by health care workers working with TB patients, under which OSHA could still cite employers for health violations. However, OSHA's actions show a lack of commitment to enforcing even the limited scope of the respiratory protection requirements.

Even if fully enforced, the respirator requirement does not cover the full range of activities that would have been covered under the proposed rule that was withdrawn from its rulemaking agenda. Anti-TB protections in that rule would have included "the use of respirators when performing certain high hazard procedures on infectious individuals, procedures for the early identification and treatment of TB infection, isolation of individuals with infectious TB in rooms designed to protect those in the vicinity of the room from contact with the microorganisms causing TB, and medical follow-up for occupationally exposed workers who become infected" (62 Fed. Reg. 54,160 (1997)).

Further debilitating the safeguards, on July 14 the House Appropriations Committee approved a rider to the 2005 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill that would prevent OSHA from enforcing the annual fit-testing provisions of the TB respiratory standard. According to the agency, fit-testing (testing respirators for proper fit) is necessary to ensure protection against tuberculosis microorganisms. "Selecting the proper respirator is a vital step in protecting a user against potential exposures and adverse health effects," according to OSHA administrator John Henshaw. Accordingly, OSHA issued a final rule in August providing for fit-testing on an annual basis, rather than the one initial fit test currently required. If this measure passes, OSHA's ability to enforce protective and preventative standards for occupational tuberculosis will be further weakened.

© 2004 OMB Watch
1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009
202-234-8494 (phone)
202-234-8584 (fax)
ombwatch@ombwatch.org

Bush Administration "Problems Ignored" espoused by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards
Promoting Responsible Protections for Health, Safety, Civil Rights, and the Environment

On Aug 4, 2004, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced an addition to the approved fit- testing protocol in its Respiratory Protection Standard. The revision adds a new quantitative fit-testing procedure to assist workers and employers in the proper fit and selection of respirators.

The new fit-testing protocol, referred to as the Controlled Negative Pressure (CNP) REDON protocol, requires three different test exercises followed by two redonnings of the respirator. The three test exercises, listed in order of administration, are normal breathing, bending over, and head shaking.

The procedures for administering the new CNP REDON protocol, with three test exercises and the two respirator donnings to an employee, and for measuring respirator leakage during each test, are summarized below:

On Aug. 6, ASSE President Gene Barfield, CSP, and AIHA President Donna Doganiero, CIH, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU), in which the two occupational and environmental safety and health groups pledge to “work cooperatively on all matters of mutual interest to reach common goals.” The MOU highlights five key areas in which ASSE and AIHA will work together: government affairs; public relations; promotion of publications and products; education; and foundations. The groups also agreed to foster regular communications as a way to “provide leadership in fulfilling the spirit of cooperation.”

DES PLAINES, IL (September 14, 2004)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Michael Nowak
847-768-3404, mnowak@asse.org

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS ANNOUNCE KEY REAFFIRMED CONSTRUCTION SAFETY STANDARDS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ADDRESS SAFETY PROGRAMS, MASONARY, SUSPENDED WORK PLATFORMS AND HEATING DEVICES

Helping improve workplace safety and health in one of the most dangerous industries, the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) today announced the availability of four construction standards covering requirements for safety and health programs, work platforms suspended from cranes and derricks, portable heating devices, and concrete and masonry work. Reaffirmed by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) on June 23, 2004, these four standards are the latest completed projects from the A10 Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. ASSE serves as secretariat of the A10 Committee, which develops and revises over 40 standards and projects pertaining to safety in the construction and demolition industry.

As per ANSI procedures, every five years accredited standards must be either revised, reaffirmed or withdrawn. A10 ASC Chairman Richard F. King, CSP, CRSP, and ASSE member, said today, "These reaffirmed A10 standards each cover a specific construction safety topic, but they are all unified with the same goal of reducing construction injuries and ensuring the safety of our fellow workers."

The A10.33-1992 (R2004) standard Safety and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects provides guidelines for the basic duties of senior contractors and project supervisors in providing a safe construction workplace. The standard covers senior supervisor responsibilities, corrective actions and presence at a project, as well as site safety and health requirements, disciplinary procedures, construction process plans, training and pre-work plans. It also includes samples of job hazard analysis, project safety and health forms, and job site surveys.

The A10.9-1997 (R2004) standard Safety Requirements for Masonry and Concrete Work covers concrete construction and masonry work safety requirements from concrete placement and shoring to the handling and storage of pre-stressed and pre-cast concrete. It also addresses the design, erection, operation and maintenance of concrete mixing processing plants, machinery used in transportation and aggregate processing plants.

The A10.28-1998 (R2004) standard Safety Requirements for Work Platforms Suspended from Cranes or Derricks sets safety guidelines to ensure workers are safe while being transported to an elevated work site and while working on a suspended platform from cranes and derricks. Platforms suspended from the load lines of cranes or derricks are typically used at construction sites to perform work at elevations when other means of access such as scaffolding or aerial platforms are unsafe or impractical.

The A10.10-1998 (R2004) standard Safety Requirements for Temporary and Portable Space Heating Devices establishes construction operation guidelines for the safe use and inspection of portable and temporary space heater equipment that run on solid fuel, liquid fuel, natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. It provides minimum safety requirements for the selection, installation, operation and maintenance of these space heating devices and equipment.

The individual A10 standards are available in both a printed format and as an electronic file. Each standard is $37 for ASSE members, $45 for AIHA and ACHMM members, and $53 for non-members. To order the standards contact ASSE Customer Service at 847-699-2929 or visit ASSE's website at www.asse.org. Founded in 1911, the Des Plaines, IL-based ASSE is the oldest and largest professional safety organization and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment. Its 30,000 occupational safety, health and environmental professional members manage, supervise, research and consult on safety, health, transportation and environmental issues in all industries, government, labor and education.

South Carolina recently enacted professional recognition/title protection legislation for those in the industrial hygiene and safety profession. The legislation defines titles and definitions used by the profession, establishes legal recognition for the profession and has the state legally protect the titles. Only those who meet the criteria outlined in the definitions that are part of title protection legislation may use these titles.

A response from Senator English > Basically, instead of this law (the one that was proposed by English), a senate resolution set up a working group under the Department of Health. Senator English encouraged interested ASSE members to contact Laurence K. Lau, Deputy Director of Environmental Health Administration for the Dept. of Health and Raymond L. Welch, President of Hawaii's AIHA Section. Lau's phone number is 808/586-4424 and Welch's email is mailto:hazman@hawaii.rr.com.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will require entry-level driver training in four specific areas that go beyond the requirements to obtain a commercial driver's license, beginning July 20, 2004 . This bulletin describes the new requirements and the Web version attaches a copy of the rulemaking document.

New training goes beyond CDL requrements to “set a floor of safety for entry-level drivers”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has issued a final rule mandating training in four specific areas for new drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The new requirements take effect on July 20, 2004 , but there is an extension until October 18, 2004 , for entry-level drivers who first began driving a CMV in interstate commerce requiring a Commercial Driver License (CDL) between July 20, 2003 , and October 18, 2004 . These drivers must complete the training by October 18, 2004 . However, drivers who will begin operating a CMV in interstate commerce after July 20, 2004 , must complete this new training before driving a CMV.

The rule is the final result of a study mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that found private sector training of entry-level heavy truck, motor coach and private school bus industry drivers was inadequate. The agency produced an advance notice of rulemaking in 1993, completed the required study in 1995, reopened the docket in 1996 and produced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2003.

The final rule defines “entry-level driver” as a driver with less than one year of experience operating a CMV with a CDL in interstate commerce. The rule requires training beyond obtaining a CDL in four areas:

Employers must make sure that each entry-level driver who first began operating a CMV requiring a CDL in interstate commerce after July 20, 2003 , receives the training. Each employer must keep a copy of the driver’s training certificate in the driver’s personnel or qualification file. The employer must keep this certificate for the length of the driver’s employment plus one additional year. FMCSA will enforce the rule during compliance reviews and new entrant safety audits conducted at the employer’s place of business.

Either the employer or a private training facility may conduct the training. The rule defines the type of information required in each of the four areas, but does not set out specific curricula for the training. It does specify the information to be included on the certificate of completion. It does not specify any particular qualifications to be a trainer, other than making the employer responsible. FMCSA estimates that the training will take approximately ten hours but does not require a specific period of time for the training.

Responding to comments about the need to develop compliant training materials, FMCSA notes that, “The agency believes training materials and courses on the four areas are commercially available today.” The ten-hour estimate for the training is based on guidelines established by the Professional Truck Driving Institute for teaching these four subjects.

FMCSA seems to expect that owner-operators will obtain the needed training from commercial driving schools, although the rule does not specifically address owner-operators. The one statement in the document that speaks to the point says, “With regard to owner-operators, they alone would most likely incur the full cost of training, given their dual roles as driver and company owner.”

In its discussion of benefits of the new rule, FMCSA admits that it is difficult to associate the relationship between specific training and safety. The agency identifies a goal of preventing 201 accidents to make dollar savings from avoided accidents outweigh the estimated cost for the training. Although it could not estimate actual savings, FMCSA does anticipate as another benefit “that the likely reduction in crashes may also result in carriers having lower insurance bills.”

Posted on: Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Web virus able to steal bank account information
Advertiser News Services

Computer security experts warned yesterday of another new threat targeting Internet Explorer browser users: a virus that can steal the password and account information of people who bank online. It is the second such discovery in a week.

The federal government's cyberdefense experts, along with other computer gurus, are urging users to consider a switch away from Internet Explorer.

Users can pick up the latest bug, which doesn't yet have a name, from pop-up ads that secretly download software capable of capturing their keystrokes. The pop-ups originate from Web sites that receive their ads from certain online ad services, which apparently had themselves been hacked to spread the malicious code.

Experts said users can protect themselves from the bug by using a non-Microsoft Corp. browser or by employing software to block pop-ups. Internet Explorer users are immune if they download and install a patch that was released in April. Internet Explorer users are also being advised to set the security setting for their browser to "high," a level that makes it more difficult to interact with some Web sites.

Software on computers that pick up the bug will record the keystrokes of users who visit any one of 50 targeted financial Web sites, security experts said. The bug apparently attempts to send the stolen information to a Web site based in Estonia.

The bug is not widespread - the first instance was reported Friday by the Internet Storm Center, an early warning system established by an organization for computer security professionals called the SANS Institute. A director for the center said only a few additional instances of the bug had been discovered as of yesterday afternoon.

The bug appears to be unrelated to an Internet attack on Friday in which users could pick up malicious, keylogging software merely by visiting infected Web sites. That attack also targeted users of financial services sites.

"I believe that this particular type of malware represents a huge threat to the online financial industry," wrote Tom Liston, a computer security expert who analyzed the latest exploit in a Storm Center report released yesterday.

"This is a wake-up call for us to advise users to switch to an alternative browser," said Johannes Ulrich of SANS. "With Internet Explorer, you're playing Russian Roulette and hoping the sites you visit aren't compromised."

A spokesman for Microsoft directed reporters to a Microsoft statement that said, "Customers using Internet Explorer should be sure that they have installed the latest security updates by visiting Windows Update at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com."

While banks and online commerce sites use encrypted connections between a user's computer and the company's computer, this new strain of software records a user's keystrokes from outside the encrypted connection on a user's computer. In other words, Internet-savvy users who look for the padlock on the bottom corner of Internet Explorer when they make transactions could still be vulnerable to theft if their computer is infected with this program.

But some computer experts said that the nature of the threat means that future versions might also be more easily contained than traditional viruses, which push and multiply themselves aggressively across networks.

"There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies" relating to the Internet Explorer, according to US-CERT (U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team), based in Pittsburgh. "It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different Web browser, especially when browsing untrusted sites."

None of the other most prominent browsers, Opera, Mozilla.org, or Netscape, are vulnerable to the flaw. Nor are computers running Linux or the Macintosh operating system.

Ulrich and other experts say the new round of malware deliberately assumes a less aggressive profile. It doesn't spread a quickly as traditional computer viruses, and is more focused on stealing or making money for its authors. That creates a whole new round of problems for PC security companies, who spot new forms of malware by surveying hundreds of thousands of PCs. "If you steal a thousand bucks from a thousand people," he said, "you'll probably stay beneath the radar."

This also explains why economically motivated malware authors are trying to make their software more persistent on individual PCs, but less widespread. According to Sam Curry, a Computer Associates security executive, "It doesn't need to hit millions of people to be profitable. If they can get a goose that lays golden eggs, they don't want to kill the goose, they only want to steal the eggs."

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION

…Finding its way onto the organizational safety checklist
By Larry J. Chavez, B.A., M.P.A.
Critical Incident Associates

The efforts of organizational safety professionals to reduce incidents of death and injury in the workplace are both noble and humane. Safety professionals have been quick to recognize emerging threats and have been diligent in employing strategies to address them. Workplace violence is one of those threats. A single act of workplace violence exposes innocent people to unimaginable horrors, and leaves its host organization reeling in an aftermath of legal problems that can endure for years. One such incident occurred on the morning after Christmas in the year 2000.

The offices of Edgewater Technologies of Wakefield, Massachusetts were disrupted by a deafening succession of blasts from the muzzle of an AK-47 assault rifle, something employees in a high-tech firm would never expect to hear. This awesome and destructive weapon of war was in the vengeful and merciless hands of Michael McDermott, a 46-year-old software engineer. He was on a mission to punish members of Edgewater’s human resource and accounting staff for a recent IRS wage garnishment that had been imposed upon him. This was a matter over which his intended victims had no control, but McDermott’s perception was his reality and he viewed these innocent employees as collaborators with his federal foe. So, with each pull of the trigger, a fellow employee fell until the number tolled seven. Within minutes, those McDermott had selected for execution lay dead at or near their desks. An eerie silence followed, broken only by the occasional sound of an employee scampering to safety.

Typical of most workplace killers, McDermott did not kill any more than those he had targeted. Spent from his ordeal, he sat in the company’s reception area waiting for the inevitable. Like so many other workplace killers, McDermott crossed the line into the darkness of the criminal realm never to return to the world of relative civility he had known. Life as he knew it was over. As police approached, McDermott offered no resistance.

As if things were not chaotic enough at Edgewater that morning, the powerful engine of the media rumbled to life with the singular purpose of fulfilling the demand for information by those who find workplace violence cases sensational, spectacular and, sadly, intriguing. Within an hour of McDermott’s shots, millions of people were being informed of the events as they unfolded. People, many time zones away, were viewing real-time images of SWAT teams and ambulances attending to the bloody aftermath. As the sun set that day, the names “Wakefield”, “Edgewater” and “McDermott” were echoed hundreds of times until they became linked, intertwined and inseparable.

As horrifying as the Wakefield incident was, there are cases on record that exceed it in terms of loss of life and sheer destructive force. But, what is most disheartening is the fact that scenes such as this have been repeated hundreds of times across the American landscape and are continuing with no end in sight.

Concern for workplace security peaked in the days following September 11, 2001. People began to fear the foreign terrorist threat – but no such attacks ever materialized in the American workplace. Workplace violence incidents, on the other hand, occurred with regularity. Since 9-11, a total of 87 fatal incidents of workplace violence have occurred resulting in the deaths of 139 people and the wounding of 95 more – not at the hands of foreign terrorists, but at the hands of people within our own ranks, those we trusted with the key to the office, the password to our computer system and the right to be among us. We hired him, we nurtured him and he turned on us. The amount of carnage suffered within this brief period alone ought to send a message to decision-makers that workplace violence can no longer be ignored. This is supported by a 2002 survey of corporate security professionals who identified workplace violence as the greatest single security threat facing organizations – above international terrorism.

Where have organizations gone wrong? As a professional violence prevention trainer, I have made some observations. There is first good news. Thankfully, the combined efforts of the safety and human resource profession has taken the issue seriously and has made some strides in dealing with the problem through the establishment of policy and the application of sound employee acquisition practices. As a result, many organizations are beginning to screen applicants with violence prevention in mind.

Now the bad news - it is not enough to have an anti-violence policy on the wall and an employee manual on the shelf that purports to address the problem. There is a woeful lack of violence prevention awareness where it counts the most – among first-line supervisors. These people are the eyes and ears of every organization. They see every person within their area of responsibility every single day and are more likely than anyone else to observe a potentially violent situation in its earliest stages. But they cannot do what’s expected of them without proper training. According to a 1999 study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, only 35% of organizations train managers and supervisors to identify warning signs of violent behavior.

While basic workplace violence awareness training would suffice for employees, first-line supervisors should be provided formal instruction and the opportunity to take part in hypothetical, problem-solving scenarios. They must be trained to identify the warning signs of impending violence and to conduct basic threat assessment to support the documentation and reporting of potentially dangerous situations. They must also be trained to recognize, identify and eliminate organizational risk factors that could lead to violence and, equally important, supervisors should be given instruction on how to defuse hostile or potentially violent employees.

Sadly, too many organizations have failed to provide workplace violence prevention training for supervisors and this has led to some tragic outcomes. There are many cases on record in which supervisors had advance knowledge of an employee’s dangerous tendencies, yet failed to act to protect innocent employees. One of the most chilling examples came from a quote of a retired supervisor of a Mississippi-based U.S. defense contractor following a workplace massacre.

“When I first heard about [the shootings], he [Williams] came to my mind…he had talked about wanting to kill people saying ‘I am capable of doing it.’” (Source: Associated Press and Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, Mississippi, July 8, 2003)

The supervisor was referring to Doug Williams, an employee with whom he had worked prior to retirement. Williams was responsible for the July 8, 2003 shooting of 14 co-workers, killing 6, before committing suicide. With the knowledge this supervisor possessed, it is reasonable to assume that some effort could have been made to protect innocent employees. Whether this was a case of supervisory negligence or a lack of training, lawyers of the aggrieved families will no doubt pursue the matter further.

No organization can afford to maintain a climate of negligence where lives of innocent people hang in the balance. In 1999, a jury awarded $7.9 million dollars to the families of two men killed in a workplace violence incident in North Carolina. According to the attorney for the family, "…This man was a ticking time bomb and the management knew it, yet they did nothing to protect their employees…" (Associated Press, May 5, 1999). No executive would relish having to take the witness stand to defend such a failure.

The cost of a single fatal incident of workplace violence far exceeds the minor cost of the training that may have prevented it. Although declining budgets are often blamed for training cutbacks, a new application of an old concept in training can be employed to resolve the problem - regional training cooperatives. Used extensively by the public sector, they can also serve the private sector. These are informal alliances of regional training coordinators who pool their resources to bring quality training to a large number of organizations within a geographical area. In this manner, small organizations receive the same quality training as their larger counterparts. Coordinating such an event to address workplace violence would be an ideal leadership role for professional organizations representing the fields of safety, human resources and risk management for two important reasons: (1) they are stakeholders on the issue of organizational safety and (2) their professional affiliations cross organizational lines allowing them to interact and coordinate their efforts.

With executive emphasis on workplace violence prevention, coupled with the commitment to provide training, it is possible to establish a safe and peaceful work environment. Once achieved, employees are free to be productive, knowing that their safety is your concern. Managers and supervisors are transformed into valuable problem-solvers, part of the solution to workplace violence and not part of the problem.

A violence-free workplace is in the forecast for all who commit to it.

As a membership benefit of ASSE you can receive a complimentary issue of The Grey House Publishing Safety & Security Directory, formerly known as Best's Safety & Security Directory. Shipped at the end of the year, it contains the latest OSHA regulations, training materials and checklists along with a buyer's guide to products and services that can help with compliance issues. It is a resource safety, health and environmental professionals use throughout the year and we are pleased to be able to offer it once again to the membership.

For the first time, the 2004 edition of the directory will also be available on CD-ROM. You now have a choice of either the print version or the CD-ROM version. (Both are $225 list price to non-ASSE members.) For a small additional fee however, you can receive both. The publisher will bill you directly.

Please let us know whether or not you would like to receive your FREE copy of the 2004 Safety & Security Directory and simply click on the link below.

Jack R. Iriart, CSP, corporate safety director for Braun Electric Co. Inc., of Bakersfield, CA. Iriart has more than 17 years' experience in the safety and health field and has been an ASSE member since 1995 serving as the first president of the Bakersfield Chapter. He was named the chapter's Safety Professional of the Year (SPY) in 1999. In his community, Iriart volunteers as a martial arts instructor for the Boys and Girls Club, the Girl Scouts, the YWCA and various church groups. He has been a co-instructor of the Safety Management Certificate Program at California State University Bakersfield Extended Studies since 1996.

Don't like the WISH chart try this...The MAC tool has been developed to help the user identify high risk workplace manual handling activities.

The tool can be used to assess the risks posed by lifting, carrying and team manual handling activities. It is designed to help you understand, interpret and categorise the level of risk of the various known risk factors associated with manual handling activities. The MAC incorporates a numerical and a colour coding score system to highlight high risk manual handling tasks.

English Creates toxic mold advisory board. The department of health shall convene a toxic mold advisory board to advise the department on the development of mold-related standards for indoor environments, including but not limited to those relating to permissible mold exposure limits, health threat assessment, mold identification, and mold remediation.

The advisory board shall be comprised of representatives from the department of health, department of commerce and consumer affairs, experts on the health effects of molds, public health experts, medical experts, industrial hygienists, mold abatement experts, building industry representatives, residential, commercial, and industrial property owners, tenants, and managers, realtors, and environmental groups.

The department shall consider the feasibility of adopting permissible mold exposure limits for indoor environments.
    (b) If feasible, the department, in consultation with the task force, shall:
    (1) Adopt permissible mold exposure limits that avoid adverse health effects, with an adequate margin of safety, and avoid any significant risk to public health;
    (2) Balance the protection of the public health with technological and economic feasibility;
    (3) Utilize the latest scientific data or existing standards adopted by authoritative bodies; and
    (4) Develop permissible exposure limits that target the general population. "

“Authoritative bodies" means any recognized national or international entities with expertise on public health, mold identification and remediation, or environmental health, including, but not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the New York City Department of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Industrial Hygiene Association.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS ADDRESSES
RISE IN CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS, SOLUTIONS

DES PLAINES, IL (September 5, 2003) – Recently a 41-year-old construction worker in Truckee, California fell off a ladder and onto an 18-inch-long drill bit that impaled his skull. He survived the accident without suffering brain damage, but lost an eye. When he arrived at the hospital, emergency personnel found a 1.5-inch diameter chip auger drill bit lodged in his head. Doctors eventually unscrewed and removed the bit.

This accident and many others like it are just one of the thousands of accidents that occur annually in the construction industry which is the focus of the American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) Construction Safety Leadership Symposium to be held this October 16-17 in New Orleans.

This ASSE conference will feature topics on liability issues in construction and ‘what to do when the lawyer calls – preparing for and providing testimony’; electrical forensics and safety on the job; emerging issues in construction industrial hygiene such as mold, silica, and hearing conservation; driving safety into the sales process; and practical ergonomics at the construction site.

Representatives from organizations such as Bechtel Corporation, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Exxon/Mobil Development Company, LPR Construction Company of Denver, and many more will provide insights, best practices, and ideas on what works in reducing accidents and how to implement successful safety management approaches in construction safety.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Director of the Office of Construction Services Stewart Burkhammer, P.E., CSP, will discuss OSHA’s activities, its categorizing the construction industry as a high hazard industry and the fatality reduction goals the agency is working towards.

Dean of Georgetown University McDonough School of Business John W. Mayo, Ph.D., Washington, D.C., will discuss the spiraling financial burden from workers’ compensation and health care costs due to workplace accidents in his keynote address. E. Scott Geller, Ph.D., senior partner of Safety Performance Solutions and professor at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA, will discuss integrating behavior-based safety into the construction industry.

The symposium will be held at the Hyatt Regency (New Orleans-Superdome) and reduced fees are available for those that register before the September 15 pre-registration deadline. Education credits for attendees include 1.2 CEUs/COCs and 2.0 Safety CM points.

Founded in 1911, the non-profit ASSE is the oldest and largest professional safety organization and is committed to protecting people, property and the environment. Its more than 30,000 members manage, supervise, research and consult on safety, health, transportation and environmental issues in all industries, government, labor and education. ASSE is an authorized provider of continuing education and training programs, approved by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET). To register for the symposium call ASSE customer service at 847-699-2929 or register online under Educational Opportunities at http://www.asse.org/.

With the registration of safety engineers going or gone in California, Massachusetts, and some other states, the CSP designation is becoming more important than ever in establishing a recognizable degree of competence. With the granting of the CSP comes the obligation to maintain it by participating in the continuance of certification (COC) program. The same kind of program is now required of lawyers, doctors, teachers, and some other professionals by their boards or employers.

The CSP requires 25 continuance of certification (COC) points over each five year period of certification. Active membership in the ASSE is a good way to get a head start on nailing down the necessary points to keep that CSP and the prestige and recognition that it entails.

The BCSP awards up to two points each year for continued practice in the profession. That’s not too hard for most of us, but what about the rest of those necessary points? We can pick up a COC point for membership in professional organizations each year. We can pick up a COC point for a local office or two for a national office in a professional society each year. ASSE can certainly provide these opportunities.

For professional development classes and participation, ASSE can get us a COC point each year for the Professional Development Conference and a half COC point for each 4-hour program taken or taught.

An added bonus of ASSE membership is 1/4 COC point for each 3 hours of technical Chapter monthly meeting attended.

So how can ASSE help us maintain our CSP? See how it works to get us the rest of the required fifteen COC points:

If we avail ourselves of just these ASSE opportunities for participation, we should finish the five year COC cycle with 32 ½ points. So, keep those records, and it’s a cinch. Thanks to the ASSE membership. Mix and match. Show up for meetings. Go to a PDC (Nashville in 2002). Take on an office. Take an ASSE one-day seminar or program. Active ASSE membership makes it easy to keep that CSP!

Whether schmoozing at high speeds or lingering over drinks and hors d'oeuvres, here's how to make a lasting impression.

1 Let the other person speak first. Knowing what he or she is all about will help you tailor your message and deliver it with more relevance.
2 Adopt a "do unto others" mentality. You'll get further by taking the time to listen and help than by braying, "Hey, I need a job. Do you know of any?"
3 Keep polishing your pitch. Pay attention to your partners' facial expressions to see what's registering. If part of your spiel generates blank stares, lose it.
4 Follow up, follow up, follow up. If you make a worthwhile contact, be sure to call or send an e-mail within 24 hours.

• "I'm really excited about your proposal. What an original idea." (Hyperbole should be down-to-earth.)
• "It's like you said in last week's meeting: The brand is everything." (Bosses like to hear themselves quoted.)
• "Thanks for your excellent advice on the revision. It made a big difference." (Who doesn't like praise?)
• "You look great. That Zone diet is really working." (Personalize your compliment so it sounds sincere.)
• "Got it. Great idea. I'll do it that way, and you said you want it tonight, right?" (Show you listen intently.)

In this edition of ISHN’s e-newsletter, we interview the sage of safety, Dr. Dan Petersen. Dan’s grasp of the history of workplace safety and the evolution of safety concepts represent a unique and irreplaceable body of knowledge.

Few people in the world of workplace safety could speak directly to the variety of questions and topics we threw Dan’s way. Few could draw on the sense of context Dan possesses. And few would be as pointed in their answers

One reason for the respect Dan has earned over the years is that he doesn’t pull punches. He tells you what he thinks works and doesn’t work in safety, what pros are doing right and wrong, as you’ll see in this Q&A. His views come from more than four decades of studying and applying human psychology, organizational structure, and business management concepts to job safety.

Old school? Not really. Dan’s principles are timeless. The problems, and the answers, don’t change. Dan describes both with broad, bold strokes. Read on.

We talked to Dan by phone, from his home in Arizona, on June 26, 2003.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE BUSINESS CASE…

Q) Why are we seeing the emphasis today on the business side of safety?

A) I think it probably has to do with the economy and the fear of proving we (in safety) are worth it. When the economy turns around, I don’t think we’ll see the emphasis on it. I don’t think there is that much value to talking about safety that way. Cost-benefit is not how executives make decisions on fuzzy issues like safety.

Q) Can you truly prove the business case for safety?

A) The business case has been talked about for years. It is hard to prove. We’ve only seen anecdotes. I don’t think we’ll ever be able to prove it. No company has ever brought me in, in 30 years of consulting, to improve their bottom line through safety. Probably the main reason I’m brought in is competition. That turns executives on. And the humanitarian reasons.

It is a very bad message to say safety is about dollars. The real message is: We are doing these things because we care about you, the company cares about you. Don’t even talk to me about doing safety for money.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ABOUT OSHA…

Q) Are we living in the post-regulatory era of safety in the U.S.? Is there any going back to aggressive standards-setting?

A) I doubt we’ll ever see the regulatory pendulum swing back to aggressive standards-setting and heavy enforcement. Certainly not in the next six years, for sure. For one thing, compliance only starts you on your way. Secondly, the regulatory approach has led to a plateau in lost workday cases. I don’t think compliance will be a driving force. It was only a driving force for bad companies. Most companies were doing safety for humanitarian reasons, doing it for their culture, before OSHA. They see that safety can improve all aspects of their company.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SAFETY INVESTMENTS…

Q) In this tight economy, and in the absence of public pressure, why should companies with good safety records continue to invest more resources in safety?

A) In the best companies, they believe, but they can’t prove, that there is a tight relationship between safety and culture. Safety improves management-labor relations. You also use it to push employee involvement. It’s super not only for safety, but for quality, morale, productivity. Total Quality Management and Deming were perfect for safety without proving cost-benefit.

We missed out on TQM. Why? I think it had something to do with wanting to protect our mystique in safety. We have our own tools in safety. They should’ve been replaced by Statistical Process Control. That’s how we could’ve integrated safety.

We also haven’t communicated well. We’ve kept a low profile with management. All through our history we’ve had people thrown into safety jobs; they haven’t had confidence. So we started with a low base. There was no comfort in going to the CEO’s office. We didn’t know what to ask of the CEO.

That’s changed now. Companies have chosen more competent managers for safety who communicate better.

Q) What should safety pros be asking of the CEO?

A) It’s about getting safety integrated into the management process. It starts with role definition. Once defined, then it’s relatively easy to work out the activities that the CEO should be doing. Whether it’s getting out with focus groups, walking around the floor. It’s fairly easy to define what you want the executive to do.

But first, he must perceive a role in safety for himself, like Paul O’Neill did when he was at Alcoa. A lot of executives don’t perceive a role. O’Neill ensured that all his reports saw their role in safety down through the organization. This is kind of unusual. Georgia-Pacific has a system in place. Alcoa had it before O’Neill. The system defines who does what, and it flows then through the organization.

The problem we ran into was when we shifted safety down to the peer groups. It hasn’t worked well. Why? With the reductions in workforce, if managers and supervisors can get rid of things on their plate like safety responsibilities, they will do it. But then managers are perceived as having abdicated their safety responsibilities. So management is perceived by workers as not caring about safety. And if they don’t care, the workforce won’t care.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AFTER BEHAVIOR-BASED SAFETY…

Q) What comes next after behavior-based safety, in terms of a popular organizational strategy for safety?

A) I think we could be going back to the 1970s, when the concentration was on management and accountability. Also human factors concepts. We could be going down that route where we build into the organization an environment that takes into account the human factor, the human element. The idea is to not build traps into the workplace. This isn’t new. We never really used the World War Two knowledge of human factors.

We know that most serious catastrophes are connected to human factors. We didn’t realize the importance of design. We have had many more serious catastrophes in the last ten years, due to cuts in maintenance and downsizing. We have less maintenance now. So we might go a little more down the route of human factors. Only Kodak got into human factors, because they had a lot of people working in the dark. You want to make processes as fool-proof as possible. The ergonomic factor also comes into play. Ergonomics will be done for productivity reasons.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WORLD CLASS SAFETY…

Q) Is there such a thing as world class safety? How do you define it?

A) I don’t know if you can define it. We all do it differently. DuPont does it completely differently than Procter & Gamble. Theirs is somewhat fear-driven accountability. P&G concentrates on work teams and competent management. They are totally different concepts and systems.

It comes down to — what is our culture and what systems will best fit our culture? When you figure that out, there’s no one right way to get to world class. This makes it confusing and government directives are worthless. You know world class when you see it.

Q) What do you think of OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program? VPP is used as a benchmark for superior safety programs.

A) VPP has some value, I suppose. You get management’s attention to safety. But it’s paper intensive, time-consuming. Yes, rates go down, but is it due to management giving safety attention and the audits? I’m not high on VPP. I guess it doesn’t hurt anything. But interaction between managers and supervisors and employees, getting to know each other better at all levels, gets you better results than paperwork.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FLOOD OF CONSULTANTS…

Q) Is the safety and health field going to be dominated by consultants, as corporations cut costs, outsource, use more contractors and temps, and focus on core business functions?

A) That’s probably true. It’s happening all across industry, with maintenance, human resources. It’s all part of downsizing and putting work out for bids. You get the work done cheaper. The trend is partly due to the economy, partly it makes financial sense. It’s all part of the direction business has gone in the last 10-15 years. It’s a cost thing. I’m not sure it will get the results business wants.

Q) Dr. Scott Geller (noted safety psychologist and ISHN columnist), for one, believes it is bad for a field to be led by consultants. What do you think?

A) I agree with Scott, I think it’s bad, too, if consultants dominate a field. For one thing, you do not have much of a feel for relationships in an organization without being there. Second, you don’t get a feel for where people are at the bottom of the organization. Most consultants talk only to the managers at the top. And the hourly people are the only ones who know what’s going on in the organization. Third, I think you need to learn the frustrations of working inside an organization. I learned more lessons working my way up from the inside than anything else.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

STRESS, HEALTH PROMOTION & WELLNESS…

Q) Will industry ever take the risk factors of "organization of work" seriously? The psychological pressures of drastic and unpredictable organizational changes — downsizing, restructuring, extended work hours?

A) We don’t pay anywhere near enough attention to this. Downsizing, radical changes in jobs, longer hours are tremendous factors affecting the morale of people.

In the last 10-15 years, I’ve never seen the number of pissed off and angry people working in companies. It’s a no-brainer. You pay less attention to their work, their schedules, people are cross-trained to do stuff they don’t want to do. You have skilled mechanics doing clean up work because the clean up people have been laid off. You have a whole range of management decisions affecting people.

The amount of overtime is incredible now. You have some people working 17-hour days, seven-day work weeks.

Will it ever get any attention? Well, we almost had a catastrophe in California ten years ago when ten thousand stress claims were filed. Then they changed the laws. On-the-job stress should be compensable. If it was, there would be a tremendous number of stress claims. If we continue to see a breakdown in the workers’ comp shield, with more lawsuits being filed to get around workers’ comp laws, we might see those decisions about how work is organized change.

I don’t think organization of work is on the radar screen. I can’t imagine why it isn’t. We don’t read about it. I did a book on job stress and nobody bought it. Our history in safety is we only do what we are forced to do, not what’s right.

Q) Why is that? Why do we only do in safety what we’re forced to do?

A) For 75 out of 90 years of safety history, it has been workers’ compensation laws or legislative government that has had us doing things. We only do things we’re told to do. With the exception of systems safety briefly, in some cases. We in safety did not use TQM or Deming. That would have integrated us years ago. Let’s face it, we’re not integrated to this day. We’re different than quality and production. Management sees us differently.

Q) But behavior-based safety has proven very popular, and it’s not mandated.

A) No, it was not mandated, but it was sold to be the magic pill. We’re still looking for the next magic pill. Behavior-based safety was popular because, one, it was advertised like nothing else has ever been advertised in safety. Pure advertising made it fly. It also cost more so the thinking was, it must be good.

Q) Speaking of programs not mandated, will industry ever take health promotion and wellness programs seriously?

A) I don’t see industry investing more in health promotion and wellness programs. It’s too costly in this era. Coors and Frito-Lay were into this, but they may have cut back. I just don’t see it happening. If people perceived stress to be a problem with productivity, it would bring about wellness more. But today, the way it works is this: you identify people with stress problems and send them out to Employee Assistance Programs so you don’t have to mess with them.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS…

Q) What do you make of the growing popularity of management systems, such as VPP, ANSI Z10, BSI 18000?

A) With most management systems you spend a lot of time pulling together documentation and procedures that then sit on a shelf.

Safety is about one-to-one interactions, supervisors to managers, supervisors to workers, managers to workers. Safety is about these interactions happening every day. It’s people every day looking out for each other. That’s how safety is achieved. Not by writing down audit protocol. Pieces of paper don’t save lives.

We need people, safety people, spending less time on the computer and more time on the floor. I don’t know how you can manage people without knowing what turns them on and pisses them off. Today, management systems can destroy that stuff, those relationships, those close interactions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PERFORMANCE MEASURES…

Q) Will executives ever accept performance measures for safety and health beyond injury and illness rates?

A) CEOs will accept new measures. It’s starting now. Procter & Gamble has a scorecard that has injury numbers and a roll up of 11 key program elements. It is more than one measure. What we’re going to have to do is a process of weaning executives away from these idiotic numbers that we’ve been using. You can still use these numbers, but use upstream measures for lower levels in the organization. Measures like how often did one supervisor contact his people in the last week about safety matters.

I’m writing a book for the American Society of Safety Engineers, I have to be finished in July, on the measurement of safety, the weaknesses and strengths of all the measures out there. Most organizations are managed by ignoring the end results of everything except financials. Attention goes to process improvement indicators. That’s Deming. And that’s what we should be doing in safety. Because we use these utterly ridiculous measures in safety that lack validity. A plant with five accidents in a year, what do the rates mean? Nothing. A supervisor with no accidents, what do you want him to do next year? Be lucky? It’ll come around, this acceptance of new measures.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CHALLENGES…

Q) What are today and tomorrow’s career challenges for safety and health pros?

A) The biggest challenge today is to break away from traditional safety thinking. Think about how companies can be improved through interpersonal relationships. Concentrate more on relationships than on physical conditions and standards.

The only way you can do this is to tap the intelligence of the employee. If they are not a part of what you’re doing, you’re missing out. Everyone must feel part of a team. They can really get turned on, and have fun, too. I’m not talking about peer observations. Safety pros can facilitate processes of safety improvement teams, process safety ad hoc teams, there are any number of ways to use people’s brains to make things better.

The biggest complaint I hear from workers is that no one wants to hear what they have to say. They say, "I want to help, I want to be part of the organization. But they’re not interested." So you have people putting in time; they’re not thinking about what they’re doing, maybe they’re irritated that they’ve been robbed of their security. Sure, all that hurts safety.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EMPLOYMENT PICTURE…

Q) Safety and health is a mature profession in the U.S. Injury rates are low. Dirty jobs are moving overseas. Will we see reduced demand for safety and health pros in the future?

A) It depends on the direction we go. There could be a need for far fewer safety pros — if safety is truly integrated. If we go down the road of standards and programs, you will need plenty of pros. To me, the best safety person should be there on a temporary basis. If I’m with a company for more than a couple of years, I’m a failure.

Q) If a safety pro should really be employed on some kind of temporary basis, what should they do in that short time?

A) Most important, you assess the reality of the organization. Define reality. What’s going on here? First you must do this to see what needs to be fixed. What works and what doesn’t work. You can do this through interviews and perception surveys. Second, then you plan what to do to integrate safety. Three, then you get involvement, get employees on their own doing things the way they think it should be done. You do work yourself out of a job.

Q) What’s your advice to young pros coming out of college?

A) Study not only safety but organizational psychology, organizational management. You need to be able to get a feel for an organization. I hope they intern with an organization. Broaden your background with industrial hygiene, safety, environmental. At least you’ll be more hirable. I’m not sure that these disciplines even fit together, but that’s what companies want.

Q) And what’s your advice to mid-career pros for getting the most out of their jobs over the next 20 years or so?

A) I know a lot of guys downsized out of jobs, struggling to get back into the game or into consulting. I don’t know what to say to them. It’s a matter of finding something, it’s tough, I know. One problem we have, to be a successful consultant or to get a job, you need to get your name out there. The only way to do that is publishing, and people don’t like to write, or don’t have the time to write.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LAST QUESTION…

What’s keeping you busy these days?

I’m working on articles in non-safety magazines — business journals and an industrial engineering magazine. I’m finding people outside safety are more interested in human error than people in safety. It’s universal. People are always screwing up for good, logical reasons. We make environments that make it logical to screw up.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That’s Dan. Blunt. Seeing the big picture. Still fired by a passion that keeps him learning and teaching.

What’s the source of Dan Petersen’s broad knowledge and wide respect? Consider the reach of his experience:

o His early years working as an executive in workers’ compensation insurance and as corporate safety manager in manufacturing.

o His time at the University of Arizona, where he created and taught the graduate program in safety management in the School of Business and Public Administration.

o More than 30 years of consulting Fortune 2000 companies around the globe.

Dan developed concepts in how to ensure management’s leadership role in safety accountability systems in the early 1960s. Four decades later, leadership and accountability are still hot seminar topics. His first book, "Techniques of Safety Management," was published in 1971, at a time everyone else was scrambling to figure out the new OSHA rules. In 1975, he wrote the first book on behavior-based safety, two decades before the BBS field experienced its boom years.

To date, Dan has written 18 titles and appeared in at least ten videos on safety management. Born in Omaha, Neb., in 1931, he has an undergraduate degree in industrial engineering (1952), a master’s degree in industrial psychology (1972), and a doctorate in organization behavior and management (1980).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dave Johnson is the ISHN E-News editor. He can be reached at djsafe@bellatlantic.net, (610) 666-0261; fax (610) 666-1906.

Bush Administration "Problems Ignored" espoused by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards Promoting Responsible Protections for Health, Safety, Civil Rights, and the Environment

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS ADDRESSES RISE IN CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS, SOLUTIONS

Bush Administration "Problems Ignored" espoused by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards
Promoting Responsible Protections for Health, Safety, Civil Rights, and the Environment

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS ADDRESSES
RISE IN CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS, SOLUTIONS