Driving

First let me add my congratulations to the OSHA Underground for being named to the LexisNexis Top 25 List of Workplace related blogs. It's great that they got that recognition!

Next, from a commenter:

"Thanks for posting again! I was hoping my comment would elicit a post by you....how about distracted driving as a topic? Apparently it is the #1 killer in the workplace- The US DOT had a summit 2 weeks ago but no one really mentioned it as a workplace issue, I would think this would be an OSHA concern as well?"

As a S&H professional, yes I'm concerned about distracted drivers, the problem is that most of the time, I don't have the jurisdiction to address the problem. Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act says:

"(b) (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State agencies acting under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021), exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health."

What that means is if another federal agency wants jurisdiction, they get it and we don't. And guess what? The Department of Transportation claims jurisdiction for all roadway safety (and then gives that jurisdiction to state and local authorities). Off public thoroughfares we have jurisdiction, but not on the street and highways. That's too bad for the commuters in California or Boston.

One of the bizarre quirks in Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act is that the agency claiming jurisdiction doesn't actually have to do anything to protect employees, they just need to claim jurisdiction. Ask the flight attendants and airline mechanics how well that has worked out for them.

This is a lot different than workplace violence, where we usually do have jurisdiction, but hide from it (that's a separate rant).

No I Haven't Given Up

Anonymous said:

"This has nothing to do with the post, but Abel, where are you? You have not posted in a month! We miss you...."

Thanks, since I've never had an employer open up his arms and say "Glad to see you," it's kind of nice to be missed by at least one person who reads the blog.

You know how fraternities and sororities have Hell Week? CSHOs have Hell Month. And it's not a one time event, it happens every year. Some years are worse than others, and Hell Month becomes Hell Six Weeks. But finally I've gotten to the point where all my OSHA-1s are entered, and I have some kind of handle on the citations. So what shall I rant about? How about this from a previous comment:

"I wonder what the unions and their cronies Barab and Solis will say when their policies increase fatality counts instead of decreasing them. Using their logic, I guess that would make THEM accomplices to murder...? Sadly, a little more than 5000 died while on the job. Lets see what that number is in 2010, 2011, and 2012. My bet ---- higher if they continue down this path."

Here's one for you: I agree that the counts are likely to go up, because of the administrations policies! Before you become apoplectic, however, let me explain (I'm not making a political statement here, so save yours).

Look at these numbers:

Year	Fatalities	Employment	Rate
1992	6083	120 M	5
1993	6271	121 M	5
1994	6588	124 M	5
1995	6210	126 M	5
1996	6112	128 M	4.8
1997	6218	131 M	4.7
1998	6026	133 M	4.5
1999	6023	135 M	4.5
2000	5915	136 M	4.3
2001	5900	136 M	4.3
2002	5524	138 M	4.0
2003	5575	139 M	4.0
2004	5564	140 M	4.1
2005	5734	143 M	4.0
2006	5840	146 M	4.0
2007	5657	147 M	3.8
2008	5071	136 M	3.6

If the fatality counts are the best indicator, then the previous administration failed, notice the increase in fatalities between 2002 and 2006? Up over 10%, BUT look at the employment, going up, and the rate, basically flat.

Unemployment is currently at 9.8%. At some point in the future, that number will come down, presumably because of the administrations economic policies. When unemployment does come down, I would fully expect the number of fatalities to go up. The number of fatalities will go up because the administration will increase the number of jobs.

All this really does, of course, is highlight the fallacy of fatality counts, so let me state this simply: Counts are almost worthless, fatality rates are the best indicator of success. It will be interesting to see if things change now that BLS has gone to hours based fatality rates instead of FTE based rates.

On a related topic, back on March 30, 2009 I posted a rant about the paper "The impact of OSHA recordkeeping regulation changes on occupational injury and illness trends in the US: a time-series analysis" by Friedman and Forst. The basic premise of the study was that the change in OSHA's recordkeeping standard caused an artificial decrease in injury rates from 2001 to 2003. I made my argument against that position back in March, but now in October, while reviewing the fatality data, I discovered another argument, the drop in fatalities between 2001 and 2002.

So why is the drop in fatalities relevant to the drop in injury rates? Anyone familiar with Heinrich's Pyramid or the refined version from Bird, knows that for every fatality there are 30 lost work day cases and 300 recordable cases. Since the recordkeeping standard didn't change the definition of a fatality, with such a significant drop in fatalities (not just the counts, but the rate as well) between 2001 and 2002, one would reasonably expect a correspondingly large drop in serious injuries as well.

Anyone have any other ideas for topics I could rant about?

Health Care Reform

I have a question: What happens to workplace safety and health if health care reform actually goes through? Has anyone thought about it?

Please don't jump in and leave comments about how health care reform is good or bad for the country, I'll just delete those posts. My question is not whether or not we should have health care reform, my question is what happens to safety and health if it comes to pass?

Let's assume it does pass. Let's also assume it meets the goal of reducing health care costs. Wouldn't this suggest that workplace injuries and illnesses might go up? Think about it, we all know that there exists a segment of employers who are only motivated by workers compensation costs. If those costs drop 20%, isn't it reasonable to also assume that at least some of those employers will also reduce their safety and health efforts?

Will this happen? Can it be stopped? We need to get some people a lot smarter than I am to start thinking about this.

The Forum

Yesterday, after noticing that the last post has generated 34 comments, I decided that maybe we need to have a better way to discuss things than on the back pages of a blog, so I've set up a forum, the OSHA Above Forum. The web site is http://oshaabove.freeforums.org/.

There are a couple of downsides to this new forum, first, because it's free, there will be ads. If enough people use the forum I'll pay for the premium package and get rid of them, but until I know how much it's going to be used, the ads will have to remain.

The other problem is that in order to post comments or start new threads, you have to register. I hate this, but that's the way the hosting site has things set up. You do not have to be registered to read the threads, just to start new topics or leave comments.

Since I know individual anonymity is what most of us are striving for, my suggestion is to set up a new e-mail account at Gmail or Yahoo, or the free webmail hosting site of your choice. This way when you register on the OSHA Above Forum, I can't identify you. Just remember for both the e-mail and the forum to use your pseudonym.

We'll see how this works, but I think it's a better way for the kinds of discussions we're starting to have.

By the way, this blog is not going away, I still have opinions, and your comments to those opinions are still welcome.

Poll Results

The poll results are in, and I have to admit I'm a little surprised by them. Not the "Is Abel a Shill?" poll, I kind of expected that, although I find it somewhat counterintuitive that someone would view me that way and still read the blog. If I though someone was shilling, I wouldn't read their blog.

For me the surprise was what standard people thought OSHA should work on next, the results are below.

Silica		6 (5%)
Ergonomics		5 (4%)
Diacetyl		32 (29%)
Combustable dust		11 (10%)
PELs		15 (13%)
Confined Space in Construction		12 (11%)
Safety & Health Program		28 (25%)

Diacetyl? Really? I understand how bad popcorn lung is, but more people die every year from silicosis, or confined spaces in construction, or long term exposure to chemicals because of out dated PELs, than from diacetyl. Besides, if we had a S&H program requirement companies would be required to address this anyway.

For those who voted for diacetyl, leave a comment, I would like to know what your thoughts are.

If you have any ideas for another poll, leave a comment. And thanks to everyone who voted, that was the first poll with over 100 votes.