Sunday, June 20, 2010
Sigh
People constantly disappoint me. I have left the comment section open so anyone could post a comment without my interference, but I did so with the hope that people would be respectful, but the Trolls have proven that civility is beyond their capability, so I have closed the comments down. For those who choose to participate and agree to be respectful I'll post your comments when I can. Keep in mind that respectful doesn't mean you have to agree with me or OSHA, you just have to frame your questions/complaints/comments in a thoughtful way.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Bad Ideas
Every day OSHA sends it's staff an e-mail with a list of S&H/OSHA related links to articles gathered from the Internet. One of the article today really got my attention: UMW, Upper Big Branch victims' relatives sue MSHA.
It's not that MSHA is being sued, that happens all the time to both MSHA and OSHA, it's just part of the job. The part that makes me uncomfortable is that UMW is asking a judge allow union and employee representatives to be included in all interviews related to the investigation. I absolutely understand the desire to be included and to want to hear the unvarnished version from both employee and employer witnesses, but I don't think UMW realizes how potentially damaging this might be to the investigation.
Interviews, especially interviews of witnesses after a fatality, can be tricky. There's always a lot of emotion involved, fear, anger, shock, depression, to name just a few. Wading through that emotion may take patience, or it may take sympathy, or it may take a certain firmness, it all depends on the situation.
The most productive interviews are usually those where the investigator can get past the emotions and establish a certain level of rapport. I'm not suggesting that the interviewee would tell us their deepest secrets, but if you can show them that you aren't after them personally, that you're just trying to put the pieces together and that they can be part of that process, you can usually get your answers.
When there is a third person in the room, however, establishing the rapport is very difficult, and when that third person is viewed as the enemy, it's impossible. That's why under the OSH Act we are allowed to interview employees away from company representation. Employees are entitled to have a representative observe the interview, but the employer can not put a representative in the room during an employee interview. This leads to some interesting interviews because the employer can refuse to allow us to interview the employees on their property. I have interviewed employees in restaurants, hotel rooms, parks and even bars. I have also had situations where the employee representative has been helpful and instances where the rep has cause problems (typically because they answer the questions instead of letting the employee answer).
Some of these same issues arise when we interview employer reps, except that they know we're investigating what they did, so they naturally tend to be very defensive. Over coming that defensiveness is difficult, especially if they have a lawyer sitting in the room with them. Trying to over come that defensiveness would be impossible if employee reps were in the room, everyone knows everything they say will be used in the lawsuit.
I'm not opposed to difficult investigations, but when I do an investigation I want to be able to gather as many of the facts as I can, and employee representative being in the room when I interview management will do nothing but hinder that.
It's not that MSHA is being sued, that happens all the time to both MSHA and OSHA, it's just part of the job. The part that makes me uncomfortable is that UMW is asking a judge allow union and employee representatives to be included in all interviews related to the investigation. I absolutely understand the desire to be included and to want to hear the unvarnished version from both employee and employer witnesses, but I don't think UMW realizes how potentially damaging this might be to the investigation.
Interviews, especially interviews of witnesses after a fatality, can be tricky. There's always a lot of emotion involved, fear, anger, shock, depression, to name just a few. Wading through that emotion may take patience, or it may take sympathy, or it may take a certain firmness, it all depends on the situation.
The most productive interviews are usually those where the investigator can get past the emotions and establish a certain level of rapport. I'm not suggesting that the interviewee would tell us their deepest secrets, but if you can show them that you aren't after them personally, that you're just trying to put the pieces together and that they can be part of that process, you can usually get your answers.
When there is a third person in the room, however, establishing the rapport is very difficult, and when that third person is viewed as the enemy, it's impossible. That's why under the OSH Act we are allowed to interview employees away from company representation. Employees are entitled to have a representative observe the interview, but the employer can not put a representative in the room during an employee interview. This leads to some interesting interviews because the employer can refuse to allow us to interview the employees on their property. I have interviewed employees in restaurants, hotel rooms, parks and even bars. I have also had situations where the employee representative has been helpful and instances where the rep has cause problems (typically because they answer the questions instead of letting the employee answer).
Some of these same issues arise when we interview employer reps, except that they know we're investigating what they did, so they naturally tend to be very defensive. Over coming that defensiveness is difficult, especially if they have a lawyer sitting in the room with them. Trying to over come that defensiveness would be impossible if employee reps were in the room, everyone knows everything they say will be used in the lawsuit.
I'm not opposed to difficult investigations, but when I do an investigation I want to be able to gather as many of the facts as I can, and employee representative being in the room when I interview management will do nothing but hinder that.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
OSHA Impact... Yes, Again.
People drive me crazy. They complicate things that don't need to be complicated and simplify things that can't be simplified. The graph I referred to in my last post was from an article by Charles C. Johnson at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website. Hmmmm, imagine that, an anti-government website saying bad things about a government agency, I'm shocked. I'm also not going to get into politics, and I'll delete any comment that does, but I am going to talk about his graph and is contention that OSHA has no impact.
Johnson's article included a graph from the National Safety Council showing declining fatality rates in the US. He graciously included an arrow to point out 1970, when the OSH Act was signed. His contention is that the trend was already on the declining and therefore creating OSHA was unnecessary. What he utterly failed to do was to try to account for why the line was dropping, and by extension, what impact OSHA may or may not have on the decline since 1970.
Too many people seem to believe that there is a magic bullet that will cure everything that's wrong with the world (or workplace safety and health in this case). Those people need to come to grips with the fact that "there is one and only one true answer" is a ridiculous position (I'm not talking spiritually, this isn't intended to be a religious discussion).
Think about it, is there one perfect food? No, there is no food that tastes perfect every time, is health, is absorbed by the body in perfect proportion to our needs, and doesn't cost anything. Ambrosia doesn't exist (bacon is the closest thing I've found).
Applied to occupational safety and health, there is no panacea for the ills of the workplace. Does enforcement work? Yes it does, for some employers. Does compliance assistance work? Yes it does, for some employers. Has OSHA made an impact? Yes it has, for some employers.
What Johnson's graph doesn't show is everything else that has been done in the past 100 years to protect workers. Here are just a few of the things that have happened that have shaped where we are today:
And lest we forget, there are the huge strides in medicine, both in terms of traumatic injuries, as well as illnesses.
What does all of this mean? It means that OSHA is one piece, one brick, one slice, one (you pick the cliche) of a greater whole. How do we measure the size of that piece? I don't know, I keep asking on this blog and so far no one has given me a good answer.
Johnson's article included a graph from the National Safety Council showing declining fatality rates in the US. He graciously included an arrow to point out 1970, when the OSH Act was signed. His contention is that the trend was already on the declining and therefore creating OSHA was unnecessary. What he utterly failed to do was to try to account for why the line was dropping, and by extension, what impact OSHA may or may not have on the decline since 1970.
Too many people seem to believe that there is a magic bullet that will cure everything that's wrong with the world (or workplace safety and health in this case). Those people need to come to grips with the fact that "there is one and only one true answer" is a ridiculous position (I'm not talking spiritually, this isn't intended to be a religious discussion).
Think about it, is there one perfect food? No, there is no food that tastes perfect every time, is health, is absorbed by the body in perfect proportion to our needs, and doesn't cost anything. Ambrosia doesn't exist (bacon is the closest thing I've found).
Applied to occupational safety and health, there is no panacea for the ills of the workplace. Does enforcement work? Yes it does, for some employers. Does compliance assistance work? Yes it does, for some employers. Has OSHA made an impact? Yes it has, for some employers.
What Johnson's graph doesn't show is everything else that has been done in the past 100 years to protect workers. Here are just a few of the things that have happened that have shaped where we are today:
- 1908 - US government passes an employer's liability law that applies only to railroads, but leads to state workers compensation laws (44 states adopted laws between 1911 and 1921).
- 1910 - US Bureau of Mines is established.
- 1911 - Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire leads to the founding of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE).
- 1938 - Fair Labor Standards Act passed, which includes limitations on child labor.
And lest we forget, there are the huge strides in medicine, both in terms of traumatic injuries, as well as illnesses.
What does all of this mean? It means that OSHA is one piece, one brick, one slice, one (you pick the cliche) of a greater whole. How do we measure the size of that piece? I don't know, I keep asking on this blog and so far no one has given me a good answer.
Errata
Sorry for the long absence, busy. I know, I've already used that excuse, and I've said I would try to do better, but I have been busy and I will try to do better.
In my last post I said I wanted to have a S&H contest, but I can't seem to find the right show on TV. I thought it would be best if we could use a show/video that is posted on the internet instead of having to record something. So far I haven't been able to find anything I liked, so if any one has any ideas let me know. It can be a TV show or something posted on Youtube. I don't want a video of an accident, I want a video of people doing normal work. The clip needs to be 5-10 minutes long, so if you know of something, pass it along.
I still haven't heard anything about the Wal-Mart case. I'm a little disappointed, I was looking forward to asking the attorney if padding ones billable hours buy subpoenaing people not involved in the case was an ethics violation.
If anyone has any ideas for a post, let me know.
In my last post I said I wanted to have a S&H contest, but I can't seem to find the right show on TV. I thought it would be best if we could use a show/video that is posted on the internet instead of having to record something. So far I haven't been able to find anything I liked, so if any one has any ideas let me know. It can be a TV show or something posted on Youtube. I don't want a video of an accident, I want a video of people doing normal work. The clip needs to be 5-10 minutes long, so if you know of something, pass it along.
I still haven't heard anything about the Wal-Mart case. I'm a little disappointed, I was looking forward to asking the attorney if padding ones billable hours buy subpoenaing people not involved in the case was an ethics violation.
If anyone has any ideas for a post, let me know.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Those TV Shows
No, I haven't abandoned the blog, I've been very busy, those newbies can't train themselves. Actually, I'm not sure I can train them either. The kids right out of school think they know everything and can't seem to comprehend that they're actually pretty stupid. Those who came from consultation or private industry spend half their time complaining about the amount of documentation needed for each case.
Anyway, I received an e-mail from Ronald (he told me I could use his name) suggesting a new thread and asking me what CSHOs thought about TV shows like the History Channel's Jobsite, and all of the S&H violations we can all see. This gave me an idea, let's have a S&H contest, let's pick one of those shows and see who can find the most violations. First, we need to pick a show. Jobsite looks like it was just a two episode show, so that doesn't work. America's Dirtiest Jobs might work, but let's hear your suggestions first. Once we have the show I'll pick an episode airing date.
Now back to the question, what do I think when I see those shows? One word, not so elegantly, sums up my thought: Dumbasses!
Compliance Officers watch television too, do you really think we don't see these things? I know the agency has sent a letter to one of the home improvement shows pointing out their S&H violations and I've heard that we sent a letter to Oregon OSHA asking them to investigate the loggers on Ax Men. There's a quote that floats around: "Asking me to overlook a simple safety violation would be asking me to compromise my entire attitude towards the value of your life." I wish I knew who the author was so I could give them credit, but to paraphrase, I wish I could go do an inspection.
Being a Compliance Officer means never really turning it off. I know plenty of CSHOs who have been on vacation, noticed an problem (usually a trench or bad scaffold/fall protection), and started an inspection. And yes, I've done it.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating, most CSHOs do the job because it's what we believe. Trust me the pay, nice as it is, does not compensate for the stress and time away from the family.
Anyway, I received an e-mail from Ronald (he told me I could use his name) suggesting a new thread and asking me what CSHOs thought about TV shows like the History Channel's Jobsite, and all of the S&H violations we can all see. This gave me an idea, let's have a S&H contest, let's pick one of those shows and see who can find the most violations. First, we need to pick a show. Jobsite looks like it was just a two episode show, so that doesn't work. America's Dirtiest Jobs might work, but let's hear your suggestions first. Once we have the show I'll pick an episode airing date.
Now back to the question, what do I think when I see those shows? One word, not so elegantly, sums up my thought: Dumbasses!
Compliance Officers watch television too, do you really think we don't see these things? I know the agency has sent a letter to one of the home improvement shows pointing out their S&H violations and I've heard that we sent a letter to Oregon OSHA asking them to investigate the loggers on Ax Men. There's a quote that floats around: "Asking me to overlook a simple safety violation would be asking me to compromise my entire attitude towards the value of your life." I wish I knew who the author was so I could give them credit, but to paraphrase, I wish I could go do an inspection.
Being a Compliance Officer means never really turning it off. I know plenty of CSHOs who have been on vacation, noticed an problem (usually a trench or bad scaffold/fall protection), and started an inspection. And yes, I've done it.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating, most CSHOs do the job because it's what we believe. Trust me the pay, nice as it is, does not compensate for the stress and time away from the family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)