Out Loud Blog

The March issue of EHS Today magazine will feature an article about emergency response written by me.

As I was conducting interviews for the article, I was reminded of our own workplace disaster/emergency that occurred nearly 20 years ago.

It happened on a bitterly cold January weekend. Some friends called me on a Sunday night and said, “So what’s going to happen with your office?” I had no clue what they were talking about. Then I looked at the newspaper and our office building was on the front page.

A huge water main had burst right in front of our building, shooting tons of asphalt and concrete into the air, causing chunks weighing hundreds of pounds to burst through our windows. This allowed millions of gallons of water (it eventually was estimated at 6 million gallons) to rush through the lower six floors of the building. The water flowed so fast and so deep that heavy furniture and filing cabinets from one side of the building were found piled against the walls of the opposite side of the building.

The water caused a power outage, which caused the heat to shut off. Two days later, when the power was restored, the frozen pipes and sprinklers burst, causing another flood. We were off work for two weeks and at least half the employees were out of the building for a year.

We never missed a single issue of any of the magazines headquartered in the Cleveland office.

The fact that we all pulled together – working from home and later from tiny cubicles in a temporary space; making do without our files, Rolodexes, archives and reference books (we stored A LOT of paper back in those days); salvaging what we could from our offices while wearing rubber boots and respirators; ignoring the fact that our work lives had been turned topsy-turvy – probably was one of the greatest accomplishments in any of our professional lives up to that point.

If a disaster like that struck your workplace, would your employer recover? If your facility shut down for two weeks or two months or a year, would the business survive? Do you keep critical business files stored on site or off site or both? Do you have a plan to reach employees if a disaster occurs in your area and phone lines are down at employees’ homes as well as work? If your plant manager or CEO or operations manager becomes incapacitated in the emergency or is unable to return to the area or contact you, is someone else knowledgeable and empowered to make critical business decisions?

We didn’t plan for the disaster that struck our offices. In the list of potential emergency scenarios, “chunks of concrete smash windows allowing millions of gallons of water to shoot seven stories in the air and into the offices” would not have been a consideration. We were lucky: We had a capable management team, dedicated employees and civic leaders who rushed to relocate the offices in available space nearby. While our lives were disrupted, business continuity was not.

Have you seen the Seinfeld episode where Elaine finds herself snacking on cake almost every day at the office? At first, she’s frustrated with the constant stream of birthday, get-well or goodbye celebrations. But when she tries to give up the cake, she realizes she’s hooked on the afternoon sugar rush.

Elaine isn’t alone. For many of us, the office is one more place that poses a threat to our healthy intentions. Whether you’re nibbling on donuts and bagels during a morning meeting or mingling at an office party, social pressures may impact how much you eat – especially if you’re a people-pleaser.

According to researchers at Case Western University, people-pleasers – those who strive to keep their social relationships smooth and comfortable – particularly are at risk of overeating in social situations. The researchers framed their findings around social events, like the upcoming Super Bowl parties, but their findings also may strike a chord for those of us facing down food at office parties or meetings.

Passing on that jelly-filled donut in a meeting while everyone else is enjoying one is hard enough, but people-pleasers have an especially tough time. If people-pleasers feel a sense of social pressure to eat, they often will eat more to match what others are consuming. And that comes with consequences.

“Those who overeat in order to please others tend to regret their choices later. It doesn’t feel good to give in to social pressures,” said Julie Exline, a Case Western Reserve psychologist and lead author of the study. In addition to the guilt, you may compromise your health, which in turn could impact your productivity at work, as other research suggests.

It’s something to keep in mind when the cake comes out (again) for a coworker’s birthday. In the end, while indulging in those office goodies might make you feel a part of the team, you’re the only one who has to battle with your waistline – and your health – later.

The research findings were reported in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

For more on workplace wellness and fitness initiatives, read our April feature, “Workplace Workouts: Combating Employee Obesity.”

In today’s professional landscape, it is not uncommon for EHS professionals to also don the risk manager hat. While managing risk has much to do with mitigating risks, the risk manager’s responsibilities do not stop there.

In addition to risk mitigation, a successful risk manager also effectively manages loss cases to minimize the magnitude of the loss. One of the most beneficial tools in accomplishing this is a comprehensive return-to-work program, commonly referred to in industry as an RTW program.

What is a Return-to-Work Program?

An RTW program is an employer-implemented program that allows employees who have medically assigned work restrictions the opportunity to return to work under modified or restricted work assignments (commonly referred to as a light-duty assignment) in accordance with the prescribed work restrictions. The RTW program is done under the direction of the employee’s treating physician.

The Benefits of RTW Programs

RTW programs are mutually beneficial to both the affected employee and the company. Employees benefit by being expedited back to work and provided modified work assignments rather than being placed on disability pay (which often is only a percentage of the full wage) or worse, laid off (which has historically been a concern in some industries). In many cases, RTW programs also accelerate physical recovery – the opportunity for re-injury is minimized since employees are required to adhere to their medical restrictions while at work.

Employers stand to reap several benefits from an RTW program, including: the fruits of fostering good faith and loyalty towards their respective employees (a well taken care of employee is more likely to readily return to full duty as soon as medically feasible), controlling worker compensation costs (which in turn controls experience modification ratings and insurance premiums) and preventing and/or limiting lost work day cases.

RTW programs also help maintain the line of communication between the injured employee and the company. If an employee is not promptly returned to work, that communication usually is severed, which almost always eliminates effective case management opportunities.

A Return to Loyalty

Successful business leaders tend to identify human capital as a company’s greatest asset, and RTW programs safeguard those assets. RTW programs are a must for companies interested in ethical employee relations and productive risk management techniques.

In short, RTW programs are not only the right thing to do both ethically and professionally, but they go a long way in establishing a stable, loyal work force. That’s a return any employer would want.

EHS Today guest blogger Jason Townsell, CSP, was named the 2010 Future Leader in EHS. He works for AECOM as a program safety manager at San Diego International Airport.

A 65-year-old woman from Texas was able to walk on to an American Airlines plane at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport on Wednesday with a .38 caliber handgun in her carry-on bag. The flight already had left the gate by the time Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents were able to track her down. When I heard about this incident, I felt sick.

The TSA agents at the security checkpoint where she entered claim that the woman grabbed her bag off the conveyer belt before her screening was finished and bolted off. Once the agents realized what they had seen in the scanner, they claim they took off after her. To this I say: “Horsepucky.”

First of all, she’s 65 years old and does not look like someone who could do the 100-yeard-dash in record time. It must have taken the screeners several minutes to analyze what they were seeing on their screens and they obviously waved her through and allowed her to collect her bag and walk off. By the time two or three TSA agents had consulted about what they were seeing on the screen, she was so far down the concourse that she was able to board her plane. By the time they found her and the plane, it was taxiing down the runway and had to be recalled to the gate.

Thankfully, she was not an international or domestic terrorist or your average crackpot. She claims she forgot the gun was in her bag. Normally, to that response, I also would say “horsepucky,” except something similar happened to me a couple of years ago.

My briefcase rarely leaves my office. The only time I take it with me is if I’m leaving on a trip. And often, since I have to carry the bag home anyway, I stuff it with Tupperware leftover from lunches, books and magazines and on one particular day, a large bread knife I’d brought into work to cut a loaf of homemade bread I’d shared with coworkers. This knife has a serrated, pointed blade and is very sharp.

You guessed it: I forgot to take the knife out of the bag before I left for the airport. In fact, I so completely forgot about the knife that it wasn’t until I arrived at the hotel in my destination city that I found it. This knife had managed to make it through TSA security checkpoints AT TWO “INTERNATIONAL” AIRPORTS!! With the wooden handle, it’s at least 14 inches long and has a 10-inch blade. And the only other large object in the soft-sided messenger bag I use as a briefcase is my laptop, which I have to remove from the bag at the checkpoints. I cannot believe that no one noticed the knife in the pocket of the otherwise empty case, but apparently, they did not.

I don’t know about you, but after that experience and the incident in Texas, I have NO confidence in TSA or the training received by its agents. While my large butt is being x-rayed in a full-body scanner, weapons in carry-on bags are being overlooked. TSA can create as many displays of confiscated weapons it wants at airports across the country, but I’m not reassured. It’s the weapons they’re not finding that concern me.

Can we all admit that the TSA model does not work and figure out what does?

I’m getting a little tired of hearing excuses. And no, I don’t mean excuses for why some of us aren’t meeting our New Year’s resolutions, or turning in a project on time or remembering a birthday. I mean the excuses that allow so many people to continue using their phones while driving.

A few recent comments on the “NTSB Recommends Total Ban on Drivers’ Use of Distracting Devices” and the blog post “Driving Should Not Be the Distraction” reveal a common complaint: Why bother doing anything about cell-phone-related distracted driving when there are other distractions out there, too?

For example, after reading about NTSB’s call for a ban on all cell phone use while driving, one commenter wrote: “How about GPS devices, putting on makeup, smoking, shaving, eating, drinking and most of all unruly kids in the back seat. Don’t forget the dog sitting in the drivers lap hanging its head out the window, blocking the driver’s mirrors … that’s got to be distracting.”

Another wrote: “May I add: pets in the driver’s lap, ice cream sundaes, java-mocha-whatevers, etc, etc. Come on! Feds: Get out of my life!”

But I argue that it’s not just your life. It’s the lives of everyone on the road around you. And when you use a cell phone while driving – whether it’s hands-free or not, whether you’re writing a text or sneaking a quick peek at an incoming message – it’s dangerous. Your brain is not fully engaged in your driving. You’re navigating a hunk of metal that weighs thousands of pounds at rapid speeds next to other huge, fast-moving, dangerous hunks of metal – and your brain isn’t fully on the task at hand. Part of your attention is floating outside of the car to somewhere else. Scientists even claim that what is happening to your brain at that point is as dangerous as drunk driving. And frankly, I don’t want to be on the road next to you when this is happening.

Now, I do agree that these readers have a point – other potentially dangerous distractions exist while we drive. I don’t want to be on the highway next to a woman leaning toward her rearview mirror to apply mascara any more than I do someone talking on his cell phone. But just because drivers have been distracted by certain things for decades – applying makeup, eating or drinking, adjusting the radio channel – does not mean we should excuse the emerging (and worsening) distractions created by new technologies.

I view any “But XYZ is distracting, too!” argument as an excuse. You want to keep talking on your phone while driving because it’s convenient. You might even complain about other people using their phones while driving, but you think you can do it just fine. I’ve said it before on this blog and elsewhere, but I’ll say it again: That’s not the case. You’re not the exception. Whether you believe it or not, you are taking a risk by talking on your phone while driving – and it’s a risk that could affect not just you, but others as well.

It might be true that a total mobile usage ban while driving might be difficult to enforce. But this, too, is just another excuse. The key to cutting down on this dangerous behavior might not be chasing down every offender and issuing him a ticket – instead, it might be the understanding, at last, that this is dangerous behavior. If more and more people start to grasp that, then the next time they’re in a car with someone who answers his phone, they’ll ask him to hang up. Or the next time they get a call from a loved one who wants to chat during her commute home, they’ll ask her to call back later, at a safer time.

But if we continue to drive on, blissfully ignorant with our cell phones pressed against our ears, we’re going to continue making the roads a more dangerous place.

So enough with the excuses. That phone call can wait. (Yes, it really, really can.) Whether or not your state passes legislation that bans the use of all mobile devices while driving doesn’t matter as much as safety – your own safety, your passengers’ safety and the safety of everyone else on the road. And I think we can all agree on that.

Hi, my name is Aaron Morrow. Nice to meet you! I’m 33 years old, live in Southern California (not a surfer), have an amazing family, enjoy playing as well as watching sports (especially the Chicago Cubs), listening to country music, going to the movies, hanging out with my friends, long walks on the beach and watching the sunset. Those last two are only partially true and just sound really nice. Oh … and I also get really annoyed when I let someone over in traffic and they don’t wave to acknowledge my act of kindness. I guess that negates the true purpose of doing something nice, huh? Anyway, now that you’ve basically seen my Facebook profile, I consider us “friends” and want to share an exciting event taking place next summer. I’m getting married.

Yep, it’s true. Right about now some of you are saying, “That’s nice, good for him,” while others are screaming, “Don’t do it!” And for those of you who know me: I still don’t think pigs have the ability to fly, or that H-E-double-hockey-sticks has frozen over. I will be embarking on a journey that will take a lifetime of effort and commitment. My dad, who’s conducting the ceremony, will pronounce me a husband, and as much as I’ll pretend like I know what that means, I have no clue of how to be a husband. I’m committing to my then-wife Kelly that I will do everything it takes to learn how to live up to that pronouncement. I’m sure it will be easy. Wish me luck!

Speaking of commitment, many companies claim to be committed to safety. We’ve all seen them. They have “Safety First” on the cover of their job proposals or on the homepage of the company Web site. Maybe you’ve walked in the front door of an office building to see a floor mat that reads, “Safety Starts Here” (hopefully, that mat doesn’t create a tripping hazard). I get a warm and tingly feeling as a safety professional when I see these things, but what do they actually mean? What steps are we taking to actually achieve this idea of a commitment to the safety of ourselves and our coworkers?

I know I’m preaching to the choir when I say it starts with the complete and unequivocal support and commitment of upper management. I realize for most organizations, safety is not a “money maker,” which may be true, but the safety of employees is definitely a “money saver.” If owners and the company pyramid toppers aren’t actively involved with the safety program, it makes it tough to pass the safety culture message down the line.

You also need to have a knowledgeable and hands-on safety team. I’ve learned that a safety manager, director, supervisor, etc. trying to execute safety policies and procedures from behind a desk or through an email or memo doesn’t carry the same weight as one who is actually committed to being on the jobsite with his or her fellow workers.

Speaking of field or jobsite workers, get them involved with the safety program. Make working safely a condition of employment, and give each employee and contract worker the right to stop any job they believe to be unsafe. Ask job-related questions and correlate them to safety. Find out what worries employees or makes them uncomfortable on the jobsite. Ask for their suggestions to correct those safety hazards or concerns. Finally, have your employees lead safety meetings. This forces them to put some time into learning the OSHA standards or company safety policies. Plus, it may have more of an impact on workers because it’s coming from a peer instead of the safety professional.

Of course, we cannot forget the commitment to educate and train each employee, including subcontractor employees, on the safest way to work. Make training interesting and different from your same-old video or PowerPoint that was made back when bellbottoms were in style. Nobody wants to see that.

Just like my journey through this whole marriage adventure, safety in the workplace takes a lot of time and effort by all parties involved. It’s not something that comes easily or without confrontation. Commit to safety and live happily ever after.

Guest blogger Aaron J. Morrow, CHST, works as a project HSE manager and is a safety consultant, an OSHA 500 trainer, a Cal/OSHA 5109 trainer and a construction risk insurance specialist.

I rarely read my local newspaper because in my opinion, it’s full of shoddy journalism. Reading it irritates me. This past vacation week, however, I read something that went beyond shoddy journalism and moved into the realm of irresponsible journalism.

It’s one thing to get basic facts incorrect (something my hometown newspaper regularly does) but another to encourage people to disregard common sense and violate OSHA and Department of Labor regulations.

A recent editorial in the newspaper titled “Hilda Solis Is on her High Horse Over Kids on the Farm” took Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to task for attempting to promulgate regulations for workers on family farms. For those of you who are not aware of this, family farms are exempt from DOL wage and hour regulations and from OSHA regulations that dictate the age of workers who can operate certain machinery and the amount of time children are allowed to work. A kid on a family farm can operate saws, drive heavy equipment, work around large farm animals, work 12-hour days, etc.

The Department of Labor proposes prohibiting hired workers under 16 from operating almost all power-driven equipment unless they have been “enrolled in a vocational education program in agriculture under a recognized state or local educational authority or in a substantially similar program conducted by a private school.” The proposed rules also would prohibit anyone under 18 from working at feed lots and livestock exchanges, and would prohibit young people from doing any work that would take them more than 6 feet above ground level or engaging in any activity that would expose them to “unpredictable animal behavior.”

The author of the editorial, endorsed by the newspaper’s editorial board, claimed to have grown up on a livestock auction lot owned by his father and as a child, hung off the running board of a pickup truck to shovel feed into animal stalls. He boasted, “The first vehicle I learned to drive was an International Harvester tractor. The second was a bulldozer, which was a heck of a lot more fun. The third was my dad’s pickup truck. Later that year, I turned 11.”

Back in the day, when my dad was growing up on a farm, the farmer’s children were the main source of farm labor. I get that. Farmers had big families to help with the feeding and care of farm animals, to work in the fields, to bring in the crops, etc. Americans also, at that time, didn’t have seatbelts, thought that smoking was a healthy pastime, had no issues with drinking and driving or drinking while pregnant and didn’t require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. During my dad’s childhood, they also put real candles on the Christmas tree, didn’t vaccinate their children or animals, believed that education took second place to farm responsibilities and smoked cigarettes at age 10.

Seventy years later, none of these things are accepted practice in the United States because we have recognized them as harmful and dangerous, so in this day and age, why should children working on farms be treated differently than any other young workers in any other industries? Given the hazards found on farms, is anyone surprised that children working in the agricultural industry (farms, feed lots, auction lots) have a fatality rate four times greater than that of kids employed in other jobs?

Why would anyone endorse allowing children to be exposed to some of the most hazardous working conditions in the country? What passes for a family farm these days, and therefore not subject to OSHA or DOL regulations, is anything but a family farm. Most are part of multi-national cooperatives bringing in millions of dollars on the backs of an underpaid work force that includes our most vulnerable workers: children.

If the agricultural industry won’t protect its children, then the federal government must do it. I applaud Secretary of Labor Solis for undertaking what is certain to be an ugly fight: Convincing one of the most entitled groups in our country – Congress – and one of the most entitled industries in our country – agriculture – to do the right thing and protect young workers.

I’m going to be honest with you: I think the National Transportation Safety Board has a long road (pun intended) ahead of it if it expects states to ban all calling, texting, Web browsing and other activities performed on any type of personal electronic device while behind the wheel. And I’m going to take what might be a fairly unpopular view and say: I support a ban.

The recommendation calls for the 50 states and the District of Columbia to ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers.

David Strayer, Ph.D., a distracting driving researcher and the director of the University of Utah’s Applied Cognition Lab, told EHS Today that he thinks NTSB’s recommendations “are spot on,” adding, “Talking on a phone, or texting, or using GPS, or looking at your screen or using Facebook are significant distractions that are increasing crash risk.”

I’ve been known to talk and drive and even text and drive, but a close call this summer with a wrong-way driver opened my eyes to the danger in which I was placing others and myself. Although the wrong-way driver was clearly, well, wrong, I would have been killed had I been distracted because I was talking on the phone, looking at a GPS or texting. The crash would not have been my fault, but I still would have been dead.

More than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents. Globally, there are 5.3 billion mobile phone subscribers, which is 77 percent of the world’s population.

Let’s think back to what we did before cell phones and smart phones dominated our lives. Conversations weren’t limited to two-word texts. We offered the people on the other end of the phone our undivided attention because we weren’t driving at the same time we were talking. We paid attention to the road because we weren’t trying to read and drive at the same time.

As leaders in the safety industry, would we encourage employees to watch television while driving forklifts? Text their spouses while simultaneously operating a drill press? Operate a backhoe while updating their Facebook status? Not in a million years!

So why would it ever be OK for an employee to text, check missed calls or return an email while driving down a highway or a busy street?

As I found out this past summer, danger can come at you suddenly –seemingly out of nowhere – and you won’t see it coming if you’re busy checking in on Foursquare or Tweeting about the latest basketball trade.

Is it reasonable to expect that everyone will put down his or her smart phone? No. But speaking from experience, if you don’t want to die in horrible crashes, it is reasonable to put that phone down until you can give it your undivided attention.

Driving shouldn’t be the distraction that takes our attention away from our work and entertainment. Somehow our priorities have gotten screwed up and it’s time for that to change before more lives are lost.

Some safety professionals struggle to decide where to start when they set out to establish an effective occupational health and safety program. Implementing the components of ANSI Z-10 not only will alleviate the burden of determining where to begin, but also will ensure the implementation of a researched and standardized program.

What is ANSI Z-10?

With its foundation in the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” principle of workplace improvement, ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Z-10 is a voluntary occupational health and safety management system that was developed through the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and published in 2005.

The standard provides the following basic elements: management leadership and employee participation; program planning; program implementation and operations; program evaluation and corrective actions; and management review. In addition, the standard also addresses risk controls, audits, incident/accident investigations, responsibilities and authorities. Suited for organizations of all sizes and applications, the standard was designed to facilitate sustainable growth in occupational safety and health programs.

The Standard’s Significance

With a primary purpose of providing a management tool that reduces the risk of occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities, ANSI Z-10 provides a functional approach to program management.

ANSI Z-10 is comparable to other management systems, such as the 1989 federal OSHA safety and health program management guidelines, the National Safety Council’s nine elements of a safety management system, and OHSAS 1800 (published by the British Standards Institute). It also can be integrated with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. These systems remove the guesswork from OHS program management and provide a tangible and tested approach to program management.

The Importance of Implementation

Since its inception in 2005, ANSI Z-10 has not been largely implemented. I suspect this is because it is a voluntary standard, and unfortunately, many organizations will only implement what they are legally required to (e.g., OSHA-mandated injury and illness prevention programs and hazard communication programs). Implementing the ANSI Z-10 standard, however, will only further augment an existing program and move the organization closer to an incident-free workplace.

Implementing voluntary standards such as ANSI Z-10 helps an organization transition from the historic safety management approach of “We will do only what we are required to do” to the progressive approach of “We will do what is necessary to achieve the greatest amount of success in our OHS programs.”

When it comes to safety, that “greatest amount of success” can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. And that is why every safety professional should be familiar with ANSI Z-10.

EHS Today guest blogger Jason Townsell, CSP, was named the 2010 Future Leader in EHS. He works for AECOM as a program safety manager at San Diego International Airport.