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.

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.

Tran Huynh, a student pursuing a Ph.D. in industrial hygiene at the University of Minnesota, was selected as a runner-up in the 2010 Future Leaders in EHS program. This scholarship program was created to support and encourage EHS students as they lead the way in keeping tomorrow’s workers safe. The judging panel recognized Huynh based on her research experience, her excellent grades and references and her dedication to protecting workers from health and safety risks. She shares a guest blog below.

NIOSH ERC Funding Crisis: A Student’s Perspective

by Tran Huynh

I recently learned from my program director at the University of Minnesota about President Obama’s FY 2012 budget proposal for the Department of Human Health and Services. The proposal suggests a 17 percent cut in the NIOSH budget, which includes the elimination of federal funding of $24.3 million for the 17 Education and Resource Centers (ERC) across the United States.

These university-based ERCs support graduate degree programs and research training for students in the occupational health and safety field. In addition, these centers also offer continuing education for occupational health practitioners so that they are equipped with the latest information to improve worker health and safety.

As a trainee under the ERC, I am very concerned about the future of these centers. If the funding is eliminated, this will significantly and negatively impact the number of future students entering the field, as well as the quality of training and education that future students will receive.

Recruitment Challenges

Compared to other public health graduate degree programs, occupational health is not a popular degree among students. Because the field is highly specialized and field-based, job opportunities in health departments are very limited. OSHA and MSHA are the two main government agencies that deal with occupational health issues, but these agencies often face budget cuts and can only hire a limited number of inspectors. That leaves the private sector as the primary source of employment for occupational health professionals.

Most small, mid-size and even large mining and manufacturing companies usually employ a bare minimum number of health professionals for compliance purposes. Unlike opportunities for graduates with an engineering or business degree, in the private sector, occupational health job prospects are limited to these highly specialized, skilled professionals because they are usually perceived as extra cost. So when it comes to cost reduction, health and safety unfortunately are among the first lines to be affected.

The lack of awareness of the profession, coupled with the limited job opportunities at health departments and in the private sector, makes recruitment of students into the field very challenging. Thus, besides promotional materials and effort, training grants are an important incentive to recruit students to take at least a few introductory classes to explore the profession.

Currently, even with the existing training grants, the number of students enrolled in the program is very small compared to other public health programs such as epidemiology and biostatistics that don’t offer such incentive. I am afraid without the financial incentive at the beginning, the number of students entering the profession will quickly dwindle, resulting in shortages of occupational health professionals to adequately protect the growing work force.

A Rewarding Path

Even though job opportunities seem limited, once students get to work, occupational health and safety can be a very rewarding career path. That is why the majority of graduates remain in the field. The challenge is to get them interested in the first place.

Elimination of the ERCs will affect the quality of training and education of students and practitioners. Like any other field, research and the dissemination of research results in order to improve practices is essential to protect workers’ health. New technology such as nanotechnology will bring new hazards that need careful evaluation to balance economic benefits and the public health.

These centers are not only an essential funding source for researchers-in-training and research projects that help to advance the occupational health field (besides NIOSH projects), but they also provide a channel to disseminate the latest information to practitioners through continuing education programs. Without the centers, we will not be able to attract qualified students and support research projects pertinent to the field.

ERC: Investing in the Future

According to NIOSH statistics, these ERCs supply approximately 75 percent of the occupational health and safety professionals responsible for protecting the health of the work force. These highly skilled professionals are undoubtedly one of the greatest returns expected from investment in these ERCs.

I would also like to point to a less obvious benefit resulting from investing money in trainees: the contribution of ex-trainees to help current students and to enrich the programs. For example, since I have started in the industrial hygiene program, I have seen a handful of ex-trainees, now very successful professionals, come back to volunteer their time and expertise as guest speakers, serve on advisory board for the center and reach out to current students so they can get a head-start on their career path. The fruit that current students receive is a result of the seed the ERC planted years ago. Because these ex-trainees at one time received assistance in their career, they are more motivated to help the next generations. These people are inspiring examples for current students like me who would like to continue this tradition of giving back.

I understand that in times of budgetary crisis, it is necessary to make sacrifices for the good of the country. If it means that the ERC will have smaller operating budget and current students, like me, will no long receive stipend for training or only have partial tuition coverage, I am OK with that. However, total elimination of the ERC will be catastrophic to future students, the future of occupational health and safety field and subsequently to our work force.

While it may seem that occupational health field is not so crucial right now because of the economic downturn, when our economy recoveries in a few years, more people will enter the work force and more occupational health professionals will be needed to protect our workers.

I sincerely ask that our elected officials consider a temporary reduction of funding for ERC during this crisis rather than complete elimination. When our economy recovers, it may cost more to rebuild the program so that our work force has an adequate supply of occupational health and safety professionals.

To learn more about the Education and Resource Centers and how to help save them, please visit: http://clients.criticalimpact.com/vm.cfm?i=daca62e0a8f27b99&jid=7ce958c35b7b0f98.

In his newest post, guest blogger and Future Leader in EHS Jason Townsell discusses a preventable workplace tragedy and why all workers’ lives are irreplaceable.

On Feb. 8, a Southern California man in his early 30s was working to locate a sewer line when the 8-foot-deep by 2-foot-wide trench caved in and buried him in soil up to his shoulders. This 10-year construction veteran was pronounced dead at the scene. The rescue effort had become a recovery effort.

The soil, which weighed up to 150 pounds per cubic foot, likely buried this laborer in such a way to lead to a fast death. However, this is little consolation for such a tragic, preventable event.

If this were a report of a young man dying on the front lines of war defending his country, one might see some sense in his untimely death. Delivering this heartbreaking news to a mother or wife when the deceased loved one died for a greater cause carries a banner of purpose. But construction work isn’t a cause worth dying for.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction fatalities declined by 16 percent from 2008 to 2009 (from 726 fatalities in 2008 to 607 in 2009). If that same percentage reflected a revenue increase or unemployment decrease, it would be positive. But when we are speaking of occupational fatalities, I find these totals to be unacceptable. I find the loss of even one life unacceptable.

Life Lessons

We must begin to view each of these fatalities as a face with a family rather than a statistic to be found on a Web site and improved upon for the sake of lower insurance premiums. This construction laborer was left working alone (it is still unclear if there was any form of cave-in protection in the trench) in an 8-foot deep trench while the remainder of his crew worked at another location. This lack of oversight demonstrates that some companies still don’t get it.

“It” is simple – life is important and the work is dangerous. Does that fact that it is dangerous mean it cannot or should not be done? Absolutely not. Rather, it means that those in charge must begin to match their mitigation measures with the level of danger inherent with the work.

The work will not get less dangerous. In fact, the argument could be made that with the sheer size and speed in which construction projects are evolving, the work may get even more dangerous. To counter this we must get better, and view each fatality as one too many.

Life is Precious

I realize it every time I walk in my front door and am greeted by my children, or when I watch the sun set on a lazy West Coast summer day: Life is precious and I wouldn’t trade it for the world. There is nothing like it. It is irreplaceable, incomparable and incomprehensibly beautiful.

It is only when this message – that life’s priceless beauty belongs to all – is truly absorbed by top levels of management will America’s employees be protected. When everyone pitches in to make American workers go home, occupational fatalities will become the exception rather than the rule.

Jason Townsell, a student working toward a bachelor’s of science in occupational health and safety at Columbia Southern University, was recently named the first Future Leader in EHS. He received a $5,000 scholarship and access to PureSafety’s safety and health software and information solutions. The judges selected Townsell based on his work and life experience, community outreach efforts, academic performance, his interest in teaching and mentoring EHS students and more. Townsell is a contributing blogger for EHS Today.

In his newest blog post, guest blogger and Future Leader in EHS Jason Townsell shares his thoughts on successful EHS implementation, including decision-making skills, practicing EHS procedures, valuing safety and empowering employees. Townsell stresses that both EHS leaders and employees “can choose to make safety happen.” Here’s how:

Daily Decisions

Experience has taught me that our desired outcomes are little more than a series of decisions, some for the betterment of our situation and some to the detriment. This concept is true of worker safety and health as daily decisions made by individual workers (and those who work in the vicinity) may be of life-or-death importance.

One of my goals is to persuade workers to grasp the importance of their decisions. I encourage them to choose to be safe, as I believe that a worker can make that choice and subsequently act on it to make it happen.

There is great power in all decisions. When employees understand this, change is ready to arrive.

Perfect Practice

When I was in high school, my football coach did away with the traditional statement “practice makes perfect” and replaced it with “perfect practice makes perfect.” This is a concept that can transfer to the safety world as well.

While most EHS professionals (myself included) would agree that a perfect health and safety record is nearly impossible, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep reaching for it. Remind your employees daily that when health and safety procedures are followed to the letter, the chance of attaining perfection is much higher.

Valuing EHS

Roy Disney once said, “It’s not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are.” This powerful statement provides the formula for getting one’s work force to make the right decisions every day.

People will not adhere to what they don’t value. As such, EHS professionals must do all that is possible to increase the value of the EHS program for workers. This may be done several ways, including: reaching out to employees and addressing how EHS affects them personally; highlighting the positive effects of EHS values; debunking myths about the additional time and cost required to implement safe actions; and empowering employees to take part in the EHS effort.

Employee Empowerment

Empowering employees is one of the most important aspects of successful safety and health management. It gives workers power over their safety and also makes them a part of the greater EHS effort. This provides the all-important employee buy-in to the safety program.

I believe that safety works best when employees are empowered to be a part of the EHS program and its implementation. An empowered employee is much more likely to value a safety program than an employee who feels the information is simply dictated or commanded from above.

Assigning front-line managers with the task of overseeing the safety of his or her employees and making employees an integral part of a company’s safety committee produces a sense of camaraderie. In these cases, workers want to create an environment of cohesion and compliance.

These pointers represent just a few thoughts I had today regarding successful EHS implementation. Contemplation always brings new ideas. Try it today – consider how you can have a definite impact on the safety of those around you.

Jason Townsell, a student working toward a bachelor’s of science in occupational health and safety at Columbia Southern University, was recently named the first Future Leader in EHS. He received a $5,000 scholarship and access to PureSafety’s safety and health software and information solutions. The judges selected Townsell based on his work and life experience, community outreach efforts, academic performance, his interest in teaching and mentoring EHS students and more. Townsell is a contributing blogger for EHS Today.

As job seekers face a discouraging economy and job market, the last thing they need to worry about is how their physical appearance might influence their prospects. But according to a recent study, this might be a real concern – only not in the ways you might expect.

According to economic researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) in Israel, attractive men might have a better chance of garnering interest from potential employers while attractive women might have less of a chance of getting a foot in the door.

Researchers sent 5,312 resumes in pairs to 2,656 advertised job openings in Israel. In each pair, one resume was sent without a picture while the second, otherwise almost identical resume contained a picture of either an attractive male/female or a plain-looking male/female. Overall, the response rate to resumes was 14.5 percent.

“Unlike Anglo-Saxon countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K, it isn’t taboo in Israel to embed a headshot of oneself in the top corner of one’s job resume,” explained BGU economics researcher and lecturer Dr. Bradley Ruffle. “Rather, the choice to include a photograph on one’s job resume is left to the candidate with the result that some do, while others don’t. This fact makes Israel an opportune location to explore the effect of a picture and its attractiveness, or lack thereof, on the likelihood of being invited for a job interview.”

The resumes of “attractive” males received a 19.9 percent response rate, nearly 50 percent higher than the13.7 percent response rate for “plain” males and more than twice the 9.2 percent response rate of no-picture males. Ze’ev Shtudiner, co-researcher and Ph.D. candidate, said that an attractive male therefore would need to send an average of five resumes in order to obtain a response, while a plain-looking male needs to send 11 for a response.

Women: Omit that Photo

Among women, however, the BGU study indicates that, contrary to popular belief, “attractive” women are called back for a position less often than “plain women,” as well as women who had no picture on their resume.

“Among female candidates, no-picture females have the highest response rate, 22 percent higher than plain females and 30 percent higher than attractive females. Our findings on penalization of attractive women contradict current psychology and organizational behavior literature on beauty that associate attractiveness, male and female alike, with almost every conceivable positive trait and disposition,” the authors explained.

As a result, attractive and plain women alike are better off omitting their photograph from a resume since it decreases their chances of a callback by 20 to 30 percent.

The number of attractive women that were subjected to discrimination varied on who was hiring them, the research shows. When employment agencies received resumes for positions, attractive female candidates were no worse off than plain candidates and penalized only modestly compared to no-picture females.

However, when the corporation at which the candidate might work recruited directly, attractive females received a response rate of about half that of plain and no-picture women. This is likely due to the high number of women in human resources staffing positions, the researchers suggest.

In fact, they go so far as to say that the women who screen the candidates (in this study, the screening person was female in 96 percent of the cases and typically was young and single) nix the attractive female candidates because of a “jealous response.” In short, the young women workers don’t want competition in the workplace from other attractive women.

I’m not sure I’m convinced on this last point. Certainly, more research is necessary to flesh out this “jealousy” hypothesis. In the meantime, perhaps we should all be grateful that it’s not standard practice to include a photo with a resume here in the United States. At the least, this research might make you rethink your Facebook photo or other images available online. You know what they say: A picture is worth a thousand job callbacks. Or something.

A recent experience caused me to realize that EHS managers more and more frequently are becoming not just road warriors, but international road warriors, subjected to hours and even days spent traveling every week. I’m going to start this category off with my own road warrior story, but feel free to add your own comments and suggestions for ways to proactively utilize time spent in airports, train stations, taxis, etc., or, better yet, ways to get around recorded customer service messages to find a real person who can help.

I flew out to the National Safety Congress this year on a sunny Sunday morning, looking forward to landing just a couple of hours after I left – the benefit of east to west travel – and enjoying some relaxing hours by my hotel pool before the serious work started. I made the mistake of taking an airline I’ve heard nothing but complaints about and connecting in O’Hare, the nation’s second busiest airport. Recipe for disaster right? RIGHT! more