Is Employee Engagement A Fairy Tale?

Posted on July 16, 2013 by mavity2012

My answer is “no,” but the article below reminds us that we must develop “engagement” strategies that recognize the highly imperfect nature of the work world and the effects of the loss of the old “social contract theory of employment.” To perhaps unfairly paraphrase one of Ms. Welbourne messages in the article below, we can’t quit being loyal to employees and expect our engagement strategies to magically lead to employee loyalty and eager engagement in safety efforts or any other employer needs.

I also rather like this professor/consultant’s blog, How To Manage Change Management As Change Becomes the Norm (try to say that three times fast).

Finally, read the last TLNT blog by John Hollon, which is referenced at the end of my post.  Hollon’s blog  talks about the fact that we really have not defined “employee engagement” very well and whether this holy grail is actually worth the effort to employers.

Both bloggers are well worth following, as is TLNT.

A ContrarianView of Employee Engagement

by on Jul 16, 2013, 7:00 AM  |  4 Comments
 
Every day I get alerts on new articles, blogs and books on employee engagement.

I expected that, at some point, the content would start to slow down vs. grow, but it has not happened. There seem to be endless conversations about this topic, and you’d think that employee engagement is some sort of state of nirvana.

With all this happy talk about engagement, there needs to be a contrarian voice. Here are a few things to think about that do not show up in most employee engagement articles.

A contrarian’s history of employee engagement

Once upon a time there was something called a job for life. Along with the job for life came a relic called a pension. For those of you who can’t remember what a pension is, it’s a guaranteed monthly income, usually accompanied by health insurance, that stays with a former employee during retirement.

Oh, retirement? That’s something people used to be able to do when they worked in the job-for-life company. The deal was a job for life in exchange for loyalty. But, this happy story did not last too long when the economy came crashing down.

Continue reading at TLNT.

We must not only determine how to promote employee engagement, but whether the efforts are well spent.  We do not want to fall into the trap of merely repeating the latest HR/Behavioral theories much like an unproved mantra.  Final link for the post ….

      Weekly Wrap: Are We Wasting Our Time on Employee Engagement?

by on Jul 12, 2013, 12:20 PM  |  3 Comments

Loyal readers of TLNT know that we have a lot of content surrounding the concept of employee engagement because, well, no one seems to have a really good handle on employee engagement.

The issues that seem to always pop up are:

  1. Just what is “engagement,“ because no one seems able to define it very well; and,
  2. Even if we can figure out how to define it, what is the benefit of improved employee engagement, anyway? 

Those two points seem to be the fuel for a never-ending stream of articles, commentary, and debate. I’m not going to dig into them again here, except to share something that I picked up from a recent Washington Post On Leadership column that seemed to have gotten lost during the extended July 4th holiday.

Continue reading at TLNT.

Posted in attitude/culture, cultural changes, employee engagement, employer policies, hospitality, management and leadership, safety programs | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Icons and Idiots

Posted on July 16, 2013 by mavity2012

I’d love to hear some comments about Bob Lutz book, Icons and Idiots: Straight Talk On Leadership.  Those in the auto industry must have especially interesting observations.   Read from the Economist review below:

Icons and Idiots: Straight Talk on Leadership. By Bob Lutz. Portfolio Penguin; 227 pages. $26.95. Buy from Amazon.com

BOOKS on business leadership often fail to catch readers’ attention because they sugarcoat incompetence, the single most intriguing characteristic of many successful careers. This is a pity, because the people at the core of these books are often excellent subjects for study by people other than their miserable underlings.

 

Bob Lutz’s “Icons and Idiots” provides a template for a better approach. Over a long career he worked in senior positions for BMW, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors (twice). This gives him a unique vantage point when trying to explain why the car industry, which benefited from a huge domestic market in America, needed a bail-out: it was run by petty tyrants unworthy to be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone a vast industry.

Mr Lutz leavens his criticism with brief praise at the end of each appraisal, which can be ignored, or by finding virtue in character flaws, which should not be. Consider the flattery applied to his first boss at GM: “Bob Wachtler was not without a sense of humour, however racist, sexist, homophobic and speciesist it may have been.” Wachtler’s best feature was his ability to speak clearly: “Many times I would hear him shout,” Mr Lutz writes, ‘I read your stupid memo, and it’s clear to me that you don’t get it. I can’t waste my time explaining it all again, so just rewrite the f—ing thing, and this time, recommend approval’.”

(Continue Reading).

Posted in auto industry, books and articles, cultural changes, management and leadership | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Compactors In Retail Settings Can Be Deadly.

Posted on July 15, 2013 by mavity2012

OSHA regularly cites retail employers for violations relating to their compactors and balers, many of which are old and ill-maintained.  I wish that we could say that deaths involving store contractors are rare, but that would not be true.  Please see the recent story below:

REDWOOD City, Calif. — An employee at a Redwood City Grocery Outlet was killed Thursday night in an accident involving a machine used to compact cardboard for recycling, officials said Friday.

The store janitor was found by another employee around 10 p.m. crushed to death in a compactor/baler in the store at 1833 Broadway, according to California Division of Occupational Safety and Health spokesman Peter Melton.

(Read More).

Below is a typical OSHA news release on a common retail citation:

ALBANY, N.Y. – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Dick’s Sporting Goods for six alleged violations of workplace safety standards after an OSHA inspection identified several hazards at the retailer’s store at the Aviation Mall in Queensbury. The Pennsylvania-based retailer faces a total of $57,300 in proposed fines.

OSHA inspectors found that workers at the Queensbury store were periodically required to enter a trash compactor that had not first been de-energized in order to remove cardboard blockages. Additionally, the store lacked the means and procedures for employees to enter and work safely in such a confined space, and training was not provided on the hazards and safeguards associated with work in a confined space. Finally, access to fire extinguishers was blocked and employees were not trained in how to use fire extinguishers in the event of a fire.

“Even in a retail outlet, employees can be exposed to deadly or disabling hazards if the proper safeguards and training are absent, as they were here,” said Edward Jerome, OSHA’s area director in Albany. “These workers could have been crushed or burned. For the safety and health of all of its employees, I urge this employer to examine safety and health issues at its other stores and promptly take corrective action.”

Two repeat violations with $33,000 in fines were cited for the blocked fire extinguishers and lack of fire extinguisher training. Four serious violations with $24,300 in fines were cited for the confined space hazards and a missing fire extinguisher.

OSHA even treats the subject in its Youth Worker Safety materials.

In fact, the DOL expressly deals with compactors in its restrictions on minor workers:

Minors under 18 years of age may not operate or unload scrap paper balers or paper box compactors. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds may load such machines under certain specific circumstances. (See Fact Sheet #57, in this series Hazardous Occupations Order No. 12. Rules for Employing Youth and the Loading of Power-Driven Balers and Compactors under the FLSA.)

The tragic California accident is a good reminder to check interlocks, signage, training and lock-out procedures for compactors, as well as those persistent retail setting repeatable violations involving partially blocked doors, fire extinguishers and electric panels in store rooms.

 

Posted in Cal-OSHA, repeat items, retail | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Distracted Working

Posted on July 9, 2013 by mavity2012

I recently wrote an expanded article on “Why Employees Choose To Get Hurt” for Occupational Health and Safety Magazine, and while reviewing materials, came across a fascinating little gem in the The Auto Club Group’s “Going PLaces” Magazine.  In addition to being my client for 30 years and the preferred travel agent of our Firm, I long ago discovered that AAA also leads the way on many auto safety issues.

OSHA, the AGC, EHS Today and other groups have waged a years-long campaign to restrict driver texting and other distractions.  However, we may have missed two very important facts ….

First, that even listening to music can distract a driver, so we should not alone focus on hand-held phone usage and testing, … and second, why not apply the “distraction” analysis to determine why employees act in an unsafe fashion?

Going Places article “What’s On Your Mind?” explores how a wide variety of tasks and technology can affect you behind the wheel.  I hope that, by now we are all aware that it makes little difference whether one uses a hand-held or hands-free device.  However, what I found interesting about the AAA article was its ranking of the amount of distraction caused by a wide range of devices and activities, and frankly, cell phones are not the worst offenders .

David Strayer, a professor of cognition and neural science at the University of Utah has released research performed at the behest of the AAA Foundation For Traffic Safety.  The answers Strayer found may surprise you.

  • Phone Conversations had essentially the same effect whether they happened on a hands-free or hand-held device (even as surveys show a majority of motorists believe hands-free to be safer).
  • Audio Books required even more mental workload than the radio.
  • “Speech-to-Text Systems” were much more demanding—a Category 3 distraction—than simply listening to the radio or talking on the phone. Strayer suggests it may involve the lack of “backchannel” communication, those conversational cues we get from talking to real people—the same way, he suggests, we often stumble a bit when trying to leave a voice mail message.
  • “Operation Span” Exercises, which require a series of memory and math tasks, create the absolute highest level of workload.

This excellent article by Tom Vanderbilt, author of New York Times bestseller, “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do and What It says About Us,” illustrates that effective driver training and polices will be ineffective if we focus solely on cell phones and testing and ignore the larger problem of “what distracts the driver.”

I have not yet researched the broader subject of “distracted workers,” but most of what I have read has focused on the enormous loss of productivity.

From May 2011 Fox Small Business:

The survey conducted by software company harmon.ie and research firm uSamp, found that nearly 60% of work interruptions involve tools like e-mail, social media, text messaging and instant messaging, as well as switching windows among standalone tools and applications. The survey also found that 45% of employees work for only 15 minutes at a time or less without being interrupted, and 53% waste at least one hour a day due to various distractions.

I especially liked the 2012 Wall Street Journal Article, Here’s Why You Won’t Finish This Article ….

In the few minutes it takes to read this article, chances are you’ll pause to check your phone, answer a text, switch to your desktop to read an email from the boss’s assistant, or glance at the Facebook FB +3.12%or Twitter messages popping up in the corner of your screen. Off-screen, in your open-plan office, crosstalk about a colleague’s preschooler might lure you away, or a co-worker may stop by your desk for a quick question.

And bosses wonder why it is tough to get any work done.

Distraction at the office is hardly new, but as screens multiply and managers push frazzled workers to do more with less, companies say the problem is worsening and is affecting business.

While some firms make noises about workers wasting time on the Web, companies are realizing the problem is partly their own fault.

Which brings me to the Canadian Occupational Safety Magazine article, “From Distracted Drivers To Distracted Workers.”

“Researchers have found that the human brain really doesn’t multitask — the cognitive demanding task it cannot do at the same time,” said Hayes.

He points out the distractions of cellphone use are not limited to driving, but are also vital to the safety of workers, particularly in high-risk areas like a construction site.

So what are we doing about it?  Some employers now ban cell phones from industrial and construction settings.  I can understand this approach because I have handled more than one case where an employee took a cell call, and then returned to his electrical work without putting his gloves back on.  But what about work sites where the employees must use their phones to obtain guidance from the home office, to call emergency responders, or to conduct online job safety analysis or use other safety apps?

More importantly, have we broadened our focus from vehicle operation and from cell phones?  Where else is “distraction” contributing to injuries?  In this age of “multi-tasking,” we already know that we are loosing concentration and analytical ability, but are we also creating yet more safety hazards?

Howard

 

 

Posted in attitude/culture, employer policies, generational differences, reducing injuries, safety programs, vehicles/dot | Leave a comment

Hot Off the Presses! Health Law Penalties delayed For Big Employers

Posted on July 2, 2013 by mavity2012

 

In case you saw headlines today, such as the one in the Wall Street Journal pasted below, we have attached the Treasury statement following the WSJ blurb. 

The Obama administration said it is delaying penalties for large employers who do not provide health-insurance coverage to workers under the federal health-care law for 2014, the first year the provision was set to take effect. The health overhaul passed in 2010 requires companies with 50 or more workers to provide health benefits to full-time employees or pay fines starting at $2,000 per worker.

Many large companies already provide coverage voluntarily, but some industries, particularly restaurant, retail and other sectors with significant numbers of lower-wage workers, had criticized the additional costs they would face under the provision. (Read More)

 

                                           (OFFICIAL STATEMENT)

Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner

Mark J. Mazur, Asst. Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Dept of the Treasury

7/2/2013

​Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses – many of which already provide health coverage for their workers – about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively.  We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.  We have listened to your feedback.  And we are taking action.  

The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.  This is designed to meet two goals.  First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law.  Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees.  Within the next week, we will publish formal guidance describing this transition.  Just like the Administration’s effort to turn the initial 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible about reporting requirements as we implement the law. 

Here is some additional detail.  The ACA includes information reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage.  It also requires information reporting (under section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees.  We expect to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders – including those responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements – in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law. 

Once these rules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers, and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarily implement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the full application of the provisions in 2015.  Real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation in 2015. 

We recognize that this transition relief will make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments (under section 4980H) for 2014.  Accordingly, we are extending this transition relief to the employer shared responsibility payments.  These payments will not apply for 2014.  Any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015. 

During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage.  Also, our actions today do not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA (nor any other provision of the ACA).​

Mark J. Mazur is the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

​​

Posted in:  Tax Policy

Posted in employer benefit plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Washington | Tagged | Leave a comment

Want Another Reason to Focus On Your Employees?

Posted on June 27, 2013 by mavity2012

Many of you know, I grew up in the hills of Northwest Georgia where about 85% of the nation’s carpet is manufactured. To put it mildly, it is a non-union area. Thirty miles North lies Chattanooga, which was once a highly unionized town before it lost its foundries and thousands of high paying skilled blue-collar jobs. Of course, Chattanooga is now a success story, having recreated itself as a delightful tourist destination, among other nice qualities.

More recently, Chattanooga and its environs has done a virtuoso job of turning the former ammunition plant area near lake Chickamauga into the new VW plant site, as well as luring automotive suppliers and huge Amazon distribution centers to the Chattanooga – Cleveland area. Non union operations, if I recall correctly.

I’m a management labor lawyer, so my philosophy is probably obvious. I prefer settings where management and employees deal directly with one another.  I hold management accountable to treat their employees in a way that makes employees feel that they do not need a “third-party” between them and management. That’s one of many reasons that I so hammer on the importance of a “safety culture” and an engaged workforce. Where I find a manufacturer or contractor with a really superior safety culture and equally engaged management and employees, I  find efficient production processes, good returns, and few employment law and labor problems.

All businesses occasionally make mistakes, screw up communications and made mistakes that disgruntled employees or a third-party can use to drive a wedge between employees and management, but I believe that most employers inadvertently bring a union on themselves … at least in the South. I know that’s a harsh observation, but I’d be willing to defend it. Read my posts on my dad’s approach to business, employee engagement, and other topics.  I don’t focus on “union bashing.”  I focus on developing employer processes that promote safety, employee engagement, good communications, and fair treatment.  And yes, many of my unionized clients also focus on those values, especially in construction.  As busy as we all remain, these “values” won’t occur without specific detailed efforts.

So I was intrigued when I read the following article from my home town area….

 

Bill Haslam wary of VW union impact on other industries

NASHVILLE, Jun 26, 2013 (Chattanooga Times Free Press – McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) — Gov. Bill Haslam said Tuesday that the possibility of Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant becoming unionized is coming up as a topic of concern among other industries the state is trying to recruit to Tennessee.

The Republican governor, who opposes the United Auto Workers’ unionization efforts, said he has “heard that from some of the other people considering Tennessee that that would be a negative in their mind if that happened in Chattanooga.”

“So,” Haslam continued, “we’ve communicated that to Volkswagen. Ultimately, like I said, we want to see them [Volkswagen] grow here.” 

Meanwhile, an international labor expert said that German labor leaders backing the organizing effort in Chattanooga could influence whether a potential new model is produced in Tennessee or Mexico.

Lowell Turner, a Cornell University international and comparative labor professor, said he interpreted a statement last week by a top leader in VW’s global works council to mean that “We’d like to see representation [in Chattanooga] and for it to happen before we look at expansion there.”

“If we can expand somewhere else with a more friendly environment, why expand in a place that’s hostile to unions and worker representation,” Turner said he thought was the message. (CONTINUE READING)  (Thanks to Walter Orechwa for posting the article).

Posted in attitude/culture, employee engagement, manufacturing, safety programs, union organizing, unions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Employee Engagement or Involvement?

Posted on June 26, 2013 by mavity2012

At some point we shifted the discussion from employee “involvement” to employee “engagement.”  One dictionary defines “involvement” as:

 the act of taking part in an activity, event, or situation

The same dictionary defines “engagement” as:

the feeling of being involved in a particular activity 

Although, I also like the definitions provided for “engage:”

to attract and keep someone‘s interest or attention  or  if a part of a machine engages, or if you engage it, it fits into another part so that they work together. 

In some ways, the latter engineering definition seems to more clearly express our meaning when we talk about the need to “engage” our employees.  We want employees to do more than “take part,” we want a more tangible effort where the employees fit with one another and work together.  :Engage” seems to suggest a more active and committed role.  certainly this definition applies to our endless quest to get employees “engaged in the safety process.”  While serving on a safety committee is one example of “involving” an employee, this act alone seems less significant than the engagement achieved by assigning several employees to develop a ne Job Safety Analysis (JSA) or strategy to lessen soft tissue or “ergonomic” injuries.  At some point, we earnestly hope that the effort will become self-perpetuating and that the employee will seek involvement in “their company.” Or to put it in the colloquial terms we labor lawyers use, “feel as if they have some skin in the game.”

If we discuss engagement, we have to consider management “leadership.”  I wrestle with whether it is more difficult to obtain this self-driven employee engagement or genuine management leadership, but I do not wrestle with which comes first.  Genuine management leadership is necessary to perpetuate a culture of employee engagement.

I want to share two interesting articles on “engagement” from this week.  First an article by author Kevin Kruse on whether “Employees Should Be Responsible For Their Own Engagement.”

Then read the provocative and even better Article by Carol Anderson, “I’m Getting Tired of All of the Talk About Employee Engagement,” which sets out the following premise:

I have come to the conclusion that “engagement” has become one of those buzzwords that has lost its meaning because it is so overused. And I fear that focusing on “engagement” has caused us to lose sight of what is really important – skilled leaders who can move teams forward.

See what you think of these two articles.

Howard

 

Should Employees Be Accountable For Their Own Engagement?

 By Kevin Kruse

Whose job is it to increase engagement?

Whenever I ask that question in a group, answers typically include:

  • “The HR department needs to champion engagement.”
  • “Engagement needs C-level support.”
  • “You have to focus on the front-line managers, make them accountable.”

All good answers.

How people can proactively increase engagement

And yet, what has been missing for decades in the fight to increase employee engagement, are the individual employees themselves. According to IDG Research, 43 percent of engagement comes from intrinsic motivation. This means that despite the best efforts of corporate leadership and front-line managers, all that they do is only half the equation for success. (CONTINUE READING)

 

I’m Getting Really Tired of All the Talk About Employee Engagement

 
 
Recently I came across a sponsored article in Fast Company, titled Happiness Secrets from the Staff of Delivering Happiness at Work.Apparently Zappos’ leadership team has launched a new consulting business on how to achieve Zappos’ fun culture — using fun culture as a measure of engagement.

Who knew? One picture in the article shows three employees with rubber noses. That’d go over well with customers interested in effective growth of their investment portfolio …

Several blog sites that I frequent post myriad articles on employee engagement – from how important it is, to how much additional revenue is generated by engaged employees, to why it is different than satisfaction. And then, there was the “happiness” article.

Has the word “engagement” lost all meaning?

Inc. magazine carried a post, The Dark Side of Employee Engagement, in which the authors cite Leadership IQ’s recent study showing that those who were most “engaged” might not be the best performers. They caution the reader to clearly understand the definition of engagement, when embarking on a study to determine engagement levels.

I have come to the conclusion that “engagement” has become one of those buzzwords that has lost its meaning because it is so overused. And I fear that focusing on “engagement” has caused us to lose sight of what is really important – skilled leaders who can move teams forward.  (CONTINUE READING)

Posted in attitude/culture, cultural changes, employee engagement, management and leadership, reducing injuries, safety programs, union organizing, wellness | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Can You “App” Yourself To Safety Success?

Posted on June 23, 2013 by mavity2012

Safety “apps” are a hot topic.  Even techno-challenged souls use apps to spot check noise, avoid heat stress, or conduct basic safety inspections.  Even OSHA announced in January, “Winners of an OSHA App Challenge.”

 While recently teaching in the AGC’s Advanced Safety Management Training classes, I discussed safety “apps” with three recognized safety professionals:  Experts and Safety Consultants Bob Emmerich and Jim Goss, and AGC safety head, Kevin Cannon.  We did not critique or recommend apps, we simply discussed their effective use and impact on safety management.

 That’s A Lot Of Information Out There . . . .

 Bob pointed out that “inspection” apps could generate a staggering amount of information to analyze and improve the safety processes of employers, contractors, and suppliers.  Site managers and even mobile employees and crews could regularly inspect their work sites, including isolated locations or customer sites where they work.

 The June 2013 NSA “Safety & Health” Magazine included an article, “Safety In The Palm Of Your Hand” which discussed Roto Rooter plumbers, who had developed an app which mobile employees use to conduct a site safety analysis on scattered jobs.  The app was not  intended as a substitute for the process of “pause – consider the hazards – and then work,” or for spot-visits by safety professionals or supervisors.  However, the app does facilitate individual employees or crews reviewing sites for hazards and complying with the broad intent of 1926.20 and 21.  Many electric, mechanical and other contractors now require technicians to carry out some sort of job or site hazard analysis on a tablet or phone before commencing work.

 I am interested in learning about similar efforts by other employers, as well as groups such as NECA, IEC, SMACNA and other associations with members whose employees may work alone or in small crews with limited on site supervision.

 Bob, who also serves as an expert in civil cases, worried about whether employers would properly collect and in fact act on so much data, and whether plaintiff lawyers or regulators might use or “misconstrue” so much data.

 If employers develop data on hazards or patterns, and do not document effective and timely response, their position is worse than if they labored in ignorance.  Possessing  this perhaps disorderly mass of information and not acting on it could be described as “plainly indifferent” to safety, “willful,” or an intentional-type act, perhaps providing an exception to workers comp “exclusive remedy” protections.

 Jim Goss pointed out that HCSS Construction Software is designed to provide data to designated management, and have provisions to trigger and remind employers to take corrective measures.  Jim is very impressed with HCSS’ full line of services and mentioned a number of pleased contractors.  Their website references Skanska, Balfour Beatty, CH2MHill, Flat Iron and many other recognized employers.  Several of my clients have expressed satisfaction with Predictive Solutions products.

 But what happens when lots of employees and managers use individual apps to inspect sites, and develop data that is not provided to a central repository for analysis and action?

Devices and their content could be discoverable in legal action.  Employers might have to spend large sums gathering such data, and be subject to sanctions on occasions that they miss some data.  Could employers even be heavily sanctioned for “spoliation of evidence” where individual managers delete such data?

 Bob also commented that extensive or ill-managed use of inspection apps could generate huge amounts of data which could be twisted.  As an example, the employer would be pleased if a job proudly logged 100 instances of correcting scaffolding, fall prevention and similar issues.  But a lawyer might focus on the volume to assert, “don’t they ever get it right!  Bob was quick to rightly point out that this concern does not even come close to outweighing the advantages of regular inspections!

 What About The Old Ways?

 I doubt that app developers intend their creations to replace the walk-arounds and instinctive hands-on involvement of safety professionals.  Bob cautioned that apps will never replace hands-on inspections, but-tech-focused employees may begin to try just that approach.

 Similarly, I use a noise measurement app for casual spot checking, but would never use the app for actual  compliance or evidentiary efforts.

 Some apps would require tablets, not phones, and they may not be practical to tote up and down ladders.  Others must require Wi-Fi or cellular connection.  Some employers prohibit having cell phones on the job.  Debbi Ferri from the Minnesota AGC Chapter raised the question of how does one climb a ladder” with a tablet, and proposed a surveyors vest instead of a belt holder.  Bob and Kevin commented on one app that relied on color codes and was unusable for individuals who are color blind.

 A final concern involves accident or incident investigations.  Apps will encourage swift on-the-spot preparation of incident reports and even full root-cause analysis, but after a death, counsel often involves itself in this process, and with an app, the initial report may be done without counsel or company safety management involvement.  Jim commented that procedures need to be clear about when to immediately involve safety management, counsel, etc. in preparation of reports and analysis.

 Custom Apps Are Great!

I’m not a techno-god, but as an attorney and safety professional, I become giddy at the thought of employers developing their own inspection, accident analysis, tool box talk, job safety analysis and training log apps.  Okay, perhaps the thought doesn’t really make me giddy, but I do like the prospect of such custom apps addressing two recurrent challenges: developing site and job-specific safety procedures, and making it easier for employees and supervisors to use those walk-arounds and other processes to audit safety efforts.  Best of all, apps could be used to “document” safety observations and efforts that often are informal and are not documented.  Consider:

  • A foreman or supervisor tracking “observations” as they walk around the job, and this data being available to safety management to use to improve safety or to establish “reasonable diligence” in defense of a claim.
  • Supervisors pulling up the day’s tool box talk on their tablet and being required to log the specific issues they discussed.
  • Mobil employees using an app to confer with the home office to complete a site safety analysis, including sharing photos of the site.
  • Tracking sub performance, and more importantly, individual subcontractor supervisor and foremen’s performance.

 I assume that many employers could develop a customized tablet app or use providers such as HCSS or Predictive Solutions  to customize a system, and these customized apps are what most appeal to me.

I have been less impressed with some of the free apps or have felt that they were too complicated to use or two general … but, of course, I’m a picky lawyer. As a guy in my mid fifties, I also dislike the small screens of a smart phone for audit-type apps.

 What Apps Have Impressed You?

 I recently saw smart phone app recommendations in an AGC–Safety web exchange, including  iauditor Safety Checklist by Safety Culture, the decibel meter from decibel 10 (free from Apple apps and is part of the series of 10 virtual  measurement devices from SkyPaw Co. Ltd. ), and Evernote (a virtual notebook).  David Wessin of Coastal Construction did a great presentation on construction technology in 2012 and explained that Site Audit Pro, with a mix of photos and data was quite impressive.  He also mentioned decibel meter pro, plumb bob, spirit level, protractor, Flash Bang, KHA’s Online MSDS, OSHA’s Heat Tool, Qualitative Fit Test, and others.  Debbi Ferri of Minnesota AGC shared a PPT presentation on a wide range of construction technology subjects.

Please share with us apps that have impressed you.  Also, what apps are “easiest” to use and seem to work with people of various cultures and ages?

Howard

Posted in cultural changes, employer policies, MSHA, OSHA, reducing injuries, safety programs, safety technology and apps | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Man Bites Dog – OSHA Style

Posted on June 21, 2013 by mavity2012

OSHA enforces more whistleblower laws than any other agency and has made whistleblower protection one of its principal goals. So it grabs your attention when you read “Whistleblower Wins $820,000 Settlement Against OSHA.”

OSHA’s foremost official overseeing injury record keeping for 25 years claimed that OSHA retaliated against him because he repeatedly spoke out internally and externally, and before Congress and the media about his belief that employers significantly underreported workplace injuries, and OSHA was not doing much about it.

Many employers and safety professionals would argue that this gentleman was wrong about massive employers underreporting, but that’s not the issue. Was he retaliated against because he spoke out … even intemperately?

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found evidence that D.C. OSHA leadership:

• plotted to “get” the employee for embarrassing the agency;
• conducted a trumped-up investigation to justify his removal; and
• discharged him for participating in a loud dispute with a co-worker for similar actions.

Read the Settlement Agreement and Fourth Circuit decision.

Lessons?

The employee may have got it wrong about underreporting – his claims may have been inaccurate. And any employer can understand the agency’s leadership fuming about an employee publicly embarrassing the organization. Unfortunately, neither an inaccurate safety complaint or publicly embarrassing the organization justifies adverse action.

This former OSHA employee’s burningly passionate belief that employers intentionally under record and report workplace injuries is shared by others in OSHA, unions and even safety groups. Never doubt OSHA’s “continuing” commitment to address what it sees as record keeping violations and related adverse action against employees who report recordable injuries.

Notwithstanding being bitten by their own system, OSHA’s leadership and the DOL generally remain determined to promote whistleblower claims. Just this week, OSHA teed up possibly allowing electronic filing of whistleblower claims. Based on my time at the NLRB and 30 years of observations, that’s a bad idea. Complainants need to deal with an officer of the day or similar person to describe their complaints. The official can better pull out the salient facts, or discourage frivolous claims.

If indeed OSHA leadership harassed and terminated an employee because he embarrassed the Agency, this occurrence will increase any distrust of the current leadership’s respect for procedure and process. Observers have already commented on OSHA’s use of directives and interpretations to change things that should be addressed by rule making and legislation . . . or by the Agency’s often harsh “regulation by shame.” Traditionally, regardless of the administration, OSHA has enjoyed a reputation for professionalism, and that reputation is essential to its mission.

Posted in discipline and discharge, OSHA, whistleblower/retaliation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment