OSHA TO THE RESCUE

I am currently employed as a safety manager for a couple roofing companies in the State of Utah. I have worked in and around the roofing industry for almost 40 years as a laborer, journeyman, foreman, and business owner, with and without OSHA as a participator in my efforts. Obviously, the Occupational Safety and Health Agencies are now a crucial part of my job these days and I have evaluated the agency’s worth. Like most people in my business, I think, I have some conflicted feelings about it. The following essay, which was published in Professional Safety a few years ago, reflects my thoughts on the subject.


OSHA, To The Rescue

Early in 1970, I was in my last year of high school in northeastern Kansas. My father was a foreman for a commercial roofing company in our hometown. When I came home from school one afternoon, I met my father at the door and he sadly informed me that my good friend, a schoolmate who had recently quit school to work on my father’s crew, had had a serious accident at work. My father thought that he was probably dead on arrival at the hospital. Happily, my father was wrong. My friend, Rod, survived and eventually recovered enough to work again and have a happy and productive family life. He was fortunate to survive his injuries, but the pain and suffering that he and his family endured might easily have been avoided.

The accident had occurred on Rod’s very first day at work. He was understandably excited and nervous and he was anxious to do a good job. There was no training program for roofers for that company in 1970, a roofer was expected to learn on the job. He was most likely warned by his foreman to be careful. The owner of the company happened to be visiting the job-site that day, so Rod was eager to show that he was a good worker. Rod was more worried about the proximity of the “boss” than he was about the proximity of the open skylight hole that he was working near. Rod unknowingly backed into the hole while moving a heavy wheelbarrow full of gravel.

His fellow workers did not see or hear him fall but, when they noticed Rod’s unmanned wheelbarrow sitting next to the hole with it’s handles positioned over the hole a few moments later, they feared the worst. They found his motionless body in a pool of blood with teeth scattered around him on the concrete sub-floor of the future high school gym below. Apparently, Rod had been knocked unconscious by the impact of the edge of the roof to his jaw as his body passed through the sky light opening. The impact broke his jaw on both sides injuring both ears and knocking most of his teeth out. His limp body then fell to the hard surface more than forty feet below, where his right arm and knee were shattered by the impact. To those that witnessed the aftermath, it was miraculous that he survived.

The medical know-how of 1970—plastic and re-constructive surgery and a year of physical rehabilitation—put my friend, Rod, back into the social and working worlds, but our society and the American work-place of 1970 had let him down. But, that same year, 1970, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Occupational Safety and Health Act to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources” (US Department of Labor. All About OSHA, 1998, p.1). Although the establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency the following year did not alleviate any of my friend’s pain and suffering, it would work towards lessening the likelihood of similar accidents in the years to follow and would save lives.

In the years before OSHA, workplace injuries and fatalities were common place. As David Goetsch explains in his textbook, Occupational Safety and Health, “in 1907 over 3,200 people were killed in mining accidents” alone (2002, 4th ed., p. 1). Nineteenth-century American government and public opinion largely ignored worker safety, siding with management, but early in the twentieth century, opinions began to change. Political activist writers such as Upton Sinclair with his 1906 novel, The Jungle, brought to light some of the many dangers—primarily in the meatpacking industry of Chicago—that existed in the big industrial work places of America and management’s seeming indifference.
Progressive political leaders, such as Theodore Roosevelt—he had been at odds with the laissez-faire philosophy embedded at Harvard since his college years—also recognized the need for legislation and governmental assistance to protect American workers and began the movement that culminated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act that President Nixon signed into law. President Roosevelt read Sinclair’s book and though he had little sympathy for Sinclair’s socialist politics, he felt obliged for moral reasons to launch an investigation into the conditions Sinclair described (Brands, 1997, p. 548-49). Though the agricultural bill that resulted mainly provided for federal inspection of meat, work conditions were also improved. Early in his presidency, Roosevelt recognized that government would have to act for the public good:

Wage-workers must be protected from overweening corporations by government regulation…Women and children of the working class must be further safeguarded by special legislation forbidding excessive hours or unhealthy conditions (p. 426).

But, Roosevelt continued to push for safer labor conditions in America after he left office in 1909. In his bid for reelection in 1912 as a third-party candidate, Roosevelt “urged the passage of the workman’s occupation act, laws regulating labor by women and children, and the establishment of practical job training for students not bound for higher education” (p. 676).

In the New York Times following the infamous 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire in New York City, the headlines read, “141 MEN AND GIRLS DIE IN WAIST FACTORY FIRE; TRAPPED HIGH IN WASHINGTON PLACE BUILDING; STREET STREWN BODIES; PILES OF DEAD INSIDE” (Boyer, 1996, p.699). The Triangle fired showed that industrial America was a dangerous place. Too few escape routes—doors were locked to keep workers from wandering from their work stations—and a distance of eight floors to the ground left people the choice of either burning to death or jumping to a relatively quick death.

Attention to workplace safety during most of the 20th century was primarily driven by the labor unions. For most laborers, hours were long and hazardous. Though there had been movements as early as the 1800s for an 8-hour week, the average worker in 1900 labored for 9 and 1/2 hours with some industries requiring 12 or 13-hour days. Statistics show that large numbers of children were included. In 1900, over 18% of America’s children were employed (p.705). Pressure by the unions, in the form of labor strikes and the support of progressive politicians like Roosevelt eventually brought about real change:
By 1907, despite some employers’ claims that abolishing child labor would produce “a nation of sissies,” some thirty states had done just that. A 1903 Oregon law limited women in industry to a ten-hour workday. Other reformers concentrated on industrial safety, welfare programs, and disability benefits for workers injured on the job…By 1914 twenty-five states had passed laws making employers liable for job-related injuries or death (p.712).

The federal Government would later produced a series of important laws following the state’s lead. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson was asked to arbitrate labor agreements between railroads and the labor unions. Wilson suggested the introduction of an 8-hour workday; the union agreed, but management was unwilling to accept it. Wilson then took the matter into his own hands, asking congress to write federal law to introduce the 8-hour workday. The president signed the Adamson Act, the legislation which he had requested, into law (Nordholt, 1991, p. 192-3). He also promoted and signed into law the Keeting-Owen Act, barring from interstate commerce products made through child labor and the Workman's Compensation Act, providing accident and injury protection for federal employees (Boyer, p.730).

But, the federal government was slow to legislate wholesale change in the workplace. Throughout the thirties and forties, America’s labor force depended more and more on the unions to look out for their safety and welfare in the workplace. Between 1933 to 1946, labor union membership grew from just under 3 million to nearly 15 million (p. 841). Union membership continued to grow with the population, reaching 20.1 percent of wage and salary earners in 1983, but has since decreased steadily. In 2002, only 13.2 percent of wage and salary workers were members of unions (BLS, p.1). Perhaps, OSHA is one of the reasons why. With the advent of OSHA, the labor union was no longer the premier entity concerned about the welfare of America’s workforce.

In 1970, when Congress was developing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, politicians considered that 14,000 workers were dying because of workplace hazards, 2.5 million workers were being disabled, and 300,000 new cases of occupational diseases were being reported yearly (Goetsch, p. 53). Of these statistics, David Goetsch writes:
Clearly, a comprehensive, uniform law was needed to help reduce the incidence of work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths. The OSH act of 1970 addressed this need. It is contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1900 through 1910. The act also establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Labor and is responsible for administering the OSH act (p. 53).

Goetsch goes on to explain that foremost in OHSA's mission and purpose was to encourage employers and employees to reduce hazards in the workplace; to implement new safety and health programs; to encourage research into ways to improve workplace safety, establish training programs, to establish mandatory workplace standards; and to monitor job-related illnesses and injuries by reporting and record keeping (p. 54).

Statistics seem to show that OSHA has been worthwhile. According to OSHA Facts, from the U.S. Department of Labor, on-the-job deaths have been cut in half since the agency was created in 1971, with on-the-job deaths declining 2 percent in 2000. Also, workplace injuries and illnesses have declined by 40 percent over the past 30 years, with workplace injury and illness hitting a new low of 6.1 per 100 workers in 2000 (www.osha.gov/oshafacts. P.1).

Perhaps, nowhere is OHSA's influence needed and felt more than in the construction industry. Typically, the construction industry supplies the largest percentage (21 percent in 2001) of the total occupational fatality statistics. In 2001, the construction industry nation-wide suffered 1,225 fatalities in the work place, of which 34.4 % were caused by falls—falls being second only to highway accidents in labor related deaths—and 18.1 % were caused by contact with objects and equipment (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-1 p. 2). One hundred and sixteen of those fatalities were in the roofing and related industries, with 67.2 % of the deaths related to falls and only 4.3 % of the deaths caused by contact with objects or equipment (p.3). Clearly, a roofer is much more likely to die as a result of a fall than any other roofing related work place accident and is obviously more susceptible to a fall related death than the rest of the construction industry.

The OSHA standards that focus on the most hazardous elements of the roofing industry concern fall protection. Though roofers are also in danger of being burnt, cut, or struck by objects or equipment, the danger of falling is more likely to result in disability or death. In Sub part M-Fall Protection, C.F.R. 1926.500, of OHSA's construction industry regulations, OSHA lays out the scope, application, and definitions applicable to fall protection. IN 1926.501, OSHA declares the duty of the employer to provide fall protection. And, in 1926.502, OSHA describes fall protection systems and practices. Guardrail systems, Safety net systems, and personal fall arrest systems are strongly encouraged, but warning line systems, controlled access zones, and safety monitoring systems are acceptable under the right circumstances. All holes, 2 inches or larger, must be covered and secured in place by materials that can support twice the weight of any person or piece of machinery that might pass over them and must be marked “hole” or “cover” (29 CFR OSHA 1926 Construction Industry Regulations, 2002, p. 301-18).

Such precautions, if instituted, would undoubtedly make the work-site a safer place. But, the problem has been, and continues to be in some cases, how to get the contractors to comply with OHSA's safety standards. Clearly, the for-mentioned standards may require sizable expenditures in equipment and man-hours to follow. In some cases, extra employees might be needed to meet monitoring needs. Because of competition and the desire to keep business costs low, some contractors have tried to avoid complying with OSHA standards.

OSHA has tried to improve compliance by inspections, with the threat of strict penalties for noncompliance, and by consulting with and educating small and large businesses concerning their legal responsibilities. In 2001, OSHA conducted 35,778 inspections. Also, in 2001, OSHA consultants made more than 27,000 visits to small employers and provided more than 260,000 workers and employers with safety and health training. With President Bush’s projected budget of $437 million for OSHA for 2003, OSHA is expected to continue with its priorities: “leadership; strong, effective and fair enforcement; outreach; training and compliance assistance” (OSHA FACTS, p. 1).

Even with a $443 million budget, OSHA will not be, and cannot be, everywhere all of the time. Obviously, the most visible companies will get most of OHSA's attention and many at-risk-businesses will go unnoticed and workers will be needlessly put at risk of injury or death. Some critics argue that OSHA is too bureaucratic and insensitive to the needs of employers. Others complain that OSHA can be timid and reluctant to follow up when citations have been issued.

But, the tide continues to turn in the direction of universal compliance, with more and more companies recognizing the cost effectiveness, as well as the ethical value of working to protect the safety and health of their employees. Providing a safe and healthy workplace is one of the best ways of holding down worker compensation and insurance costs. Workplace accidents alone cost $48 billion in a typical year in America (Goetsch, p.19). Medical expenses for accidents are $24 billion and wages lost to American families are $38 billion in a typical year (p. 20). The National Safety Council estimates that, as a result of accidents, 35,000 work hours are lost every year, not including additional time off for medical checkups after employees return to work (p.22). Clearly, companies are wise to comply with OSHA standards to save money, beyond the cost of paying stiff penalties for OSHA safety violations.

More and more companies have learned, with the advent of OSHA and progressive business thinking, competitiveness requires companies to strive for Safety in the workplace. Of this Goetsch wrote:
Safety and health contribute to competitiveness in the following ways: (a) by
helping companies attract and keep the best people; (b) by allowing
employees to focus on peak performance without being distracted by
concerns for their safety; (c) by freeing money that can be re-invested
in technology updates; and (d) by protecting the corporate image (p. 22)

To help themselves achieve a greater level of competition, many companies are going beyond simply obeying OSHA standards and trying to avoid costly citations, by hiring their own safety and health managers and developing company safety plans with rules that, in some cases, are more stringent than federal regulations.

Thirty years later, I found myself working as the Safety Manager for the same company that my friend Rod worked for in 1970 when he fell and was seriously injured. Such a position as Safety Manager or Safety Director did not exist in this roofing company in 1970, but a progressive thinking new owner, early in the year 2000, wanted to bring the company into the 21st Century. He believed that a good quality-minded roofing company could become even better by making safety an equal partner with production, providing a safe environment for all of its employees. Thirty years later, the company’s safety program complied with OHSA's guidance and standards for the construction industry on fall protection. All new employees received training in fall protection and other general safety procedures peculiar to the roofing industry. Weekly safety toolbox talks, with timely retraining concerning fall protection, helped to keep safety a primary focus. In 2000 we used safety monitors, guardrails, warning lines, and hole covers, as the job may require, to protect our employees from a possible fall.

A new employee working for that company in 2000 did not face the same dangers that my friend, Rod, faced in 1970. The OSH act and the existence of OSHA over the past three and a half decades have created the atmosphere and changes of attitudes of both management and employees in the majority of the construction industry that has allowed safety to be a serious part of the business.

Clearly, OSHA’s influence has changed the face of the construction industry, especially in the major communities where OSHA inspectors are high profile and heavy fines are a real concern. Even in the more remote parts of the country, where employers are literally out of the sight of OSHA inspectors, construction companies are making concessions to safety. If the old adage, that what you do when no one can see you proves one’s character, is true, the general movement by the industry to comply with OSHA safety standards suggests that the industry’s character is changing for the better. It seems clear that, although compliance is obviously not universal, the trend of safety and health improvement in America’s workplaces will continue. Clearly, OSHA has made an impact. It has clearly saved lives and changed the way American industries think and do business.










References

Boyer, P. S., Clark, C. E. Jr., Kett, J. F., Harvard, S., Woloch, N. (1996).
The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People. Lexington,
Mass. Toronto: D.C. Heath and Company.
Brands, W. W. (1997). TR, The Last Romantic. New York, New York: Basic
Books.
Goetsch, David L. (2002). Occupational Safety and Health. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey, Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall.
29 CFR 1926 OSHA Construction Industry Regulations. (2002) Davenport,
Iowa: Mancom.
Nordholt, Jan Willem Schulte. (1991). Woodrow Wilson: A Life for World
Peace. Berkley, Los Angeles, Oxford England: University of California Press.
United States Department of Labor. (2003). Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Washington D.C. : U.S. Department of Labor. (www.bls.gov)
United States Department of Labor. (2003). OSHA Facts. Wasington D.C.:
U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administraton. (www.osha.gov/oshastats/work.html).