Brothers and Sisters: IT'S OUR HEALTH, IT'S OUR SAFETY JUNE 2003 Earlier this year the Business Manager and I reviewed a "risk map" of TR3 & 20. The map was a visual compilation of all the OSHA recordable injuries for each of those buildings. It was clear to us that something needed to be done to better understand and prevent hazards that resulted in injuries to us workers at Carrier. Assessing the hazards identified on the risk map and considering different strategies I realized they were occurring because the system or programs allowed them to happen. Focusing on one or two hazards could improve some concerns temporarily but it could also mislead workers into how workplace hazards are resolved. Also, who can say what injury hurts more or how many people need to be hurt before that hazard becomes hazardous enough to merit concern? What is needed is an effective program, one that brings all health and safety concerns to resolution before some one is injured or made ill. It is my contention that what would work best is a system that mobilizes all the stakeholders into action and addresses all the hazards identified by the risk maps. In this case what is necessary is to create an effective program that eliminates serious injuries. Like most workplaces, we at Carrier have committees, programs and individuals assigned to control hazardous risks found on the job but if the frequency of recordable injuries is similar to that seen on these risk maps then the system is not working. Committees might not be clear on what they need to do or maybe programs are not written to support corrective activity or maybe individuals are not focused on what should be done. Often, however, labor and management disagree on what creates hazardous risks. For years, health and safety experts from labor and management have commonly expressed two divergent opinions on how to solve the puzzle of work place injuries. Both groups assign root causes of injuries to sources they view as suspect and it is often what is seen from their personal experiences or roles in the workplace e.g.; their paradigm. One group, commonly labor, identifies unsafe conditions as the precursor to injuries and illnesses, the other, commonly management, identifies unsafe acts as the reason for unsafe workplaces. Each has produced evidence to support their positions but simply put labor believed that work could not be done safely unless the workplace (conditions) was safe. Management on the other hand would state that the place was not safe because the work was done safely. JULY 2003 Occupational Safety and Health Act explains in the General Duty Clause that the employer is responsible to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards. However, it goes on to say that employees have a responsibility to comply with the rules of safety that apply to our actions and conduct. This suggest to me that OSHA recognizes the two differing schools of thought and says both have something to offer that could eliminate serious injuries; both conditions of work and how work is performed need to be safe and free of hazard. An example would be the lockout/tagout standard. In it, OSHA is clear in explaining the necessary conditions and equipment required to properly de-energize machines to safely perform a maintenance procedure. But the standard also details the training necessary for workers to perform the job in a safe manner. This is an inclusive approach of creating safe conditions and training safe performance. So I believe an inclusive program that addresses conditions and performance can eliminate injuries but there are problems. As stated earlier, different groups or "camps" have a different paradigms; different interpretations or views of what causes accidents and exposures to contaminants. These differences are usually defined as "positions" and as such are often expressed with emotion. The problem with taking a stand and holding ground over an emotional position is that it can cloud our ability to see what might be our best interest. It is usually a shared interest to eliminate injuries; it is in the workers interest to not get hurt, and it is in the company's interest to not pay compensation cost. Therefore lifting the cloud of emotion to better see the interest that is shared is important and it's possible, but it's not always easy. Practice in the past has shown that the difficulty of realizing shared interest is gaining the trust of both labor and management. This, according to Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeild; Thomas Kochan and John Calhoun Wells in their article: "In Whose Interest?"(Industrial Relations, Vol.40, No1-January, 2001) is the big hurdle in any interest based negotiating or bargaining. Traditional "business unionist" view interest based bargaining (IBB) as more of a ploy to undercut bargaining power but the aforementioned article sees the question as ".can IBB deliver mutual gains across the full range of issues of interest to the parties in as complex an institution as collective bargaining?". The area of health and safety could provide areas of mutual gains but the history of confrontation in most unions has trained leaders not to trust the intentions of management. But the obviousness of a "shared interest" in safety and health, if handled carefully, can pave the way to develop a progressive IBB program. The transformation to IBB is similar to that of changing from a "business union" to an "organizing/mobilizing union". AUGUST 2003 The organizing model was developed to revitalize the labor movement by mobilizing individual workers to participate in collective actions with other unions and community organizations. In the AFL-CIO publication "Mobilizing to Win" (1997) it is explained that the approach necessitates a transformation on the part of union members and leaders alike. It requires instilling new values and challenging all concerned to do more than in the past. The idea is to offer a more positive and enthusiastic vision of what the labor movement can be. As opposed to simply transacting day to day business of the local, this approach activates the members to participate in the solutions of union concerns. A strategy that incorporates both views of labor and management; which mobilizes union members to participate in health and safety would be a cultural change for us at Carrier. It is not without precedence. In the fall of 1998 our union, Sheet Metal Workers Local 527, negotiated a new contract with Carrier Corporation. During those negotiations the union presented a proposal for reducing the acceptable exposure level for metalworking fluid (MWF) mist to 0.1mg/m3. It was explained that the union believed that exposure to MWF was responsible for diverse respiratory illnesses and possible cancer. In addition it was the union's belief that a significant population in the workforce suffered from chronic upper respiratory disorders that could be eliminated if the exposure level were reduced. In these discussions it became clear the company understood such possibilities and wanted to improve the situation but were concerned about agreeing to an exposure level that would be a contractual required level that they would not be technically able to reach. This is an example of a shared interest that can't be resolved contractually. It was then agreed to take discussion of line and out of negotiations to develop a best practice document. The agreement expressed the intent to reduce the risk associated with MWF mist exposure by establishing the goal of 0.1mg/m3. The best practice then defined requirements for assessment and prevention and described the methods of control and roles of the stakeholders. Success has been shown in sampling data showing significant reduction of measured MWF mist. A recent improvement in training of preventive maintenance of ventilation and source capturing equipment has suggested the likelihood of future improvements. Additionally, training of operators has improved the use of engineering controls, improved work practices and has allowed for input on identifying additional controls of MWF mist. SEPTEMBER 2003 The use of this problem-solving approach produced an improved outcome that would not have other wise been realized in the context of traditional transactional labor/management relationship. The process allowed the union and company to share collected data in joint labor/management committees and create options off-line during negotiations. With these principles in mind, we, the union leadership, have entered into negotiations to create a program that will work to include the views of labor/management regarding root causes of injuries and illnesses and eliminate the hazards identified on the risk map. C+L/M+P2=0 This formula is an attempt to demonstrate a cooperative concept of attaining the goal of zero serious injuries. It's saying that if the company is 100% Compliant with all regulatory standards + has fully implemented a Labor and Management system that clearly spells out roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders + establishes a Personal Performance program that reinforces and encourages a culture of safety in a positive manner, without discipline, that the result would = O serious injury (any incident that results in either medical treatment in a hospital or hospital admission). This strategy is a sequentially sensitive concept. To develop the trust of all participants it is important to first ensure the workplace is compliant with government agencies. This can be worked out by having either a voluntary OSHA inspection or a labor/management review of the operations. This would require training in government regulations on the part of active participants. Generally speaking a Labor/Management System should guarantee adequate departmental inspections; procedures for safety work order generation/completion and complete and timely incident investigations. This would require union leadership direction in selecting hourly participants for the Safety Committee whose main focus would be departmental inspections and identification of ergonomic projects. Union selected coordinator would be responsible for tracking safety work-orders and senior management would oversee incident investigations; provide resources; set strategic direction of staff to ensure implementation of the overall health and safety program. If it is then the experience of the shop floor worker that the work area is OSHA compliant; safety concerns are identified and resolved and that L/M leadership is clearly recognized as supporting health and safety then a Personal Performance safety program can be put in place. OCTOBER 2003 CONCLUSION Experience has shown that process changes, equipment modifications and physical risk reductions cannot eliminate all injuries. A percentage of injuries are caused by unsafe acts. A performance program that uses an observation process to reinforce and encourage safe actions through the use of observations and positive/timely feedback will reduce injuries. This is accomplished by analyzing injuries, incidents and inspections to identify and prioritize performance that significantly influences metrics. Hourly program participants could observe selected performance and through training would communicate and reinforce safe performance. This would also be an opportune time to introduce an incentive. The acceptance of a personal performance and an incentive program by the union allows the guarantee of an OSHA compliant work place and an effective/responsive health and safety system for the workers. But most importantly, an overall opportunity for eliminating serious injuries which is clearly in everyone's interest, e.g.: Interest Based Bargaining. Dawson Minsch VP/Recording Secretary Local 527 |
Local 527 online newsletter: the vp says... |
9/26/03
Brothers and Sisters: IT'S OUR HEALTH, IT'S OUR SAFETY JUNE 2003 Earlier this year the Business Manager and I reviewed a "risk map" of TR3 & 20. The map was a visual compilation of all the OSHA recordable injuries for each of those buildings. It was clear to us that something needed to be done to better understand and prevent hazards that resulted in injuries to us workers at Carrier. Assessing the hazards identified on the risk map and considering different strategies I realized they were occurring because the system or programs allowed them to happen. Focusing on one or two hazards could improve some concerns temporarily but it could also mislead workers into how workplace hazards are resolved. Also, who can say what injury hurts more or how many people need to be hurt before that hazard becomes hazardous enough to merit concern? What is needed is an effective program, one that brings all health and safety concerns to resolution before some one is injured or made ill. It is my contention that what would work best is a system that mobilizes all the stakeholders into action and addresses all the hazards identified by the risk maps. In this case what is necessary is to create an effective program that eliminates serious injuries. Like most workplaces, we at Carrier have committees, programs and individuals assigned to control hazardous risks found on the job but if the frequency of recordable injuries is similar to that seen on these risk maps then the system is not working. Committees might not be clear on what they need to do or maybe programs are not written to support corrective activity or maybe individuals are not focused on what should be done. Often, however, labor and management disagree on what creates hazardous risks. For years, health and safety experts from labor and management have commonly expressed two divergent opinions on how to solve the puzzle of work place injuries. Both groups assign root causes of injuries to sources they view as suspect and it is often what is seen from their personal experiences or roles in the workplace e.g.; their paradigm. One group, commonly labor, identifies unsafe conditions as the precursor to injuries and illnesses, the other, commonly management, identifies unsafe acts as the reason for unsafe workplaces. Each has produced evidence to support their positions but simply put labor believed that work could not be done safely unless the workplace (conditions) was safe. Management on the other hand would state that the place was not safe because the work was done safely. JULY 2003 Occupational Safety and Health Act explains in the General Duty Clause that the employer is responsible to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards. However, it goes on to say that employees have a responsibility to comply with the rules of safety that apply to our actions and conduct. This suggest to me that OSHA recognizes the two differing schools of thought and says both have something to offer that could eliminate serious injuries; both conditions of work and how work is performed need to be safe and free of hazard. An example would be the lockout/tagout standard. In it, OSHA is clear in explaining the necessary conditions and equipment required to properly de-energize machines to safely perform a maintenance procedure. But the standard also details the training necessary for workers to perform the job in a safe manner. This is an inclusive approach of creating safe conditions and training safe performance. So I believe an inclusive program that addresses conditions and performance can eliminate injuries but there are problems. As stated earlier, different groups or "camps" have a different paradigms; different interpretations or views of what causes accidents and exposures to contaminants. These differences are usually defined as "positions" and as such are often expressed with emotion. The problem with taking a stand and holding ground over an emotional position is that it can cloud our ability to see what might be our best interest. It is usually a shared interest to eliminate injuries; it is in the workers interest to not get hurt, and it is in the company's interest to not pay compensation cost. Therefore lifting the cloud of emotion to better see the interest that is shared is important and it's possible, but it's not always easy. Practice in the past has shown that the difficulty of realizing shared interest is gaining the trust of both labor and management. This, according to Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeild; Thomas Kochan and John Calhoun Wells in their article: "In Whose Interest?"(Industrial Relations, Vol.40, No1-January, 2001) is the big hurdle in any interest based negotiating or bargaining. Traditional "business unionist" view interest based bargaining (IBB) as more of a ploy to undercut bargaining power but the aforementioned article sees the question as ".can IBB deliver mutual gains across the full range of issues of interest to the parties in as complex an institution as collective bargaining?". The area of health and safety could provide areas of mutual gains but the history of confrontation in most unions has trained leaders not to trust the intentions of management. But the obviousness of a "shared interest" in safety and health, if handled carefully, can pave the way to develop a progressive IBB program. The transformation to IBB is similar to that of changing from a "business union" to an "organizing/mobilizing union". AUGUST 2003 The organizing model was developed to revitalize the labor movement by mobilizing individual workers to participate in collective actions with other unions and community organizations. In the AFL-CIO publication "Mobilizing to Win" (1997) it is explained that the approach necessitates a transformation on the part of union members and leaders alike. It requires instilling new values and challenging all concerned to do more than in the past. The idea is to offer a more positive and enthusiastic vision of what the labor movement can be. As opposed to simply transacting day to day business of the local, this approach activates the members to participate in the solutions of union concerns. A strategy that incorporates both views of labor and management; which mobilizes union members to participate in health and safety would be a cultural change for us at Carrier. It is not without precedence. In the fall of 1998 our union, Sheet Metal Workers Local 527, negotiated a new contract with Carrier Corporation. During those negotiations the union presented a proposal for reducing the acceptable exposure level for metalworking fluid (MWF) mist to 0.1mg/m3. It was explained that the union believed that exposure to MWF was responsible for diverse respiratory illnesses and possible cancer. In addition it was the union's belief that a significant population in the workforce suffered from chronic upper respiratory disorders that could be eliminated if the exposure level were reduced. In these discussions it became clear the company understood such possibilities and wanted to improve the situation but were concerned about agreeing to an exposure level that would be a contractual required level that they would not be technically able to reach. This is an example of a shared interest that can't be resolved contractually. It was then agreed to take discussion of line and out of negotiations to develop a best practice document. The agreement expressed the intent to reduce the risk associated with MWF mist exposure by establishing the goal of 0.1mg/m3. The best practice then defined requirements for assessment and prevention and described the methods of control and roles of the stakeholders. Success has been shown in sampling data showing significant reduction of measured MWF mist. A recent improvement in training of preventive maintenance of ventilation and source capturing equipment has suggested the likelihood of future improvements. Additionally, training of operators has improved the use of engineering controls, improved work practices and has allowed for input on identifying additional controls of MWF mist. SEPTEMBER 2003 The use of this problem-solving approach produced an improved outcome that would not have other wise been realized in the context of traditional transactional labor/management relationship. The process allowed the union and company to share collected data in joint labor/management committees and create options off-line during negotiations. With these principles in mind, we, the union leadership, have entered into negotiations to create a program that will work to include the views of labor/management regarding root causes of injuries and illnesses and eliminate the hazards identified on the risk map. C+L/M+P2=0 This formula is an attempt to demonstrate a cooperative concept of attaining the goal of zero serious injuries. It's saying that if the company is 100% Compliant with all regulatory standards + has fully implemented a Labor and Management system that clearly spells out roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders + establishes a Personal Performance program that reinforces and encourages a culture of safety in a positive manner, without discipline, that the result would = O serious injury (any incident that results in either medical treatment in a hospital or hospital admission). This strategy is a sequentially sensitive concept. To develop the trust of all participants it is important to first ensure the workplace is compliant with government agencies. This can be worked out by having either a voluntary OSHA inspection or a labor/management review of the operations. This would require training in government regulations on the part of active participants. Generally speaking a Labor/Management System should guarantee adequate departmental inspections; procedures for safety work order generation/completion and complete and timely incident investigations. This would require union leadership direction in selecting hourly participants for the Safety Committee whose main focus would be departmental inspections and identification of ergonomic projects. Union selected coordinator would be responsible for tracking safety work-orders and senior management would oversee incident investigations; provide resources; set strategic direction of staff to ensure implementation of the overall health and safety program. If it is then the experience of the shop floor worker that the work area is OSHA compliant; safety concerns are identified and resolved and that L/M leadership is clearly recognized as supporting health and safety then a Personal Performance safety program can be put in place. OCTOBER 2003 CONCLUSION Experience has shown that process changes, equipment modifications and physical risk reductions cannot eliminate all injuries. A percentage of injuries are caused by unsafe acts. A performance program that uses an observation process to reinforce and encourage safe actions through the use of observations and positive/timely feedback will reduce injuries. This is accomplished by analyzing injuries, incidents and inspections to identify and prioritize performance that significantly influences metrics. Hourly program participants could observe selected performance and through training would communicate and reinforce safe performance. This would also be an opportune time to introduce an incentive. The acceptance of a personal performance and an incentive program by the union allows the guarantee of an OSHA compliant work place and an effective/responsive health and safety system for the workers. But most importantly, an overall opportunity for eliminating serious injuries which is clearly in everyone's interest, e.g.: Interest Based Bargaining. Dawson Minsch VP/Recording Secretary Local 527 |
September 26, 2003
VICE-PRESIDENT / RECORDING SECRETARY |
