Attitude shifts, costs pressure safety resolve

Pulp & Paper, Jan 2005 by Cordier, Pamela J

THE PROCESS, POLICIES-EVEN CULTURES-of companies constantly evolve. Unless included as part of a long-term plan, such things simply are not what they used to be-or what they will be tomorrow-due to different economic pressures, more restrictive regulations, escalating competition, and evolving attitudes.

Years ago, employee rights and benefits were major issues because in the beginning, there were none. After major struggles, the industrial world eventually changed its management concepts. Working conditions improved, and employers began enticing potential employees from competitors by offering better benefits like comfortable retirement incomes, saving plans, and generous healmcare for both employees and their families. Good benefits were felt to provide happy employees that would stay around long term, providing a stable workforce. Offering these benefits was also considered a good business decision that would provide employers ample payback.

Anyone in the industry today is well aware that this attitude toward employee benefits has changed. People frequently tell me that employee benefits are only discussed in terms of escalating corporate expense during company meetings. The concept of providing benefits with the anticipation of some sort of return to the company has apparently lost favor. Even the golden tradition of retirement is somewhat tarnished.

Safety follows the benefits path

Assuming that these thoughts about employee benefits have merit, is a similar evolution going on today in the realm of safety? We can use the same historical thought process to evaluate what has transpired in attitudes toward safety.

Early in our industrial development, not much concern was given to safety. "This is the job that has to be done, these are the tools, and if you cannot, or will not, do the job, someone else will" was pretty much the employee orientation and safety training given back in those "good old days."

Then, we began to realize it made economic sense that our workers should not be killed or injured. This was particularly true as equipment became more complex and the need for workers with real skills rose. When workers came home safely, the family was happy, making the worker happy. Safe, happy workers were more productive, and employers were soon in competition to see who could provide the safest possible workplace.

Some employers used rather unusual methods such as "forcing" the employees to work more safely, while others tried to "buy" safety. But most dug in, learned safety processes, hired safety resources, and systematically upgraded their physical environments and training methods. The majority had and still has a moral sense of safety responsibility.

The point of diminishing returns?

So many things are going on in safety today that it makes me wonder if we are not coming rapidly to a point of diminishing returns. There are new pressures on every front that impact safety and the attitudes surrounding it. In the case of benefits, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, but with workers' compensation, there is even less an employer can do to control costs. There is no insurance company "watch-dog," no "reasonable-and-customary fees," and no "caps" on the number of treatments or length of hospital stays. Workplace injuries and illnesses can easily cost two or more times as much as similar ones that occur off the job.

In addition, regulatory agencies have become more demanding and continue to promulgate new standards that often seem more confusing and time consuming. Even the pressure of turning out better safety statistics is taking its toll. As company incident rates get lower, it becomes increasingly difficult to get-that-number-down-just-a-little-bit-more. Doing this takes more time, effort, and, of course, money.

All such initiatives take a bite out of net profits. Safety is already well into the transition from responsibility to necessary evil. It very likely will soon evolve into just another expense, losing its positive attributes and being viewed merely as another negative. Obviously, everyone would benefit if this didn't happen and we kept safety on the positive side of the chart. There are several things that we can do to help control these items.

* Work diligently with your third-party administrator to help control workers' compensation costs.

* Encourage your workforce to "partner" with you on safety initiatives-accident prevention is far less expensive than a "cure."

* Measure the effectiveness of your safety programs-an expensive safety incentive program can cost far more than the concerned direct involvement of a supervisor.

* Perform valid risk assessments in your workplace and provide personal protective equipment when necessary and not just because more safety equipment looks better.

Safety is a good business to be in. If everyone treats it as their own, positive results are a certain return.

PAMELA J. CORDIER is executive director of the Pulp & Paper Safety Association.