Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are the Rodney Dangerfield of injuries: They get no respect. That's too bad because MSDs deserve respect. They now make up about one-third of all reported lost-time injuries; they also tend to be expensive to treat. Last week, in Part 1 of this series, we looked at why so many CEOs resist spending money to prevent MSDs. Let's now look at how to make a business case to overcome this resistance. There are also four brief case summaries in the Tools section of SafetyXChange.

The ROI Angle

As with any other safety expenditure, one of the best ways to justify an ergonomics program is to show your CEO that it will generate a positive return on investment (ROI). In fact, ergonomic programs generally are a good investment. For example, Arthur Little, a leading business consulting firm, has done more than 50 ergonomics audits in recent years. A whopping 95 percent of them resulted in a positive ROI.

There are also numerous case studies demonstrating that investing in ergonomics boosts profitability. The case studies are important because most CEOs like it when the safety director can justify a safety program by pointing to actual examples showing how other companies made money by implementing the program.

The Link to Productivity

"Productivity" is one of those terms that resonates with the CEO. So any time you can make the case that a particular safety program will increase productivity, it's a huge advantage.

You can make such a case with regard to ergonomics. A 2003 study from the University of Texas Health Science Center was the first to examine the link between individuals' ergonomic well-being and their economic performance. The results were dramatic. The study found that implementing ergonomic measures enabled workers to make significant gains in productivity.

The study lasted over a year and involved two companies and more than 200 workers who sat in front of computers for at least six hours every day. The workers were divided into three groups:

Group 1, who got ergonomic training and a
highly-adjustable chair;

Group 2, who got the training but not the chair; and

Group 3, a control group that didn't get the chair or the training.

By the end of the year, the workers in Group 1 had achieved a staggering 17.8 percent increase in productivity, a benefit to the companies of more than $25,000 per worker. Considering that the chair and training cost only about $1,000 per worker, this turned out to be one heck of an investment - one that paid for itself after just 10 days.

Conclusion

As a safety director, it falls to you to prove to your CEO that there's more to ergonomics than oddly-shaped keyboards. Investing in ergonomic solutions prevents injuries and contributes to a company's bottom line.

MEMBER REPLY

Scuttling the OSHA Ergonomics Standard Was Right Call

I am writing in response to last week's article pertaining to OSHA's 1999 proposed Ergonomics Standard. Those of us who would have been affected by the standard realized then, and now, that most likely few employers would have been able to comply since the standard was too vague.

Specifically, the definition of "Action Trigger" was vague. OSHA said we are to control MSD hazards. If an ergonomic injury occurs, that hazard was not controlled or the injury would not have occurred. If a doctor determined the condition is not work related, it was a violation of regulations for the doctor to advise us the employee continues to bowl even if his hand and arm hurts and /or he may be pitching baseball with his injured arm. In my opinion, this restriction would have served no useful purpose.

In addition, the part of the Standard that would have let the employees select their own HCP flies in the face of Missouri law. Missouri Workers' Compensation law gives me the authority to direct medical care, it does provide that an employee can seek his/her own medical treatment but they do so at their own peril.

In my opinion, regulations that are vague only lead to confrontation; of course, attorneys seem to enjoy confrontation since that is where their security is received. It is doubtful the standard would have prevented any injuries.

Name and company withheld

THE ECONOMICS OF DISASTER

A Head's-Up on Flood Insurance

By Glenn Demby

If you're planning to buy flood insurance but haven't yet done so, you better act now. Most flood insurance policies don't take effect for 30 days. So every day of delay after May 1 will cost you one day of exposure in June. That could be a big problem when you consider that Hurricane Season officially starts on June 1. To find out more about flood insurance, see www.FloodSmart.gov or call 1-800-427-2419.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

How much does the safety director of your organization have authority to spend on safety products without securing upper management's authorization? Send your responses to catherinej@bongarde.com. Please indicate if you want us to print your name/company. We won't disclose that information unless you say it's okay.

TOOLS

Ergonomics ROI: Four Case Studies

Here are four case studies you can cite to demonstrate that ergonomics has a positive ROI:

1. 3M

Workers packing cartons of epoxy products with two different size pails, gloves and a stir stick started experiencing wrist and back pain. 3M switched to plastic pouches, eliminating the need for the pails and sticks. This reduced reaching motions. The aches went away. And 3M is now saving $250,000 per year.

2. KeySpan Energy

The gas and electric giant was experiencing a rash of repetitive stress back injuries. It called in an ergonomics consultant to do a comprehensive workplace assessment. The consultant made a series of relatively low-cost solutions. Implementing all of them cost KeySpan $200,000. But it reports that for each dollar spent it's now saving four dollars in injury prevention.

3. Goldkist Inc.

The second largest chicken processor in the U.S. reconfigured an inspection line in which workers removed rejected birds from the conveyor, carried them six feet to a rejection line and hung each bird at head height. In addition to eliminating the six-foot walk, Goldkist reduced the height of hanging to elbow level, improving productivity and reducing shoulder stress. As a result of these and other ergonomic initiatives, Goldkist's recordable injury rate is 10.33 per 100 workers, 38 percent less than the industry average of 16.6.

4. Pratt & Whitney

The aircraft manufacturer has implemented a wide range of ergonomic solutions, some costing as little as $2. Even solutions costing $100,000 have shown a positive ROI in less than three months, according to a P & W health and safety engineer.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top