Hot Safety Topics
Safety Products
Sponsored by Bongarde
User Poll
Loading ...
SafetyXChange on Twitter
New blog post: The Ontario Workplace Violence Law http://www.safetyxchange.org/compliance-risk-management/ontario-workplace-violence-lawSafetyXChange Feedback
Thoughts? Let us Know
Moderate Decline in Time-Lost Injuries and Illnesses
Last month, I discussed the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report showing a slight decline in workplace fatalities in 2005. It looks like more of the same on the nonfatal side. On November 17, 2006, the BLS released its report on nonfatal work injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work. Here are some of the highlights.
Total Injuries
In 2005, there were 1.234 million injuries and illnesses that caused a worker in private industry to miss a workday. That’s roughly the same number of cases as there were in 2004. The big difference: Hours worked in 2005 were up 2 percent. Consequently, the rate of lost workday injury and illness (135.7 per 10,000 workers) was actually down a substantial 4 percent in 2005. Rates were down among both workers in the goods-producing (176.9) and services (122.4) industries.
Types of Injury
The leading causes of lost time injuries and illnesses were, in order:
- Sprains and strains (503,530);
- Bruises and contusions (107,770);
- Cuts and lacerations (101,660);
- Fractures (95,830);
- Heat burns (17,150);
- Carpal tunnel syndrome (16,460); and
- Amputations (8,450).
Although still the leading cause of injury and illness in every industry, sprains and strains were down 4 percent from 2004. The bad news: The incidence rate for carpal tunnel syndrome was up an alarming 14 percent from 2004 levels.
Severity
The median number of days away from work for all cases was 7 days, the same as in 2004. Median days away from work were highest for carpal tunnel syndrome and fractures (27 days, as compared to 28 in 2004). Amputations came next (22 days, as compared to 25 in 2004).
Injury Events
The events that triggered the illnesses and injuries with the highest absences were:
- Repetitive motion (median of 19 days);
- Fires and explosions (16 days);
- Falls to lower level (13 days); and
- Transportation incidents (10 days).
By Occupation
Five occupations accounted for 23 percent of all lost workday cases:
- Laborers and freight, stock and material movers (92,240);
- Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers (65,930);
- Nursing aides, orderlies and attendants (52,510);
- Construction laborers (39,270); and
- Light and delivery services truck drivers (32,740).
Only six other occupations had 20,000 or more cases in 2005. (See the chart below for more details.)
By Industry
Natural resources and mining was the industry sector with the highest median number of days missed, with 10 days. Construction had the highest incidence rate, 239.5 per 10,000 workers. Manufacturing, with 13 percent of the jobs, had 17 percent of the lost time injuries and illnesses. The rate of workplace injuries and illnesses among health services and education workers was slightly higher than the total private sector rate. But the big story was the fact that workers in this industry are victimized by assault and violence 5 times more frequently than workers in other industries.
Victims
Men have 54 percent of the jobs and work 59 percent of the hours but account for 66 percent of the cases. Injuries and illnesses to Asian workers fell 18 percent from 2004; white workers saw a 4 percent decrease over the same period; and injuries to black and Hispanic workers remained virtually unchanged at their disproportionately high rates.
What It Means
OSHA Secretary Foulke called the BLS report good news and claimed that it “validates” OSHA initiatives. But what would you expect him to say? Overall, the numbers are positive and the trends are moving in the right direction. But there’s also plenty in the BLS report to be alarmed about, particularly the continued worsening in the frequency and severity of ergonomic injuries.
![]() |
![]()
THE CANADIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
Does It Work? By Glenn Demby I'm an American but I work for a Canadian company. My colleagues and I occasionally engage in good-natured teasing of a nationalist type. One of the most frequent barbs leveled at me from my co-workers up North: "At least in our country, everybody has free healthcare." To which I respond: "Sure, but you get what you pay for." Of course, this is all just fun. But it underlines a serious question: Just how successful is the Canadian healthcare system? Apparently, not very. The Canadian system "is inferior to models in place in other OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries." This is the finding of the Simon Fraser Institute, a leading Canadian university that's based in British Columbia. About the Canadian SystemFor those of you who are not familiar with it, the Canadian healthcare system provides universal "free" access to medical services. Health insurance is provided publicly by the individual provinces or territories. Terms and coverage are supposed to be identical for all participants. Doctors and hospitals are paid by the plan and can't bill patients for additional charges. What makes the Canadian system unique is that public health insurance is a monopoly. In other words, citizens can't go outside the system and buy private insurance. Canada is the only OECD country that doesn't allow for private insurance. Findings of the StudyThe Simon Fraser study points to some serious flaws in the Canadian system, including:
ConclusionThe Canadian public monopoly system has succeeded in providing universal access to healthcare. But the care the system is delivering is of an inferior quality. According to the Fraser Report: "The overwhelming evidence is that, in comparative terms, Canada's system under-performs and needs to emulate the more successful models available elsewhere in other countries that offer universal access to healthcare." SOURCE: Esmail and Walker, "How Good Is Canadian Health Care? 2006 Report," Fraser Institute Digital Publication, December 2006, see http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/HowGoodHealthCare2006.pdf
|
Email This Post
Print This Post
TopLeave a Reply






