Over the years, safety directors have relied on cost savings to build the business case for safety. A safety program is a good investment, they've argued, because it will prevent illnesses and injuries and save the company money. This argument is sound and compelling. But it has weaknesses. For one thing, it tends to work best when there are a lot of injuries and illnesses. Cutting costs becomes less compelling when illness and injury rates flatten out. Thus, the more successful the safety program, the harder it becomes to justify.

One way out of this dilemma is to build a new kind of business case for safety, one that relies less on cost saving and more on other economic benefits. The good news is that there is a benefit that's just as if not more compelling than cost savings: Increased worker productivity. The other good news is that safety really does increase productivity and you can prove it.

But take heed. The link between safety and productivity isn't what you might expect. This series will explain how safety really affects productivity and show you how to use this information to sell your safety program.

The Power of Productivity

As a CEO hot button, increasing productivity is at least as important (if not more so) as saving money. Many businesses have cut payroll with the goal of trying to squeeze more out of their existing workforces. So, safety directors who can link safety success to productivity are more likely to win CEO support for their programs.

Of course, it's one thing to assert that safety will increase productivity and another to prove it. Building the business case for safety on the basis of productivity can be tricky for some safety directors because, for reasons we'll explain below, it requires them to change their basic thinking and approach to safety.

The APA Study

The good news is that if you're willing and able to shift your paradigm, there's a strong case to be made. Some of the best evidence to support it comes from a study from the American Productivity Audit (APA) that appeared in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in December 2003.

The study authors conducted over 28,000 worker interviews and, based on the results, made some important observations about the impact of worker health and safety on their productivity. Specifically, they made some important findings about the impact of two health-related factors on productivity losses.

The Absenteeism Factor

Absenteeism is the most obvious link between a worker's health and safety and his productivity. Simply stated, workers who miss work because of an injury or illness are less productive than workers who show up for work.

However, the APA study suggests that most health-related productivity losses are not the result of absence. The study found that workers who were absent accounted for only 29% of health-related productivity losses. Only 23% of these absences were due to injury or illness to the worker missing work. The other 6% were due primarily to the health of the worker's family member. Twenty-three percent is a lot; but clearly there are other more important factors involved. What are they?

The Wellness Factor

Most health-related productivity losses - 71% - occurred on the job. They were the result of reduced performance by the workers who actually did show up for work. These losses have gone largely unnoticed, the study notes, because the ailment detracting from the worker's performance isn't serious enough to keep her from missing work.

According to the APA study, workers on the job suffer from five main performance-impairing conditions:

• Headache/Pain;
• Cold/Flu;
• Fatigue/Depression;
• Digestive Problems; and
• Arthritis.

Conclusion

Productivity losses from wellness related factors conditions cost businesses than $180 billion per year, the study claims. (See the Tools section of SafetyXChange for further data from the study). The implications of this finding for your health and safety program are extremely significant - and somewhat threatening. Next week, in Part 2 of this series, we'll explain what they are.

THIS DATE IN HISTORY

A. Mitchell Palmer: U.S. Attorney General

January 2, 1920

Practitioners of a radical political ideology led from abroad are calling for the overthrow of western democracy. They've launched a series of coordinated bombings against eastern U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., and New York. And they're threatening more violence. In response, the FBI rounds up thousands of suspected political opponents, mostly immigrants, and holds them for months without charge. Although a few object to the lack of due process, the public largely supports the government's exercise of extraordinary powers as vital to the public interest.

Sound familiar?

We're not talking about the U.S. response to 9/11. We're talking about the 'Red Scare' of 1919-1921.

The 'Red Menace'

Almost two decades after the cold war, the word "communism" has assumed a kind of quaint and nostalgic resonance - like a lyric out of the Billy Joel song, "We Didn't Start the Fire." But to the industrialized countries of Europe and North America, the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in November 1917 was every bit as alarming as the events of 9/11 were to us. Communist revolution was made for export and its agents were devoted believers prepared to lay down their lives.

In 1919, World War I had just ended. But the western countries were still on a wartime footing. At least their legal systems were. But now, the FBI and its counterparts in England, France, Canada, etc. shifted their focus from espionage to communism.

The 'Palmer Raids'

Against this backdrop, U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer launched a series of raids to root out the "Red Menace." His efforts came to a climax on this date in 1920 with the simultaneous multi-city arrests of 6,000 suspected communists and anarchists. It was the largest mass arrest in U.S. history. Many of the arrested were foreigners who were deported without evidence or due process.

Even the FBI's website admits that the "Palmer Raids" operation was a "nightmare, marked by poor communications, planning and intelligence about who should be targeted and how many arrest warrants would be needed." It was "certainly not a bright spot for the young Bureau," according to the FBI account.

At first, the public supported the raids. But as perceptions of the communist threat receded and the legal abuses came to light, public opinion shifted. The backlash cost Palmer his chance at winning the Democratic party nomination in the 1920 presidential election and, ultimately, his historic reputation.

But the 24-year-old assistant who helped Palmer engineer the raids survived the political firestorm and would be heard from again. His name was J. Edgar Hoover.

Story Tools:  E-mail this to a friend  Print This Post Top