How does your health and safety program contribute to this company's profitability?

Five years ago, most safety directors would have answered the question by citing the cost savings attributable to prevented injuries and illnesses. Many still would. And they wouldn't be wrong. But, as we discussed last week, there are inherent weaknesses in tying the value of safety to losses avoided.

As a result, an alternative approach has emerged. Today, increasing numbers of safety directors rely less on losses avoided and more on increases in worker productivity to demonstrate the financial benefits of safety. The new business case for safety is a solid one. There's ample evidence to support the proposition that protecting workers against health and safety hazards enhances their productivity.

But there's also a catch: The same evidence demonstrating the link between safety and productivity also suggests a need for fundamental changes in the basic approach to safety. Let's look at the implications.

Absenteeism, Presenteeism & the Safety Program Disconnect

Safety programs have historically emphasized the prevention of illness and injury. Success and failure is measured in terms of lost workdays. The objective is to protect workers from the things that can cause them to miss work. The relationship to productivity is obvious. Limit absenteeism, the thinking goes, and you maximize productivity.

This thinking remains fundamentally sound. After all, workers who show up for work are undeniably more productive than workers who don't. The problem is that the gap in productivity between absent and present workers isn't as significant as previously thought. Stated differently, controlling absenteeism increases productivity but only marginally.

Explanation: Modern studies show that most health-related productivity losses are attributable not to absenteeism but to what's called "presenteeism," - that is, the diminished capacity of workers suffering from minor ailments who still manage to drag themselves to work. For example, according to the American Productivity Audit (APA) study of December 2003 cited in the first parts of this series, absenteeism accounts for only 29 percent of health-related productivity losses; the other 71 percent are the result of presenteeism.

Implications: The findings of the APA and similar studies suggest that the traditional safety program's emphasis on minimizing absenteeism is misplaced, at least to the extent that productivity enhancement is its primary goal. Since presenteeism represents the real enemy of productivity, safety directors should build programs that account for wellness and the elimination of the minor ailments that diminish the productivity of workers on the job.

Conclusion

Next week, I'll conclude this series with a discussion about how to incorporate wellness into the safety program.

OSHA & THE CANDIDATES

Hillary Clinton

By Glenn Demby

Hillary Clinton

Bio: Born Hillary Rodham in Chicago, Oct. 26, 1947. Father ran small, successful textile business. Mother a homemaker. First drew national attention in 1969 by delivering controversial political commencement address during her graduation ceremony at Wellesley College 1969. Met Bill Clinton at Yale Law School in 1971. Received law degree in 1973. Married Clinton in 1975. Joined Rose Law Firm in 1976, same year husband was elected governor of Arkansas. Continued practicing law while serving as First Lady of state. Worked for various childrens' rights and health causes. Husband elected President 1992. As first lady, played active role in policy formation, including healthcare reform. First woman elected to U.S. Senate from New York in 2000.

Position Regarding OSHA: Of the three leading Democratic candidates, Ms. Clinton has said the least about OSHA. However, she is advised on labor issues by many of the same people as her husband and it's likely that OSHA under Ms. Clinton would look much the same as it did under Mr. Clinton. Although she has received many union endorsements and is widely regarded as supporting much of the union agenda, she's built her campaign less on traditional labor issues than on middle class, healthcare and government reform.

Ms. Clinton doesn't mention OSHA or workplace safety in her position papers or major speeches. The most complete expression of her views on the topic (that I could unearth) comes from the questionnaire she submitted to the AFL-CIO. (Note: The AFL-CIO questionnaire was completed by most of the major candidates?Democrat and Republican. Cites from the questionnaire come from the candidates, not the union.)

Positions:

• Expand OSHA coverage to all federal, state and local employees;
• Restore the OSHA ergonomics standard;
• Increase civil penalties for repeat and willful OSHA violations;
• Allow employers to be charged with felonies if they commit repeat and willful OSHA violations that lead to a fatality;
• Increase transparency, i.e., provide more thorough reporting of OSHA violations committed by employers; and
• Require employers to pay for PPE needed by their workers.

Ms. Clinton's political reform agenda would also have an impact on OSHA. She has called for:

• Eliminating the appointment of political cronies to government positions. Although she'd appoint her supporters, she's vowed to ensure that agency heads possess requisite experience and skills; and
• Bringing more government services online to make them more user friendly

Rhetoric: "In the four decades since OSHA has been enacted, we've made great strides. But there are improvements that need to be made. Too many workers are injured on the job and too few workers are protected by OSHA."

TOMORROW'S PROFILE: We'll start profiling the Republicans. First up: John McCain.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top