iv task

66 ProfessionalSafety FEBRUARY 2018 www.asse.org

Safety incentive programs that count days without an incident have a reputation for success. A sim- ple program posting the number of days on a scoreboard seems to raise safety awareness particularly when the number of reported incidents de- crease. If the last score reached was 55 days without an incident, the next one is usually higher. Employees will naturally want to beat their collective high score. They will work together to accomplish this, especially if there is a reward for doing so. Rewards for maintaining an incident-free workplace may range from paid time off to a celebration pizza party. What could go wrong?

This is an easy program to put in place. Many scoreboards are commer- cially available showing the current number of days without an incident and the previous record. Models range from whiteboard type to electronic. Some boards even show days without a lost-time incident and days with- out an OSHA-recordable incident. A scoreboard with this detail suggests employees know and appreciate the difference. The definitions would probably be posted and discussed in safety meetings. The assumption is that this knowledge would increase safety awareness.

Most of these boards carry an inspi- rational message such as “safety first,” “safety is no accident,” “help do your part to make a new record,” or “safety pays.” Many also have the words safety, quality and excellence, implying that this score is really a reflection of all three. These scoreboards remind workers to think about safety every day.

So far, everything in this article is true and would probably be of great in- terest to senior management and even some safety professionals. After all, it presents a simple return on investment for innocent efforts. If this informa- tion leaves the reader room for doubt,

chances are s/he is a seasoned pro- fessional or perhaps a federal OSHA administrator.

Employees Work as a Team When provided with a carrot, em-

ployees will work together to win. At first glance, it may appear this team cooperation occurs on a cultural level and results in preventing incidents. It is easy to assume that results achieved must be because employees are looking out for each other and speaking up about safety issues that could lead to incidents.

Instead, the author believes that employees who see scoreboards and signs every day with sentiments such as “safety first” become complacent. Employees repeating the same efforts with the same outcome in the same environment eventually results in complacency. This unintended conse- quence is not obvious at first.

Here is a real-life example. A col- league of the author was recounting a recent conversation with a cashier at a home improvement store. The cashier told him the company had a safety in- centive program that provided a pizza party celebration for all employees after a specific goal was met involving days without injury. Her telling comment was, “Man, my coworkers really let me have it when we almost met the goal and I reported a small injury. I’m not gonna be that person again.”

Employee teamwork influenced her to refrain from reporting even a small injury. The teamwork was the result of the rewards on employees’ minds and it continued to drive their every- day behavior. This is not an intention of a scoreboard; it is the unintended consquence.

OSHA’s Opinion While the author has disagreed with

OSHA’s approach and opinions in the past, the two agree on this topic.

In 2012, Richard Fairfax, then deputy assistant secretary, published on safety

incentives:

Some employers establish programs that unintention- ally or intentionally provide employees an incentive to not report injuries. For example, an employer might enter all employees

who have not been injured in the previous year in a drawing to win a prize, or a team of employees might be awarded a bonus if no one from the team is injured over some period of time. Such programs might be well-intentioned efforts by employ- ers to encourage their workers to use safe practices. However, there are better ways to encourage safe work practices, such as incentives that promote worker participation in safety-related activities, such as identifying hazards or participating in investigations of injuries, incidents or “near misses.” OSHA’s VPP guid- ance materials refer to a number of positive incentives, including providing t-shirts to workers serving on safety and health committees; offering modest rewards for sug- gesting ways to strengthen safety and health; or throwing a recognition party at the successful completion of company-wide safety and health training. (Fairfax, 2012)

Scoreboards that track the posi- tive incentives are harder to find, so customizing an existing board might be necessary.

In 2014 OSHA Administrator David Michaels, Ph.D., M.P.H., issued a memorandum focusing on disincen- tives that discourage injury and illness reporting, and worker involvement:

An incentive program that focuses on injury and illness numbers often has the effect of discouraging workers from reporting an injury or illness. When an incentive program discourages worker reporting or, in particularly extreme cases, disciplines workers for report- ing injuries or hazards, problems remain concealed, investigations do not take place, nothing is learned or corrected and workers remain exposed to harm. Disincentives to reporting may range from award- ing paid time off to a unit that has the greatest reduction in incidence rates to rewarding workers with a celebration for achieving an injury/ rate reduction goal or maintaining an injury-and-illness-free work site for a period of time. A site whose incentive program has the potential to discourage worker reporting fails to meet the VPP’s safety and health management system requirements. (Galassi, 2017)

Are Safety Incentive Programs Effective? By Steve Workman

Vantage Point articles in Professional Safety provide a forum for authors with distinct viewpoints to share their ideas and opinions with ASSE members and the OSH community. The goal is to encourage and stimulate critical thinking, discus- sion and debate on matters of concern to the OSH profession. The views and opinions expressed are strictly those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by Professional Safety, nor should they be considered an expression of official policy by ASSE.

Vantage Point

www.asse.org FEBRUARY 2018 ProfessionalSafety 67

Safety Third & Unintended Consequences Another individual who shares the

author’s concerns regarding safety incentives and slogans is the host of Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs, Mike Rowe. Rowe has been challenging the clichéd “safety first” slogan since 2008. He tells the story of how his crew at- tended various site safety orientations discussing “safety first” and experi- enced no injuries for the first 3 years. Things changed after that and injuries and near-hits of all kinds seemed to occur regularly.

While pondering these events and filming an episode on an industrial site, Rowe was informed that a facility em- ployee working in another part of the same plant had been killed. He noticed the plant had visible safety banners with typical safety slogans. This caused him to question the effectiveness of safety slogans, banners and the unin- tended consequences. In a 2012 letter to ISHN, Rowe shares his thoughts:

I found a study on traffic accidents that claimed the most dangerous intersections were those with signs that told you when to walk and when to wait. Intersections with no such signs were statistically safer, appar- ently because people were more likely to look both ways before cross- ing the street if there was no blinking sign to tell them when it was safe to do so. According to the theory of risk compensation, people subcon- sciously maintain their own level of risk equilibrium by adjusting their behavior to reflect the changes in their surrounding environment. Thus, when the environment around us feels unsafe, we take fewer chances. And when that same environment feels safer, we take more chances. That got me wondering—if compa- nies and safety professionals tell us over and over that our safety is their priority, wouldn’t that tend to make us feel safer? And wouldn’t that in turn, prompt us to take more risk, therefore making us . . . less safe? (Rowe, 2012)

Prior to writing this letter, Rowe host- ed a 1-hour special titled “Safety Third.” He presented mistakes he and his crew made in the past and accepted responsi- bility for the unintended consequences of ranking virtures and values, suggesting “safety always” rather than “safety first.” He voiced concerns that compulsory

safety programs discouraged personal re- sponsibility in favor of legal compliance. He also asked viewers to consider all the progress that would have never occurred had safety been valued above all else. In conclusion, he suggested “safety third” better reflected reality than “safety first,” and supported the notion that safety is too important and too personal to be reduced to a platitude.

People often view certain workplace actions and think the results will be ob- vious. In his previous career as a human resource professional, the author spoke with the maintenance supervisor about his crew, which was the only one on site that spoke Spanish as a first language. Communication with managers and other employees occasionally presented a challenge. As a result, the author recommended the supervisor add to his crew members’ annual performance evaluations that taking an English-as- a-second-language (ESL) course would increase their career opportunities. He added the recommendation to every crew members’ written evaluation. The following year the author shadowed him and discovered that the supervisor was giving employees daily assignments in Spanish. There was no incentive for

the employees to attend an ESL class. The author’s recommended action failed to have the desired result because the author did not understand what moti- vated the supervisor or employees.

To understand the outcomes of any safety incentive program, one must fully understand employees’ motivations by being exposed to employees involved at their level. Do not make assumptions, be misled by temporary results or trust what seems obvious. Remember the Russian proverb quoted by President Reagan, “Trust, but verify.”

References Fairfax, R.E. (2012, March 12). Employer

safety incentive and disincentive policies and practices. Washington, DC: OSHA. Retrieved from www.osha.gov/as/opa/whistle blowermemo.html

Galassi, T. (2017, Aug. 18). Revised VPP policy memorandum #5: Further improve- ments to the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP). Washington, DC: OSHA. Retrieved from www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/policy_memo 5.html

Rowe, M. (2012, June). Dirty Jobs host responds to ISHN editorial [Letter to the edi- tor]. ISHN. Retrieved from www.ishn.com/ articles/93505-dirty-jobs-guy-says-safety-third -is-a-conversation-worth-having

Steve Workman, CEAS, holds a B.S. from National University and an A.S. from Vincennes University. He is a professional member of ASSE’s San Diego Chapter. In 2010, he was chair of the Southwest Safety Conference and has since participated in organizing the local chapter’s 2015, 2016 and 2017 professional development conferences.NI

C O

E L N

IN O

/I S

T O

C K

/G E

T T

Y I M

A G

E S

P L U

S

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.