Document 3JKbNYNNyVD4JNz87QdavNGYJ

106 Tu'cnty-second Cotujrcts--Natioua! Safety Council opportunity to wfc hi a larger rink. Then. ton. the experience of a risk in a hazardous trade U a itmcc reliable guide !<> the risk's future |<rfonmme than die experience of a risk of similar sice m a non-iaariw trade for the same reason: the hazardous trade producing more acenknt* and. therefitre. is a better chance of getting an indiralive awrape. In rxprrirorc rating. it is primarily the cost of the accidents rathrr than tltcir numhvr u> that severity within Emits also has a oajor effect U)m ur eietsideratiun of the risk's exiwrienee. AH other eonditinns twing opal ue cxamjdc. we mold actually nut rdy os much on the exjeriewv of the risk if it all resulted frtmt one scrioo* case as we would if it re flected a lot of Wss serious cases more frequently occurring- The first instance prriahly would never tenr again for years, because d the workings of chance; while the second would prntalily approximately repeat year after year. As a result of this condition in experience rating, accidents are treated tinder two distinct groups: the low-frequency high-cost cases such as the deaths and permanent iota) disability cases, and the hfgh-frcqnmry hwerat eases which cover all other com pensation cases and also medical costs. One other feature d experience rating is of very decided importance. Ttux is the abdication of the trmriplc of "weightmg" the experience f the risk in determining a future premium rate. The principle of the "weighted experience** provides that the same degree of importance shall nut he attached uniformly to the experience devetved in all years of the risk's qcrtion Iml that each year stall be arbitrarily graded so as to give the tn**st weight or credence to the latest experience. As a matter of fact, the weights assigned to the fire years of experience are represented by the factor* .40. /fl. JBfl. 1JO. and I.HR. heguming with the earliest year's experi ence. In other words, the experience of the two latest years is accepted at its face value, while hut SO per cent. <'0 per cent, and 40 per cent of the experience of the third latest year, husrth btrst year and earliest year respectively are retained for rating purpose*. The rcasu te this feature of cxjwricnce rating is again to restrict the influence of oxtditkw which arc tut notsidcrcd reflective of the risk's loss cost prospects for the nraurristtc future. Suppose we have a risk where five years ago it was under the management of per?1** not interested m any way m accident iircveutimi or in the use of safely equipment. During that year pnduNt there vndd have <rurrcd numerous acddents as a result of such attitude iet the part of the assured. Suppusc that during the but two year*, lunscwr. new M<wl had hm hnmght into the firm which had hren thneglily sdd on acridnU jwrvmttiei and extensive safety programs had been inaugurated ami all evidence indkatrd a rortimatHUi d this |tractice. It does not seem logical that the shortenmmgs of the risk in the earlier year* of the risk's his tory should unduly influence the iu\ure rate i the risk. While unquestionably the risk's earlier experience should he reflected in lire rating, its effect on the future rate fe the risk shook) Ik* msfified in the light of the iww modern cmlhkitt. The weighted experience principle which wr fnlktw does fust exactly this. In other words, it make* the assured pay m full for (lie most recent conditions in his plant and it doc* not drag out unduly the penalty fir some particular condition which may or may nr* be reflected in the present condition* of the risk. APJOCRXMEXT. nrA?rv-sneoxn annual safety congress NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION October 4, 1933 The special session devoted to iwridcm* in connectinn with Safety Orgzmzathxt and Program was called to order hy J. K. Cullincy. (tcthlchcra Steel Ov IWthlchcm. Pa. He welcomed the delegates in the name <4 the Executive Ccmumtlve of the Na tional Safely Council, and then intmtuccd George Opp. safety engineer. The l>etroit Company. Detroit. who presided during the session. Cltairman Opp imtlincd the discussion in view and introduced tlte first speaker. Mechanical Safeguarding and Engineering Revision 0- - -?c? By L. W. LOHREY Manager of Personnel. Dctco Products Corporation. Dayton, OUo The speaker said in part: Mane speaker* have presented statistics so often to prove that most accidents are due :o causes cither than the lack of mechanical guard ing, that many have reached the mudusion that the job i* done, in so for as this very important phase of safety is concerned. In fact, they have sold this point so well that many of the safety engineer* of the country have kwt their Jobs within the ptf few years. Management everywhere evidently believed them and since h was necessary to reduce overhead expense, their service* were dispensed with, as their departure would nut be missed. 1 can't say tliat I sympathize with these chaps: m most instance* it was good riddarce. They were the bellow* wtv> told managonent every time a worker gut hurt thsx the machine was properly guarded and that the was doe to the carelessness nr the cussedness of the worker. Tltcy did mu. however, tell management tltat with additional engineering the machine could be guarded, and with little additional expense, mi that regardless of tltr carelessness nf the worker. H would be impossible fr him to be Inert. No -mechanical safeguarding and engineering is not completed--h is practically ui its infancy. The miner we recognize tins fact the greater will be the improvement m this field of safety. Ixt us consider for a moment l*tc report of the DWtio. nf Safety and Hygiene of the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and then determine whetlicr or not mechanical safeguarding has reached the point of perfection tint many would have us believe. In 1933. 131.519 total claim* were filed with the Commission. Of this number-- 43.123 were due to cut* and laeerathet*: 25J23 crushes and bruises; I9J10 sprains 107