Document MM0LBMBkabLLqJb2j6yak3XD9

1999 National Safety Congress agers would like to have. And I think this makes sense. We could decide in New York City that they ought to have a report of alt the injuries that are occurring throughout every plant of IBM; we could decide in New ment of the company a bill of goods about what is needed and what is accomplished, then we have to convert that to a point where we would have had in the certain plant or a certain division or a certain group York that maybe they would like to have --one man injured, if there were so many accident frequency and severity rates re* people, in a certain period of time. Or, if ported to them. we are talking about automotive aeddent re But maybe they wouldn't be a bit inter ports--if I can tell my sales department peo ested in them. I think one of the problems ple that a truck operator may expect to drive facing safely engineers is that most man at the rate we are having automotive acci agers have never really been told what ac dents. he may expect to drive 12 years and cident frequency means, how it should be . 7 months before he has an automotive acci interpreted, how good a measurement is it. dent, while the passenger car operator may We must only ask for information from the operating departments that will help us help them do a better safety job. And at the moment the only information we are asking for is this information that pertains to an unsafe condition or a procedure that might expect to drive 10 >*cars and 9 months with out an automotive accident. The*c figure* are arbitrary*, of course. Then 1 think they realize it much more when we say that our rale was so much per hundred thousand or per million miles ox travel. exist someplace cle. And this is mandatory, Stuffing: The next question is "How can and this responsibility is not to be minimized a safety director of a multi-plant operation --information must get out fast to all the utilize the services of an insurance com plants so that it corrective action is neces pany engineer to the greatest advantage? sary' it can be taken. Nou* J hope that later Additionally, how* far can he go in request on somebody will disagree with me on this ing and expecting services which are con and we'll have an opportunity to talk some sidered to be more than normal services that more on it because I feel strongly that as the insurance company provides?" safety people we must operate as staff peo ple, and as staff people we must give our op erating departments what they want, not what we think they want. Temple: Our company represents some thing a little bit different from the four pre ceding members of the panel in that we have a much more varied products involved-- Harvey: We like to keep our frequency everything from electric motors in the East and severity company-wide. Our frequency* Coast division of General Dynamics and the at the moment is 1.04 and our severity is Electric Dynamics plant to large aircraft cn 20S, if you are interested in how we are do* the West Coast; in the San Diego Division ing by this system, but I might point out Convair; aircraft again up in Canada: down this*--we are not all on decision-making to the atomic submarines of Electric Boat levels. In my company, for example, the Company, and our public relations people Industrial Relations Staff has functional su are not keeping us too well informed, be pervision of all industrial relations programs. cause 1 had to find out the other day that 7*wma: I think that was "what minimum we now own a plantation down in South data was needed." I think the minimum data America where they take extract from a needed at a centralized point is the sufficient flower and make it into vanilla--Standard data to^nablc the safety directovto convert Vanilla. So, we've got everything in the that information into something that can be business--I mean in variety. presented to management in a form that they can understand. I'm not saying that manage ment needs to have things simplified for them but maybe we can sell our point much better if we can simplify it Now, how can you or I, involved in multiplant problems relating to safety* utilize the services of the insurance company*, particu larly their safety engineers? In the firs; place we're going to have to know some Accident frequency rates, injury frequency thing about what the broker consummated in rates, severity rates are good and we who the contract with the insurance carrier so are in the safety profession understand that we can keep our requests within line them; we can relate them, one with another, of the contract, although definitely we should but if we are going to sell the top manage get all that the contract is for and most of Industrial Safety us try* to get a litle more. But by the same tokert we've got to stay within the bounds of reason. Now, what can we get? Well, in the first place, if the insurance carrier has safety engineers we get consultation services on problems. We can get information on what is going on in other plants, for which they are the carrier. We can get some technical services which may not be available in our own plants or in some plants. We can also get benefits of their suggestions from in spections in the plant. Those inspections jhould be made very closely with the safety engineer in the plant. The inspections should company furnish back to ns--now, this may not come from your engineering group; it may come through the claims department of your insurance carrier-- and that is to give os full information cm the compensation monies spent This is most especially im portant to die companies, to the individual division, particularly if you are on retro spective audit basis, hi your insurance con tacts, where there is a premium return of monies that are not expended. There are many other services which if the insurance carrier exgineers and various other functions of that carrier, if they have, on be very valuable to you. be made for the purpose of improving the . I would suggest one thing--don't ever plant safety, as should all inspections. They* expect your compensation carrier to team should not be made for the purpose of put up with you to put pressure on top man ting somebody on the spot, whitewashing agement. because this can be a fatal mistake. some fellow who is not doing a good job-- I remember one instance that occurred in one but they should be made for the purpose of of our divisions where the top safety man helping. And sometimes the safety engineer in the division teamed up with the insurance for the insurance company is roaming around carrier to try to get a little bit more support through the piant unescorted, contacting peo ple and making suggestions direct to super vision--this can lead to trouble. Another out of management They tried it in this maimer--of making a rather critical report back to the insurance carrier's general offices, thing that we can expect of then is efforts which in turn goes through the broker down toward researching some problem on which through the general offices of the corpora we are haring trouble or a problem which tion, back to the division. Well, obviously arises out of a new produet. Another thing which we can expect of our safety engineers from the insurance carrier is that they know something about what the compensation experience is in our divisions. Now, here we run into peculiar problems, be cause sometimes the claims department and the engineering department of the insurance carrier don't seem to know* that the other exists. I don't know why that should be; I think that is a mistake, but it is a fact. So, with one or two insurance carriers that we have had. we've had to get the claims department and the engineering department acquainted with each other and cross-feed a little in formation, because there is a definite rela tion between oigmeering and claims. We asked the engineers to give us back some information on accident analysis. Sometimes the statistical department of the insurance carrier doesn't have that service, but where they do have that service, they can give you good information back in accident and sta tistical analysis. Of course some plants are this didn't turn out right because when the answer came back to the division and to the safety man and to the insurance carrier, the answer was, "Any time we want the insur ance carrier to make a critical report and suggest that management isn't doing its job, we will ask for an appraisal, and untff then please hold that information. We don't want it" So this whole thing had a very adverse reaction on the engineer who was involved in the plan as well as the insurance carrier itself. This should never be done, but we can get a lot of help from good engineering service of bur insurance carriers and more especially, if they have good engineers. Parsons: Before 1 answer this question, I'd like to give you a little information about Carnation Company and the scope of its operation so you will know why we have our present program. We operate 358 plants in the United States and Canada, and 28 for eign plants. The safety organization is or ganized and directed from our Los Angeles world headquarters. You can see that we have a problem. big enough--they can do that for themselves. Now, to get to answering the question, Another thing we insist that our Insurance "How can we utilize the services of our 91