Document aJa2oKKe378a5D1K6Ervjjx0b

le / 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 28 29 rmore ach .17 25 23 .45 .70 tnbers. I. ILL 3025702 1956 TRANSACTIONS FOOD INDUSTRY AND | MEAT PACKING, TANNING AND j | LEATHER PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES | 44th National Safety Congress (October 22-26, 1956, Chicago, IU.) FOOD INDUSTRY Off-the-Job Safety--Is It an industrial Responsibility? (A-Debate)... 5 Guarding Against Hazards of Mechanical Equipment (A Symposium).. 10 Machine Guard* and an Effective Locking and/or Tagging Problem (Mulligan).. 10 Common Denominator of the Safety Supervisor (Latshaw)............. ................... 14 Round Table Discussions American Standards Method of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience (Miller)............................. 17 Grain Handling and Processing Division (Jensen)............................... 19 (Continued on next page) HiHiiiuitiiNiitmtitnmtmttiimiuiiMitnimmstiitimimiimmtiiuiiiimimiuiistiimttiiimimmantmmntimmtimtinmt NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE, CHICAGO 11, ILLINOIS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT * IhlrfzAM&SP i 305*. Current Safety Topics in the FOOD INDUSTRY AND MEAT PACKING. TANNING AND LEATHER PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES (Continued from cover) .....................................................................................................................^ m i m m i M i i i i i i i H i i . ............. ... What the Supervisor Needs From Management (Lange/and)................................................. 20 From the Safety and Training Department (Moore)................ 23 Foreman Level Safety Programs That Work The Contact System (Adams)..................................................... 27 The Quaker Oats Program (Hartmann)..................................... 30 MEAT PACKING, TANNING AND LEATHER PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES Build It In--Don't Tack It On (Orcutt).............................. 33 Safety Begins at Home (Roach)..................................................... 36 And They Still Get Hurt (Deeg)..................................................... 38 Safety Supermarket Each fall, some 12,000 safety experts from all over the U.S. and many foreign countries gather in Chicago to discuss safe attitudes, methods and equipment It isn't just a gossip session. There's serious thought and talk on how to prevent the tragic accidents-- on the job, off the job, in the home, on the streets and highways-- which claim about 95,000 lives every year. Each edition of the Transactions is a handy reference to the up-tothe-minute ideas and experiences of these top men in all fields of accident prevention. Safety people everywhere have found in the Congress Transactions much useful ammunition to aid them in the war on accidents. The National Safety Congress Transactions are published in volumes, each covering a phase of the safety picture, along with a General Sessions and Detailed Index to all volumes. The volumes of the 1956 Congress Transactions are listed on the last page of this volume. In preparing these Transactions, the proceedings of the Congress have been condensed and edited for reference purposes. Complete original manuscripts, with any charts or illustrations which were used, are available in National Safety Council files. Views expressed at the Congress or in this record are those of the Congress participants and are not necessarily those of the National Safety Council. THE FOOD SECTION THE MEAT PACKING, TANNING AND IEATHER PRODUCTS SECTION This volume is a record of the sessions held at the 1956 National Safety Congress by the Food Section and Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Section. The conduct of these Congress sessions each year is only one of the many cooperative activities which the Food Section and the Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Section carry on in behalf of their members, and for the benefit of accident prevention work in the Food and Packing, Tanning and Leather Product Industries generally. These Sections give guidance in the preparation of a great variety of tech nical and educational material useful in the day-to-day plant safety programs. The activities of these Sections are under the direction of their Executive Committees, the members of which are listed at the close of this volume. f 5 The Food Industry Off-the-job Safety--Is It an Industrial Responsibility? (A Debate) General Chairman: Nixon de Tarnowsky. Discussion Leader: Thomas J. Berk, Safety Consultant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., New York. Affirmative: W. F. Leonard, Jr, Vice-President, South land Corp, Dallas, Tex. Gregg R. Meyers, Dir. of Safety, Blatz Brewing Co, Milwaukee. Negative: E. G. Hutzley, Safety* & Fire Preven tion Engineer, Campbell Soup Co, Camden, X. J. Leslie J. Quinker, Dir. of Safety, Schenlev Distillers, Inc, Louisville; Ky. MEYERS: Last summer, when asked to participate in this debate, I figured no one would take the negative side The printed program showed that several men were lined up for that side but I still didn't think they'd show up. But then I realized they were serious. I am sure they realize that no place in the safety engineer's "Code of Ethics" or on the American Society of Safety Engi neer's diploma does it mention only indus trial safety. I quote from the ASSE di ploma: "This certifies that (blank) is a member of this society, organized to pro mote the arts and sciences connected with engineering and its relation to safety, to life and limb and the protection of prop erty." No place, though, does it mention only "industrial safety!" What negative argu ments will these men present? I am sure that their own organizations believe that offthe-job safety is an industrial responsibility. Many large industries throughout the nation are spending thousands of dollars annuallv for off-the-job safety. Are these firms wasting time and effort? I think not 1 They realize the benefits of industry's participa tion in such a program. In 1955, to relate some facte, 28,000 per sons were killed in home accidents; 38,300 in traffic accidents, and 14,000 in work acci dents. With intensified safety programs in industry the industrial-accident death rate has been reduced by some 4,000 from 1940's rate. Those figures show that if enough safety effort were exerted in off-job safety, the death toll could be reduced just as industry has reduced its death rate. Industry is vitally affected by off-job accidents. It will profit if it considers an off-job safety program its responsibility. Here are 10 reasons why an off-job safety program would benefit indus try: 1. Production wouid increase and there would be less personnel turnover.. 2. Insurance costs would decrease for both management and employee: 3. It would provide the employee incen tive to accept management's participation in a safety movement 4. Employees could work better and safer because group interest would be initiated. 5. A better living pattern in the home would result too, for the life of the wife and children would not be disturbed by bad news about accidents fo their husbands; hos pital bills, doctor bills. 6. It would provide safety education for the employee and help make him more safety conscious on the job, especially if he took the lead in teaching his family safety. 7. Incentive would be provided for safety essay contests which could be sponsored by individual plants or departmental groups. 8. It provides a way to- "get down on the ground" with the employee, selling him on the idea that management is trying to do something for him as an individual and not merely to set company records. 9. Off-job mishaps occurring to members of the employee's family, though indirect, affect his work habit and attendance rate. 6 1956 National Safely Congress 10. Off-job safety programs--to the de gree to which they are successful--also will cut down on on-the-job accidents. Industry must assume this responsibility it it considers itself to be a "good citizen." It must continue to support such organiza tions as the Red Cross and Community Fund, and it must be interested and active in any program that will be "good for all" in the community in which they're located. Now, are the members of the negative side here going to tell us that off-job safety is not industry's responsibility, but that of the school, the community, the public agency, the Federal government, or the in surance company? If they tell us that these agencies should hire experienced safety engineers to operate such a program, where are these agencies going to get them and what about the tax burden on the people of the U.S. if safety were the responsibility solely of some state or Federal agency? Safety prevention is a community prob lem; it's definitely up to industry to share in this problem. For the rest of my life, I will always be convinced that off-the-job safety is an industrial responsibility! HUTZLEY: One of the great traditions is the debate, an essential tool of the demo cratic society where the majority rules. Debate provides for an orderly and com prehensive review of arguments for and against a specific proposal before the votes are cast. It also provides a fair method for a minority to challenge an established ma jority. or, as in this case, to create thinking on both sides of a subject. As in all debates, a proposition has been decided. However, the side which other team defends does not represent, necessarily, the opinion of the company nor of the speakers. Decision as to who wins this debate should not be made on the merits of the question, but on the merits of the debate. That is, consideration as to what may seem to you the intrinsic merit of either ride of the question should not enter into or de termine your derision as to the winner. You should consider in your determination the team which shows greater argumentative ability and better form as speakers. In determining argumentative ability, take into consideration knowledge of the subject. power of analysis and structure; logical se quence in selecting and presenting evidence, and effectiveness of rebuttal. Consider, too. public-speaking techniques. For your guid ance, however, matter is more important than form. The debate will be a symposium limited to two points of view, the affirmative and negative, of; "Off-the-job Safety--Is It an Industrial Responsibility?" The panel will present the fundamentals so that you might deride what should be done about this problem. The forum will consist of pro and con presentations, a rebuttal and an open dis cussion in which, it is hoped, the audience will participate. Our subject matter is tremendous in scope and highly controversial, otherwise it wouldn't be debate material. Like every safety man, I am "agin" injuries. It should be made dear that while we cannot agree that "off-the-job" safety is a blanket re sponsibility of industry, strong support for education in this direction certainly has our fullest approval. The little progress accomplished in mak ing persons aware of non-industrial hazards stems mostly from improved industrialsafety programs. But, certainly, we must not forget the need for further improvement along that line. L'ntil we do a better job of. clearing up our numerous troubles, ac cepting full responsibility for off-job safety is little short of foolish. Since on-the-job accidents have been reduced through control, lack of accident control for persons away from work must be responsible partly for this wide variance. And when dealing with workers, controls often mean resistance, for they consider suggested protective efforts as "nosing in" or an infringement of constitutional rights. Off-job safety still requires straightening out We sometimes fail to understand that the job today does not rule a person's think ing as it used to. In the average 40-hour workweek, safety practice must be accepted as part of the pattern. In the other 128 hours, however, anything goes. For example: Of every eight accidents, one is industrial; but in spite of serious efforts by industry to sell "round-the-clock" safety, the large preponderance of off-job injuries to employees indicates most safety it s<--N Ie4 ) , too. guidirtant mited : and It an I will might this i con i dislience scope ie it every hould agree 1 ret tor 5 our makizards strialmust ement r ' '* n S, , safety ie-job mtrol, away v for ntrols nsider g in" tights, teiiing 1 that thinkl-hour xpted r 128 dents. erious dock" iff-job safety Food Industry 7 lessons are forgotten when they are on their own time. And employees having trouble with controlled, on-the-job safety usually contribute heavily to the high ratio of offthe-job accidents where there are no con trols! An even more ridiculous factor is that all non-industrial injuries invariably are lumped together as off-the-job acci dents! Actually, two thirds of those in jured are not industrial workers, but old folks, young children, drunk drivers, despondents and others with no industrial ties. Why should they be so classified? We who work at industrial safety know there are few "act-of-God" accidents. More persons are killed from handling low-volt age electricity than from being struck by lightning. We know, too, that the majority of all injuries and deaths, whether on or off the job, occur to: 1. Persons who refuse to listen, under stand or heed rules of comment sense and danger warnings. 2. Unfortunate victims of these heedless creatures, usually not at fault themselves. But, when they're hurt fatally, they're just as dead as if they themselves had been in the wrong. The vast majority of all accidents are caused by discourtesy, ignorance or disre gard for the rights. of others. We talk around these facts in polite circles, referring to them as "human failures." electrocute themselves by plugging in de fective cords while in the bathtub; cut off fingers with home power saws; lose arms from neglected infections; fall off roofs, or die in a flaming bed ignited by a dgaret? Off-the-job accidents? Industry's responsi bility for such inane acts seems far-removed. Many of the persons who were either maimed or fatally injured in the foregoing accidents are employed industrially, as we know. They are the safety man's burden, responsible for most of ids frustrations, sweat and tears. They, a chief cause of bad accident records, think someone is pick ing on them if told to practice safety. In dustry is aware of the vital need to teach these problem workers common safety sense, both on and off the job. Too, industrysponsored safety advice and information reaches millions of persons daily in all walks of life. Despite the barrage of safety messages put out through the media of radio, television and newspapers, evidence indicates too many pay too little attention. You've all heard community "leaders" cite "deplorable conditions" as the cause of acci dents, fires, disability and death. But too frequently the blame lies with the city leader who coddles habitual traffic-law violators, issues driver licenses to persons unable to handle even a wheelbarrow safely, or grants favors winch make it impossible for the conscientious fireman or policeman to do a good job of preventing disaster. What different course should industry take concerning the majority of traffic-law violators ... the jay walkers ... the "don't care a hoot," all figures at die scene of most "accidents?" Such persons will continue be ing killed while making left turns from the ri^ht side of the road, by runnig across the street in mid-block and being struck down, or rocking the boat and becoming a drown ing victim. Enough of this nonsense about "human failure." That's a weak and unacceptable excuse. However, the old game of "buck passing" makes it difficult to get necessary action. And because industry--after years of hard work in devising and enforcing safety controls--is often the safest place to be, there's a mistaken idea that industry alone can wage the never-ending battle against accidents. Why should industry be held responsible for remiss parents who leave small children alone to play with matches, to swallow rat poison, lye, paint thinner, detergents, sleep ing pills, to shoot each other, to smother in deserted iceboxes, or to find numerous other ways to die? But though every community and cross roads in the U. S. is affected, buck passing will continue--and so will injuries and fa talities that could have been prevented. Ev ery person must accept bis share of re sponsibility for stopping accidents, regardless of the place theyoccur. Why should industry be held responsible for the hundreds of so-called adults who kill themselves with "un-loaded" guns; die look ing with lighted matches for gas leaks; And a good beginning would be to give, as much time to day-by-day safety problems as is given to collecting overtime-parking fines. H It: '] 8 1956 National Safety Congress We need an honest; thoroughly planned, continuous campaign at the local level. There, injured or killed persons will be known by others in the community. And industry, which is always local, will con tinue to help. But it is both improper and unfair to expect industry to cany the full burden of stopping off-the-job accidents until: (1) A realistic, standard, nation-wide traffic code is effected; (2) common-sense requirements for all drivers become fact instead of fancy, and, (3) a firm, 365-day-a-year dis ciplinary code goes into effect to isolate those few persons who do not, will not, or cannot follow simple rules of decency and common sense. LEONARD: It is essential that industry protect its investment in its employees. The poyroll of any company is an investment that must be protected. It is essential that industry save on the 63 million man-days lost per year by 23 million off-job injuries. Off-job safety will reduce both state compensation and group hospital costs for both the company and the employee (pre vention of accidents reduces rates). Off-job safety provides the employee in centive in accepting management's partici pation in a safety movement It provides a way of getting "down on the ground" with your employees and selling them. You are doing something for them as individuals--for them and their family-- and when they realize this, they will accept the safety program. My company has tried this for six years and it will work; we've got it on its way. A result is better em ployer-employee relations. Off-job safety makes a better pattern of living in the home and raises living stand ards for adults and children. These chil dren are the safer workers of tomorrow. Off-job injuries can create welfare cases for the company or community. Off-job accidents to members of an em ployee's family affect his productivity and attitude--and his lost time. Off-job safety provides safety education for the employee and helps make him more safety conscious on the job, especially if he takes the lead in teaching his family about safety. And in the home is where safety should start! A good off-the-job accident-prevention program ties the family to the company and makes for a 24-hour relation; and it pro motes full-time safety attitudes. Off-job safety reduces economic losses, improves individual and group productivity and increases employee, efficiency. It re duces preventable absenteeism and increases take-home pay. "Off-job safety preserves needed skills and knowledge and makes the family part ners in production. Finally, the 24-hour safety program pro motes good public relations with the com munity, state, and, in some cases, the na tion. In some cases, no great amount of improvement will be made until the entire family is educated to the safety attitude. QUINKER: My opponent apologized after fiis speech for any sarcasm. None was intended, I know, and no offense was taken. I will make a like apology before I speak. Yawl been alistenin' to my friends on the opposition--and to my learned colledige here uh arguin' about the responsibility fer offthe-job safety. I don't calate as how I'll change any minds on the subject but a few of us ridge-runners down in Kentucky jist don't cotton to the idea that we're responsi ble for our hoot-nanys 24 hours a day. On the way up here, I been a'talldn' to some of these big business typhoons. They're a-gripin' 'bout how the guvmint's got them a-hangin' by their heels down a well, what with taxes ataldn' every cotton-pickin' dol lar they can put their greedy hands on. Most of 'em tell me they can't afford offthe-job safety. We got two big hazards in our plant: 1. The still might blow up. 2. The revenooers can put us out of busi ness any time. Part of our delivery price on a gallon of good ole mountain dew covers the safety program in the plant; another part goes for round-the-clock guarde force; more of it goes for raw materials and equipment, and still more for Lum and Abner's take-home pay. With all them hands a-grabbin' in the pot, boys, there hain't but dum little left when it's my turn. f ffltion y and : proosses, rtivity t re leases skills part- ut: busigallon safety es for of It t, and -home in' in little Food Industry 9 Now they want me to send my safety man up and down die hollers to see that everybody's safe at home. And, man, he ain't agonna do that for just an extra jug a week. He's gonna want some more of this here portal-to-portal pay and time-andagain for overtime. I'm areddy in this off-the-job stuff up to here; I've got company picnics, movies, "Little League'' baseball, bowling teams, softball teams. Sea Scouts, toy balloons and comic books! Great day in the mawnin', boy, them things cost money! And from what I've heard, these here companies 'at spend all their money on 'em off-the-job accident programs have about the same off-the-job accident rate us poor folks do. I womp up a pretty good program in the plant an' I don't think anybody should say I'm askin' too much to want my boys to take home what they lain there 'bout being safe. It cost me 39 bucks to put Abner on my payroll and a whole lot more to keep him there. Who says I gotta foller him home and see that he don't stub his cotton-pickin' toe afore he comes back to mixin' up a batch? They say the good Lord heps them what heps theirselves; so I think Abner oughter take the load offen my shoulders so as'n we can carry double. Don't you-all agree? Take keer of yourselfs! I don't want you boy's to get any wrong ideas; so I better correct this misconcep tion you all might have about my position. Any fool--includin' me--knows that when Cy gets hisself hawg-tied by a accident at home, he cain't make no more mash than if he had been hirt at work. "We all be lieves in off-the-job safety--we just don't think we should pay through the nose fer all the fancy frills what they want My mind is already made up; so, don't confuse me with the facts. IFn I'm suppised to be responsible fer my boys' safety away from the plant then I oughter be responsible fer their clothes and food and tools ami insurance and fringe benefits, too, on accountin' I'm ree-sponsible fer them on the job. Yawl think I'm bein' Iudy-crus? Wal, now, yawl fergit I'm in a luxury item business--so they tell me--and our customers got only 730 different brands of bourbon to choose from. Besides worryin' about cookin' up a good batch of moon, I gotta worry about gettin' that nectar sold. So it all builes down to these hyer two pemts: 1. I ain't got the time. Rebuttal Statistics indicate that accident losses ap proximate $223 per household each year. A successful off-job safety program could reduce this loss and leave money available for purchase of goods and services of the employer. Reduce preventable injuries now being absorbed by the production program of the company. An active, dynamic off-the-job safety pro gram provides the missing link--or com pletes the circle--in continuing an effective industrial safety program. My Company Record By pushing the 24-hour safety program, in the past 6 years: Employee injuries --decreased frequency 62 per cent. Number of employees increased 30 per cent Vehicle accidents -- decreased frequency 40 per cent Number of vehicles increased 40 per cent 2. I ain't got the money, either, honey, to stick my nose into Lu<Ts home and see that he stays safe so's he can cum inta work the next day. We are all 'ambassadors of safety." Offjob safety programs will make us all "am bassadors of happiness" because safety is just people helping people. ii ' -LV By EDWARD J. MULLIGAN Safety Dir., AlmnLium Co. of America, East St Louis, 111. There are really two separate subjects A substantial part of my experience with in the topic given me--"Machine Guarding" Alcoa involved the manufacture of machine and "An Effective Locking and/or Tagging guards, inasmuch as I spent 15 years in the of Equipment Program." Both are very shops doing sheet metal work prior to my important elements in accident prevention entry' into safety work. Most of our machine work. Failure to deal properly with either guards are made in our shop unless the can result in the loss of hands, arms, legs, machinery is purchased with guards already and even lives. Accidents resulting from provided. Quite often when we purchase such failures are small in number compared machinery with guards installed, we find with those resulting from people falling or that we have- to make some additions or mishandling objects, but the severity of such changes. For example, the State of Illinois accidents is usually high. Although Alumi code calls for complete enclosure of drives, num Company of America has an over-all, and when we purchase machinery equipped basic safety policy for all of its operations, with guards that do not have a back panel, each location's safety program functions in we have to add this panel. dependently with guidance from the general Guards with expanded metal openings that office in Pittsburgh, Pa. are too large to comply with the code must I'd like to quote one paragraph of Alcoa's over-all safety policy which deals with our subject: "It is management's responsibility to see that its plants, equipment and ma be replaced. The code calls for openings small enough to reject a ^ in. marble for guard panels within four indies of moving parts. chinery" are as safe as they reasonably can Any moving part of a machine that could be made. The basic approach is to eliminate . cause injury to someone should be guarded the causes of accidents wherever possible. if at all possible. We shouldn't take the 'When this cannot be done, mechanical guards attitude when appraising a possible hazard and other 'safeguards are incorporated into that only a fellow who is mighty stupid the design or added to equipment as it is would put his finger, hand, foot, or maybe found necessary to do so." This is a good his head into the position necessary to get basic policy and lets each local works of hurt. My advice in this matter is that if Alcoa understand what its responsibilities there is any chance of injury, guard it. Man are in this matter. should be the master of the machine--not It is most essential to have a company pol the prey. icy on safety which not only looks good on Guards should be built of materials that paper, but one that is genuinely practiced. meet the qualifications consistent with the Machine Guarding, in itself, -is a tre mendously broad subject Therefore, we will have to deal with the problem in gen eral terms. Part "B" of the Health and Safety Acts of the State of Illinois, which covers rules and regulations relating to safety and operating requirements of the particular job. We have practically elim inated the use of the so-called temporary* guard at our plant Generally, when new machines are ready' to be put into operation, the permanent guards are already installed. guarding of mechanical power transmission In our organizational procedure we have apparatus, prime movers and moving parts a good opportunity to discover any short of machinery and guarding of operation of comings that might exist on machine installa machinery, covers 36 pages. This is a very tions, because the safety department receives comprehensive code and a very good one. notice of all job orders and must approve P pt re Pf ih ap lei to CO ag ha en be be iir pr be in sic bis sei sei be P we of tw bn sei los sot sit aw we an pla wa aw inj am i ite'i... i c with achine in the to my achine ss the lready rchase e find ms or illinois drives, nipped panel, 5s that ; must enings ile for noving : cr- *-1 . J ce tne hazard stupid maybe to get hat if . Man e--not is that th the if the dim* porary n new ration, lied. ; have shortistallasceives pprove Food Industry II them before the job is dosed. We are cer Incidentally, this method of slotting a hold tainly given every opportunity to discover ing arm for a positioning roller is included and correct any inadequades as far as safety in the safety gadget booklet distributed by is concerned before equipment is ready to the National Safety Council. Safety prob operate. lems, at times, seem to be almost impossible Secure fastening of machine guards is also very important They should be anchored securely enough so that if anyone leans against them or even stands on them, they will be sturdy enough to do the job for which they,were intended. We do not advo to conquer, but if we persist in discussing and developing a solution with enough peo ple, someone is bound to come up with the right answer. Generally, there are two basic weaknesses that cause people to get hurt on machines: cate the use of machine guards as platforms, (1) Failure to install adequate guards and but we know that workmen will at times safe operating practices. stand on a guard. We must make sure they '(2) Failure to use the safeguards provided. are strong enough to hold him. Guarding every possible source of injury A great deal of resistance from operating people who claim a particular guard is im practical should be investigated for possible remedies. Sometimes, a change in operating procedure helps provide a solution.* Pooling around machinery is one of the best ways to express management's sincere interest in the safety program. We have to be sincere to be effective, and we should demonstrate this to our workers at every opportunity. the ideas of the workers and supervisors is Failure to use safeguards provided is a apt to bring out the best solution to prob little different type of a problem. There are lems of this type. two reasons why an employee might fail to Very often a simple solution is the answer to a problem that at first seems to be very complicated. For example: Several years use a guard that is provided for his safety: (1) It may be inconvenient (2) It may be impractical. ago we had an inclined conveyor belt that If a guard causes inconvenience, we may had a steel roller extending from the high or may not be able to improve the situation, end to position the bags as they- came off the but if at all possible; we should attempt belt. There was only about in. clearance to design guards which will cause the least between the roller and the moving belt. At amount of extra effort so as to discourage first, we did not recognize a hazard being attempts to short-circuit their effectiveness. present at this point because there seemed to Unfortunately, this is not always possible, be no-occasion for anyone to expose himself and education, training and supervision have- in normal operations. One day a worker to take up the slack. To illustrate this, at slouched against the nip point and pinched one time in one of our departments, some of his elbow, causing a laceration that required the guards covering the drives on the dump several sutures. After this accident, we made ing mechanisms of the add stills were oc several guards, but none of them proved to casionally left off.* When a choke-up oc be practical. They tore the bags and did not curred, the operator would remove the guard position them properly. A couple of years and sometimes he failed to replace it After went by without further incident Then one we called it to the attention of die depart of our employees got his hand caught be- ment head several times, he instructed his tweor the roller and the belt causing severe shift foreman to note on each shift report bruises but fortunately, no fracture. It was that all such guards were in place at the serious enough, however, to cause him to end of the shift We have not had trouble lose several weeks' work. Following this at this point since, but it took definite action second accident we took another look at the on the part of the supervisor to correct it situation to determine what we could do to Impractical guards are a little different avoid further injury. After much discussion, type of problem. Usually, after an acddental we solved it by simply slotting the holding injury on an operation, there is a clamor arms for the roller on a slightly inclined from the safety department and others to plane, .so that if a person's hand or arm put a guard on the equipment that caused was pinched, the roller would simply move the injury. Ids possible that at a time like away from the belt We have had no more this the foreman in the department may agree injuries since we made the change. with putting on a guard which he might later 12 1956 National Safety Congress find difficult to get along with. We should be very careful of this, and if we have persistent complaints, we should gather as much experience as we can from people directly connected with the problem and at tempt to work out a better solution with them. The answer may be a different type of guard or a change in the operating set-up. Sometimes the problem may be solved by contacting someone in the local chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers or local Safety Council, who has had experi ence in dealing with the particular problem. Once again, a very simple solution is often the answer to a problem which at first seems to be very complicated. Rule #1 in our local safety manual, under machinery' and its operation, is as follows: "Do not start any machine unless safeguards are in place and working properly. Machine guards may be removed only by persons authorized to do so in order to make neces sary adjustments and repairs, and must be replaced before the machine is again put into operation. If guards become broken or inoperative, the machine should be shut down until it can be operated in a fully guarded condition." Though this rule is dear enough, persistent effort on the part of supervisors is necessary to keep it working. The subject of locking and/or tagging of equipment is a very important next step in our accident prevention program. In fact we believe that our danger tag rule is the most important one we have in our em ployees* safety manual. Whether locks or tags are used is not the important point. What is important is the manner in which the procedure is admin istered. We have found the standard danger tag to be the most practical for our own par ticular use. There are certain advantages to us in using this type of tag because of the nature of our operations. There is no doubt that for other kinds of operations the use of locks on switches is more positive. In a chemical operation such as ours, it's possible that as many as 45 valves would have to be danger-tagged in order to work on a common drain trough. This is an un usual case, but it illustrates how impractical it would be to use lodes on this many valves I want to make it dear that I am not trying to sell the idea of using danger tags instead of locks. I would like to read the contents of our Danger Tag rules which have been in effect since 1930. These rules were revised at that time following a fatal aeddent in winch a millwright was caught in the paddles of a pug mixer. They have since proven to be quite effec tive The same basic approach could be used for a locking system as welL Danger Tag Rules The following Danger Tag rules apply to each and every' employee: 1. It is the duty of the foreman in charge to see that all machinery and equip ment of his department are kept in safe condition at all times or Danger Tagged when unsafe. 2. Xo one may operate a switch, valve, or Controlling device to which a Danger Tag is attached. 3. A-push button master switch, safetylock-out switch or other electrically operated control devices are not to be considered as ample protection to pre vent equipment operation. You are re quired to place your Danger Tag on the open main power switch for that particular equipment 4. The only person permitted to remove a Danger Tag from a valve, sw-itch. or controlling device is the person who - placed it there, or by his authorized representative. 5. Xo machine or piece of equipment may be started, valve opened, or pipe line broken for repairs without permission from the foreman in charge of the equipment 6. When a machine or piece of equipment has been shut down for repairs, the foreman in charge of the equipment to be repaired shall see that all control devices are set in a safe position and then attach his Tag to the main switch or controlling device for that equip ment Danger Tags are to remain on these devices until the equipment is ready for safe operation. 7. Repairman, before starting repair work upon any power-operated machine or upon any valve or pipe line, shall be sure that the Danger Tag of the fore man in charge of the equipment to be our., *( ] tIL. ch a of a Acc used ly to arge jmpit In nger e, or nger ifttjr callv 0 be pre1 rel on that nove itch. may line ision the nent the it to itrol and fitch |uip1 on t is rork i or 1 be oreo be Food Industry 13 repaired and his own Danger Tag are Where workmen have to enter tanks with both attached to the controlling device. connecting pipe lines, we shut off the valves, 8. When repairs upon any machine or piece of equipment are not completed at the end of a shift, all attached tags shall remain on the control device. danger tag them, and then insert solid metal blinds between die flanges so that we have positive assurance that no gas or liquid can enter the tank while workmen are present. Each relieving craftsman shall remove Supervisory' control is the key to effective his fellow craftsman's tag and attach administration of your safety rules. Our his own; but the foreman's tag shall Danger Tag rule is frequendy the topic of not be removed except where it is nec our department safety meetings. Our fore essary to start and stop the machine men do this to keep their workers constantly during repairs, or when the repairs are alert to the danger of any defections. fully completed and the equipment ready and needed for immediate opera tion, in which case the foreman of the department on duty may remove the original foreman's tag. One of the biggest changes in our Danger Tag rule, which was made following the fatal accident of 1930, was the part that required the foreman to check and danger tag equipment before permitting work to be 9. When necessary to start and stop ma started. This is a very' important point be chines and equipment during repairs, or cause it minimizes the possibility* of making energize circuits controlling such equip mistakes, such as working on wrong equip ment for test purposes during such ment. repairs, the foreman in charge of the equipment, after having properly safe guarded ail others who might be sub ject to the hazards of such operation, will remove his Danger Tag to permit ' this type of test and repairs to be com pleted. If a foreman is going to do the kind of job we expect of him, we as safety super visors have to give him all the help we can. It is in this area that we can be of the ut most help. This can be done in a number of ways: (1) Make dear to the foreman what we 10. When machinery' is stopped for oiling, the oiler must place his Danger Tag on the main switch or control device and remove his tag when oiling is com pleted. expect of him and what his respon sibilities are. (2) Organize our program so that we can best synchronize his efforts with those of his fellow supervisors to obtain 11. When electrical equipment is bring in consistent application of policy. stalled and the electrician has ener gized the equipment, he will have the foreman in charge of construction take over the job. This foreman will place his signed Danger Tag on the main power switch after which the electrician may remove his own tag. 12. Specific instructions for operation of laboratory' equipment will be posted near such equipment (3) Use whatever media we can, such as bulletin boards, posters and plant mag azines to educate workers and make it easier for the foreman to put our program across. The main motivating force in a safetyprogram generally is wrapped up in three words--Morale, ^Education, and Discipline. When these three components are blended together properly, you will usually* find an A rule in itself is only part of the answer. excellent safety record. To make it effective it is essential that we Morale among workers can only be devel cover every possible loophole and make sure oped through demonstration by management its contents are thoroughly understood by that it is really sincere in its efforts to pre everyone concerned. vent accidents. On jobs where mixers and agitators are concerned, and it is possible for employees to be killed if someone slips up, we danger tag the controlling switches in die prescribed manner and then disconnect the drive as ad ditional insurance. Sometimes employees of this age are sus picious of the motives of management Al though we know that management is sincere in its efforts to prevent accidental injuries, we must not overlook any opportunity to demonstrate this fact 14 1956 National Safety Congress In conclusion, we might review some of the things we have discussed today. We come to the Safety Congress to satisfy three needs that are necessary to do the best job safety-wise that we can. We need inspi ration, education and evaluation. Our emploj-ees need these same things, and it is our job to take them back with us from this Congresss. It is essential that the companies for which we work have a strong, carefully worded policy concerning safety, and it is our job then to ascertain that employees at all levels understand and follow its principles. We have found that the main motivating force behind our safety program is wrapped up in the morale, education and discipline package. Every opportunity for us as man agement people to demonstrate our sincerity for safety to hourly workers should be uti lized. Machinery, wherever possible, should be adequately guarded consistent with the best interests of safety and in line with provisions of state codes. An effective locking and/or tagging of equipment program is essential and Should be periodically reviewed to make sure that it is thoroughly understood and practiced by all concerned. The foreman is the key man in the safety program. He is responsible for accidents which occur in his particular department. These phrases, I am sure, will be repeated several times during this 1956 Safety Con gress, but we must remember that it is our job as safety supervisors to gave the fore man all the help he needs to do the job we expect of him. Human desires and impulses are not always consistent with the best in terests of safety. We must, therefore, rely on coordinated supervisory effort to suc cessfully operate our program. Common Denominator of the Safety Supervisor By GLEN LATSHAW Safety Dir., Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., Minneapolis, Minn Fundamentally, the prevention of per sonal injury from accidents is a job of fixing people's minds. It has been said many times that, "You can provide a fool proof guard but cannot guard a fool." Every employer has a moral obligation to every individual he; she, or they employ. Stated briefly, the moral obligation of the employer is to reasonably do everything in his power to see to it that the employee returns home after each day's work in as good physical condition as when he re ported for work in the morning or at the beginning of the tour. That obligation con sists not only of induction training and in formation of a personal nature but, most important, it requires adequate training in all the vocational aspects to avoid hazards, maintain quality and the proper production methods to accomplish uniformity of all three. Each employee has a right to expect such procedure from the employer and this must be a management policy. Each of the three E's that are basic in the prevention of accidents, i.e., engineering, education, and enforcement are vitally im portant to the success of the over-all result Of these three, one offers the most effective medium for accomplishment by the safety supervisor. That is in the field of educa tion. In this field, there are countless op portunities for the improvement of people's attitudes not only in the prevention of in jury to themselves and others on the job. but likewise in all of their other activities on a 24-hour-a-day basis. As far as industry is concerned, the offthe-job accident frequency and severity is a much greater problem than that on-thejob. This results from the inherent right of the freedom of the individual to control his Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, insofar as it does not legally interfere with the rights of others. However, the onthe-job educational approach, if properly planned, can provide the incentive necessary to improve. both. For example, there are many hazards in industry that have their counterpart in and around the home, in places of recreation, and on the streets and highways. These counterparts are highly productive facets, the continued use of which will have a profound effect on the individual's atti- J ' v ag of should e that icticed safety idents tment. peated Conis our foreob we pulses st inr. rely > suc- eetive safety xiucaSe t if int job. ivities e offity is n-thefht of ol his liness, : witli i oniperly ssary e are their te; in s and uctive have atti Food Industry 15 tude* over the entire range of things and solution to this problem since the beginning habits that experience has proven are the of time. Great strides have been made over producers of injury and violent death not the years against tremendous odds in the only to the perpetrators but to many inno beginning when only a few voices were cent victims as well. And, of course, therein heard. The greatest strides; however, have lies the tragedy that we all abhor and that been made through the medium of educa so many lament but do nothing about tion to the individual He or she is the Studies in industiy over the years have produced some extremely enlightening and valuable facts. Specifically, we know as a result of these studies that it takes' about 6.000 unsafe acts to produce a serious or fatal injury. Also, it requires an average of approximately 300 accidents to create a like result This knowledge permits the use of a very simple formula or chain of injury producing things and events as follows: The first link in the chain is the indi vidual. The second link is the unsafe act. The third is the accident. And the fourth and final one is the resultant serious or fatal injury. Sounds simple, doesn't it? Aa individual commits 6,000 unsafe acts and has 300 accidents before he finally becomes the victim of a serious or fatal injury. If that were true the prevention problem would be relatively easy. All we would have to do would be to prevail on the individual to avoid the last or 6,000th unsafe act and the last or 300th accident. There is, however, a joker in this accident formula or chain that, as yet. "All of the King's Horses and All the King's Men" have been unable to solve. At least not the easy way. The difficulty is that no one knows which one of the 6,000 unsafe acts will cause which one of the 300 acci dents that produces the one serious or fatal injury. What then is the solution? Which link in the chain is most vulnerable? Let us for the moment analyze this chain of events. Our primary goal in safety work is the preservation of human life. Next in impor tance is the prevention of property damage and destruction. Conversely then if we are to save lives and property we must avoid accidents. To do this we must remove the cause of accidents which is the unsafe act committed by the individual focal point as accidents are caused by and happen to individuals. Obviously the ques tion arises as to what educational device will most effectively obtain the best results. Because unsafe acts are principally the result of either individual habit, inexperi ence, lack of adequate training, or disre gard for known safe practices, a wide va riety of training approaches are available to fit the particular situation. Specifically, there is one method that experience has proven to be the most effective determent known to the commission of unsafe practices by the individual provided, however, that it is properly used. It is the observation of the individual's work operations during the progress of any job in the course of Ins employment. Such observation is the key to the prevention of unsafe practice and thus is the "com mon denominator for the safety supervisor." For such a plan to be successful man agement must be in full accord with the policy that the most important responsibility of every level of supervirion in the organi zation is to get the job completed without injury to anyone at any time. Such a policy makes every production foreman, production or staff supervisor, and each superintendent a safety supervisor first, last and always. Forgetting for the moment the employer's humanitarian responsibilities to their em ployees, such a policy is economically sound as many authentic studies prove that com petitive firms enjoying a low frequency and severity rate operate 35 to 40 per cent more efficiently .than those .with a high injury rate. Therefore, the safe way to perform any work operation is always the best and most efficient way. There are two major benefits derived from a thorough going safety observation plan. 1. It provides a record of the various Safety engineers, safety directors,, safety types of unsafe practices. This quickly in supervisors or whatever title adequately de dicates those items demanding most atten scribes the many men and women who are tion and corrective effort. devoting their lives to the science of the 2. Most important, it affords the ideal prevention of. accidents have pondered the opportunity for effective training for which. 16 1956 National Safety Congress 3 3 K* S S e -S ig .s'K g .o ^a .s'W B w aj?<a??win ms.s in my opinion, there is no substitute in the And second you can build a foolproof guard prevention field but you cannot guard a fool And third If every supervisor, from the first line to the president of every industry, would resolve to lead his people by safe example management's policy must include the moral obligation for adequately training each em ployee regardless of the vocation involved. and took the time to stop the individual We then stressed the following points as who in his presence was beginning to or key aids in the prevention of injury both actually working unsafely, the industrial in on and off the job: jury frequency and severity rates would speedily be reduced to .00 per million man hours of operation and the compensation insurance business would be a mere shadow of its present potential. Let me point out that just stopping an unsafe act or practice in the malting or actually in progress is not the entire solu tion. It requires much more than that After the work operation is stopped the reason for stopping it should be explained This should be followed by outlining the proper method including the reasotrfor using it, and only it each time the operation is performed These steps are basic in correc tive on-the-job training. Inasmuch as no two individuals respond exactly the same, 1. Of the three E's education provides the most effective medium. 2. Proper application of training permits a combination of incentives to improve both on and off-the-job results. 3. The accident chain or formula con sisting of four links. (a) The individual (b) The unsafe act (c) The accident (d) The serious or fatal injury' in equa tion form A + 6000B + 300C -- D 4. A safety observation plan properly ad ministered and in which all supervision fully participates is the "Common Denom inator." the application of this correction will nec 5. It pinpoints trouble spots. It is the essarily vary somewhat most effective correction medium. It gives It should be understood that no matter supervision an excellent opportunity to lead how insignificant the violation from safe the way by safe example. practice may be. it is still important and should be given the same treatment as one considered to be of major magnitude. If 6. The minor infraction is probably more important than one of major proportions as most serious injuries occur on routine work. they are bypassed the infraction soon be comes a habit with the individual and you find wrong practice becoming flagrant The habit of right practice is as easily formed as is wrong practice, yet to assure the con tinuance of right practice follow-up observa tions or checking is a must And finally, the difference between a poor and a good policy or program by the employee and/or the employer is well set forth in the small bit of philosophy from the Desert Disciple: Wrecker--Or Builder Peculiar as it may seem, the large ma "I stood one day in a busy town jority of serious or fatal injuries occur on Watching men tear a building down. everyday routine jobs and are caused mostly With a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell. by supervisory countenance of the so-called They swung a beam and the sidewall fell. minor wrong habits. This fact makes the I asked the foreman, "Are these men skilled old adage, "We live so close to the forest Such as you hire if you're going to build?" we cannot see the trees" a realistic truism. He smiled, and said "Oh. no. indeed On jobs where extreme hazards are obvious Unskilled labor is all we need "'** to all concerned we seldom have serious or For we tear down in a day or two even minor injuries. Why? Because every What it takes the builders weeks to do." one involved is aware of the danger, and So I pondered as I went along my way. self-preservation is still and always nature's And asked myself, which role do you play? first law. Are you a builder who builds with care. This short discourse began by stating three fundamentals in the prevention of ac cidents. First, the prevention of personal Measuring life by the rule and square? Or are you content to walk the town. Content with the labor of tearing down?" injury* is a job of fixing people's minds. Desert Disciple Round Table Discussions American Standards Method of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience By H. GENE MILLER Dir., Statistics and Library Div., National Safety Council, Chicago In this "Round Table" discussion, we will talk about your problem in recording and measuring work injury experience, and answer questions you may have regarding use of the standard procedure. Before getting to your specific questions, though, I would like to emphasize a few points regarding the standard, and comment on recent changes in it which were intro duced in connection with the 1954 revision. The first point I want to emphasize is that the standard reporting procedure is one that has been developed under a pro gram of the American Standard Association. It is identified as Standard Z16.1, and its full title is "The American Standard Method of Recording And Measuring Work Injury Experience." This is not a standard of the National Safety Council, or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or any other individual agency. It tr a standard developed by all of the groups interested in having a uniform pro cedure for measuring work injury experi ence. Another point of importance is that the Standard does not set up a procedure for measuring all injuries. Tlie purpose of the Standard is to identify only those work injuries which should be included in injury rates. Injury rates developed under the Standard may not include all compensation cases, and they may include some cases which are not compensable. Minor injuries are not included, nor are certain" other injuries which it is felt cannot be identified uniformly. Actually, it doesn't make too much difference which injuries are included and which are not, just so everybody in cludes and excludes the same ones. Injury rates developed on this basis can be com pared one with another. The last special point I want to emphasize is that the Standard procedure has nothing to do with the classification of cases under your various workman's compensation laws. The basic purpose of the Standard proce dure is to permit uniform reporting and tabulating of injuries in all states in order that comparisons can be made between the experience of companies wherever they are located. If injuries were tabulated on the basis of their compensability, differences in injury totals and in injury rates would be influenced by differences in the compensation laws. Regarding recent changes in the Standard, I will mention these in the order in which the items appear in the Standard. Medical treatment injury. This classifica tion in the new Standard covers all nondisabling injuries and combines two separate classifications which had been set up in the previous Standard: (1) Temporary partial disability, and (2) Medical treatment injury. Disabling Injury. The new Standard states specifically that the injury which is used in calculating the standard injury fre quency and severity rates is identified as a "disabling injury." In the old Standard, this was loosely referred to iij many wavs, with the term "lost time injury" developing im portance through usage. Some injuries used in developing injury rates may not result in lost time (certain permanent partial dis abilities), and the term "lost time," there fore, is not entirely accurate. Charges for finger and toe amputation. The scheduled charges for fingers and toes were changed in the latest revision. Pre viously, each finger had the same charge-- 300 days. In the new Standard, each finger has its own charge, and each joint of each finger has a separate charge. The little finger, for example, has a charge of 200 days, and the more important index finger a charge of 400 days. I will not cite all of these individual charges at this time, but they are listed and illustrated in the Standard, and I would urge that each of you obtain a copy of the Standard for reference use. (The Standard may be obtained from the American Stand 18 1956 National Safety Congress ards Association, 70 E. 45th Street, New York 17, New York. Disabling Injury Severity Rate. The in jury severity rate in the new Standard is on the same basis as the frequency rate-- 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure. The method of calculating the rate is unchanged, and in fact rates calculated on the new basis will be the same as those calculated on the old basis except that the decimal point .will be moved three places to the right. A severity rate which would have appeared as 25 previously will now appear as 250. In calculating rates, it is recom mended that decimals not be used, but that the rate be rounded to the nearest whole number. Average days charged per injury. In addi tion to the injury frequency and severity rates, a third measure has been- included in the new Standard. It is the Average' Days Charged per Injury. The severity rate has frequently been misinterpreted as indicating the severity of the injuries. It does not do this, but merely indicates the rate of loss from injuries. The ne\v rate, the Average Days Charged per Injury, will tell how severe injuries are on the average. It is determined by dividing the total number of disabling injuries into the total days charged resulting from these injuries. It may also be determined by dividing the frequency rate into the severity rate. Disability arising solely out of physical deficiency. The new Standard provides that injuries which arise solely out of physical deficiencies shall not be* charged as disabling cases. The purpose of this change was to avoid penalizing a company for hiring a physically handicapped person should the physical handicap give rise to an injury. For example, if a worker with an artificial foot suffered an injury in a fall which resulted when his impairment caused his to lose his balance, this injury would be determined as having risen solely out of the pre-existing physical deficiency, and would not be con sidered a work injury. However, if an injury arises out of and in the course of employment, it shall be considered a work injury even though the employee had a pre-existing physical de ficiency. As an example of this, suppose the same situation existed as in the previous example, except that the worker lost his balance and fell when he stepped on an object on the floor. Since this injury did not arise solely out of his pre-existing physical deficiency, it would be considered a work injury. The above points cover the principal changes that were made in the Standard. I would like to emphasize that even though all of us may not agree with the changes, and in fact may not agree with the Standard itself, more will be gained if everyone will record and classify injuries in accordance with the Standard procedure than if each does this according to his own preference. The rest of the meeting was concerned with a discussion of individual cases. OTM 19 Grain Handling and Processing Division By JOHN M. JENSEN Safety Dir., Com Products Refining Co., Chicago When your program committee met to decide upon a subject for your meeting we asked ourselves several questions. The first one was, "What is our biggest problem in safety?" Our biggest problem is to get our people to want to be safe, to think before they act, to be alert, to keep their mind on their job or in general, to be more safetyminded. The second question we ask ourselves is: "Why are people like this--why do we have to encourage people to be safe?" One answer we agreed upon was that we let them be this way: Supervisors and manage ment do not demand safe work habits from their people, in many cases they don't expect safe work habits from their people. When we got into the old habit of putting a good share of the blame on the super visor, we asked ourselves the third question: "Are - we giving pur supervisors enough to work with--The right climate, sufficient backing, the encouragement, the right safety emphasis, and the training be needs to do an effective job of operating a department safely?" In other words, are we giving him the necessary tools to work with? Thus, we decided to devote half of the afternoon to thinking in terms of re-appraising our operations with respect to whether or not we are giving our Supervisors these necessary tools. We have asked a vicepresident in charge of production and train ing director to discuss this with us. The second half of our program is devoted to discussing safety programs that have proven successfuL We have asked an executive vice-president and a manager of training and development to tell us about safety programs that have proven successful at their plants. With respect to my own experiences with different safety programs, some have proven successful, some were just so-so, and some were definite failures. If there was one word that spelled the difference between success and failure it was the word "partic ipation." Our last two speakers will relate how through participation at the supervisory and employee level, a safety program can be successful. if test.- 5|i:| $ T 'i 'AA h* / 1 Egf-.' From Management By E. E. LANGELAND Vice Pies, of Production, American Maize-Products Co., Roby, Ind. During the past few years the top man agement of industrial enterprises has come full-cirde about and once again is recogniz ing the line supervisor as the key man on the management team in accomplishing the work objectives of the organization. more and more authority and responsibilitv to the line supervisor for the complete oper ation of his department This is true in the area of safety, just as it is in the other areas of importance to management in an efficiently operating department During the first three decades of this century the foreman was generally left alone by top management and was allowed to run Ins department as an autocratic little king. Such safety work as was attempted at this time was done by the foreman himself. He neither expected nor received help in this area from top management. Now, it appears, the responsibility for the safe practices of the workmen is in creasingly bring lodged at the line super visor's door and just as has been done in the other areas, top management must give the line supervisor all the help he needs and the kind of help he needs in order to pro mote more effective safety. When the rise of labor unions occurred in the middle thirties, largely as the result of the Wagner Act, the foreman was shorn of a good deal of his immediate responsi bility and authority for the operations of his department. Many of these were turned over to staff departments, who were then thought to be sufficiently expert to accom plish all the desires. The foreman was re duced to little more than a figurehead, and his effectiveness as a leader was seriously curtailed. Safety was largely the responsi bility of the Safety Department and the foreman's part in any program was little more than that of the men whom he super vised. What then, does the line supervisor need from top management? While there are a great many specific things the foreman needs from management there is one thing of paramount importance that the supervisor needs not only to accomplish his safety work; but all the other facets of his many sided jobs. Top management must provide what may be described as a "proper climate" in which to do his work. What do we mean when we talk of a proper climate?" It has been described particularly well by Dr. Leon Brody, the director of research of the Center f..- SafetyEducation of New York University. He said it in these words: The notion of carrying out the day-today activities at the production line by means of staff departments had one very' serious defect: It didn't work at all welL At the failure1 of what may be called committee supervision of operating departments, top management again turned to the line super visor as the one best equipped to solve the problems which had arisen. However, one thing was different than in the old days. A new generation of super visors had grown up and most of them had been well trained in various aspects of supervision. They had been taught how to handle their human relations, how to teach employees, and so on. Over the past 10 years top management has been throwing "The heart of the problem lies in the executive's ability to establish a favorable social and psychological climate within the orgamzation. This means establishing friendly*, informal contacts between members of management, building an atmosphere of free and easy exchange of ideas .and under taking other things that make for feelings of acceptance and security throughout an organization." Such a climate is quite essential to all of the foreman's activities, but I think it is of especial importance in safety work and that its lack is absolutely fatal to even the best conceived and executed safety plans. With out such a general attitude throughout the entire management team, the line supervisor can aim ger edgi and S quit fori dial taki the gro mar con C rest for it i pro ser thai eco ere floi T rap kzA Food Industry 21 onsibilitv ete operue in the he other nt in an ility for n Is in* e snpcrdone in mst give eeds and to pro- sor need re are a foreman ne thing ipervisor r safety is many provide climate" (escribed ody, the Safety tty. He in the ivorable thin the iishing nembers there of 1 under feelings bout an o all of it is of tnd that the best . With* tout the pervisor is at best severely handicapped and at worst completely thwarted in his efforts to pro mote safe operations within his sphere of activities. Assuming that such a climate does exist to a satisfactory degree, what, then, speci fically does the line supervisor need from top management in the way of support for his safety activities? First of all, I believe that management must have a deep and abiding interest in the work of everyone concerned with safety and the humane belief that the physical safety of individual human beings within the organization far transcends that of any material consideration. Without such a deep continuing interest in the safety program at the very top level, there can be no truly successful program. This prerequisite has, of course, been rec ognized for a long time. It is interesting to note what was said by S. C McGowan of the Borden Company. A few years ago this company, which at that time had 32,000 em ployees in some 730 different locations, made 1 an exhaustive study of its safety program. The committee reached this conclusion: "The extent of accident prevention work carried on in any of our operations depends almost entirely on the attitude of the mana ger toward safety and the amount of knowl edge he has of accident prevention methods and techniques." Since this - is such an important prere quisite to any good safety work, it is very fortunate that there has been the substantial change of management attitude that has taken place over the past few years. Within the past 20 years there has been an enormous growth within the ranks of professional management of a social consciousness and conscience. Out of this has arisen a fundamental respect for the individual human bang and for his welfare. Management is aware that it is no longer sufficient only to earn a profit To survive, a business must also serve, and serve well, the demands of other than just the "economic man" of classical economics. The human values must be fost ered and preserved and brought to full flower. This attitude; winch is growing, very rapidly, will make it easier and easier to enlist the fullest cooperaton of top man agement in safety activities. Even if these humane considerations were not in themselves compelling, management would have to give top priority to safety work from a purely economic reason. Ac cidents cost money---really big money--and their cost will rise steeply in time to come. The money that is paid out in direct and indirect cost of accdents is just as surely a charge against the profitability of the oper ation as is money paid out for raw mate rials or labor. And, even beyond this, top management must take cognizance of the fact that acci dent frequency is closely related inversely to plant efficiency. The efficient plant is a safe plant! In all of these senses, a safety program does not cost money--it earns money. How should a top management, deeply convinced of the necessity for effective safety activity, make its attitude known? How can such favorable attitudes be trans lated into deeds that will fill the needs of the line supervisor? First, there must be a dear-cut statement of policy, widely disseminated throughout the organization. This should say that the control of aeddents is considered a major company objective, that a program has been instituted to achieve that objective and that everyone must do his share to see that the expected results are achieved. It should be made completely dear that the top execu tive officer will personally review the prog ress, and take note of individual effective ness. This statement should reach all employees, and it should be repeated at intervals so that new personnd may be in no doubt as to the serious intent of the management Another area, too often neglected, in which top management'can be of real help to the foreman is in the language of the col lective bargaining agreement with the union. I realize that in many cases top manage ment people do not personally sit in on negotiating sessions. But, in all cases, I believe; they set the policy around which the company bargainers work. And that policy should require that the working agreement be explidt in compelling the ad herence of the workmen to all safety rules, with diseplinary action in case of failure. 22 1956 National Safety Congress It should also enlist the active cooperation foreman must use care and thought not to of the union in fostering and forwarding administer safety rules caprciously so that the safety program. In my company's con his management is able to support him all tract, we refer to safety in seven different the way. pages. In the preambles one of the purposes of the agreement is stated to be ". . . im prove the safety of employees ..." The foreman must be given an adequate budget for safety apparatus and equipment if he is to do the job we are expecting of In an article under `Working Condi him. But; I think, top management must tions," the foreman's hand is specifically go beyond this to see that the work neces strengthened when we say, "Any employee sary is done. In the press for production, who fails to abide by the rules and regula it is very easy to let safety maintenance tions prescribed by the company for the slide. protection of life, limb and the preservation of property... shall be subject to discipline by the company.*' Also, when there is a limited time for repairs, and much to be done; it is quite easy to push the safety repair orders to the The cooperation of the union is enlisted bottom of the pile. Top management must in a section reading, *Tt is the desire of be eternally vigilant to see that this does not the union and the company to maintain happen, and to see that safety gets its proper high standards of safety in the plant in share of attention at all times ami under all order to eliminate as far as possible indus circumstances. trial accidents .. I could go on with a large number of The article from which the preceding areas in which management must give sup section is quoted is entitled "Safety and port to the line supervisor, but my time is Health." In it, provision is made for a almost out, and I can only mention a couple joint company-union safety committee, which more, hastily. Certainly, such good training is required to meet monthly, and may make of the workmen in safe working habits is a inspections. In the same article, the com fundamental to working safely; the fore pany binds itself to provide up-to-date pro man, who does most of the training of the tective devices and equipment for the work workmen under him, must himself be well men. trained in safety. But, above and beyond One final section in the article may cause this, he should be trained in the proper you to raise your eyebrows. We have techniques for effective teaching. agreed that "No employee shall be re Management should not be niggardly in quired to perform services that seriously providing various rewards as recognition endanger his physical safety, and his refusal for good safety work. These do not have to do such work shall not warrant disci to be monumental in themselves, but only pline or discharge. In all such cases an enough to let the supervisor know that his immediate conference between the company work is bong recognized and appreciated. and the union shall be held to settle the Little things like a dinner now and then, issue in question ..." time off and fees paid for attendance at When we put this clause into our con tract in 1954, we did so until great reluct ance because we feared that it could be misused for nuisance purposes. I am happy meetings such as this, and so on, do a great deal to convince the line supervisor that he has the support of his top manage ment to report that in more than two years no It should also be made abundantly clear such misuse has arisen. to each supervisor that his performance in Of course, top management must support to the utmost the foreman in his administra tion of safety rules and regulations. All the pious language in the world will avail administering the safety program and the safety record of his department, is one of the major factors taken into consideration when promotions are bring planned. nothing, if the foreman feels that when In conclusion, let me sum up the points faced with a grievance or arbitration re I have tried to make. There seems to be sulting from his enforcement of the safety a preponderant feeling in management that rules the company will back down and leave modern industry must rely more and more him out on a limb. By the same token, the on the first line supervisor to administer the chJ str let tea sui pli COl bei pn the int Fc efi uc to sat me ( chi tiv oft P So so ge ca dil ms th< thi tn sk Ss ca hh be dc it not to adequate juipmeut Wing of 9>t must k neceseduction, ntenance ime for is quite *5 to the mt must does not s proper mder all nber of ive sup time is a couple training bits is a le forel of the be well beyond proper v'~ \ in Jon tot have nit only that his redated. id then, ance at i, do a pervisor nanage- ly dear ance in and the one of ieration ! points s to be at that d more ninlster Food Industry 23 the work. He has to be given more the character of a manager and less that of a straw boss. Therefore, the basic responsibility for ef fective safety performance falls on the fore man and with it must go authority and support adequate to permit him to accom plish the objectives. So far as safety is concerned, top management must themselves become "sold" on the desirability of a safety program both from the humane and from the economic aspect. They must make this conviction known in clear policy pronounce ments from time to time. Beyond this, they must implement the program by requiring safe work practices as a condition of employment, by backing up their foremen in administering the safety program, by providing adequate budgets and by seeing that necessary safety work orders get done, and by rewarding good perform ance with recognition and material gain. These are the kinds of support and help the supervisor needs from management! From the Safety and Training Department By K. P. MOORE Dir. of Training, A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., Decatur, I1L Most enterprises are interested in provid ing- physical security for thdr employees. Foremost in this area are safety and health efforts. Safe working conditions, safety ed ucation for employees and alert supervision to eliminate unsafe practices and promote safety thinking by employees constitute the more .common efforts to promote safety. Since the supervisor controls men, ma chines, materials and the work-place, effec tive safety training starts with him. All too often people in line supervision overlook, postpone or forget thdr training needs. Sometimes they get so busy that they can't see tomorrow for today. Sometimes they get so involved in daily details that they can't see the forest for the trees. Then they need a good training and safety director to take them by the collar and trace them sit down and listen to what they need as a safety training program for thdr people. This requires a safety and training director with initiative (a thick skin is also- helpful at this point). What does a supervisor need from the Safety and Training Directors? I think we can safdy say that he needs hdp in doing his job. What is the job of a supervisor? It can be outlined as follows: The job of a supervisor is getting work done through people-- 1. By motivation. Z By training and teaching. 3. By adjusting attitudes. 4. By developing stalls. 5. By developing status. The job of a supervisor is working with people-- 1. By communicating with them. 2. By consultation. 3. By control. 4. By leadership. It is the job of a supervisor to organize and to create patterns-- 1. By work simplification. 2. By coordinating. 3. By scheduling. 4. By arranging. The job of a supervisor is integrating. 1. He must know all the parts. 2. He must make a whole of all the parts. The job of a supervisor is evaluating-- 1. Work products. Z People. 3. Processes. 4. Methods. 5. Actions. In each of these areas I believe there is room for the safety and training directors to hdp the supervisor do his job. "Let's examine each of these areas and discus them briefly. Motivation The first area is motivation. The im pelling motives should be understood by the 24 1956 National Safety Congress foreman. He should be so familiar with them that he uses them habitually. Perhaps the most prevalent of these motives are: 1. The desire to survive. 2. The desire to reproduce. 3. The desire for status or prestige. 4. The desire to help others. If we identify motives as a drive from within and incentives as the drive from without, then for each of the motives, we may assist in providing an incentive which will effect the motives which the man has. Training up to and including top management must be a part of this program. There are many ways to handle hostile attitudes in person-to-person speech, but one which gets results when a worker gives a supervisor a tough rime concerning safety rules or policies is the conciliatory approach. Perhaps the foreman could do some listen ing first, then get on the worker's side pointing out the merits of the other side better than the worker can state it, if possible, then he can move in an easy and natural way to get his own ideas on safety rules (which the safety director has planted) across. Our second area is training and teaching When a worker who lacks the necessary as a part of the job of a supervisor. As I knowledge is sent to perform an inherently identify these two words--teaching refers to dangerous job .he should be instructed in the over-all area of our job--training being how to avoid all the elements of the danger a specific area with which we are concerned. --merely warning him that the danger exists The supervisor needs information from both is insufficient. A danger which would be training and safety directors if he is to tell apparent to an employee only after a long the employee the over-all requirements of period of training and experience must be a job so far as safety and job performance specifically pointed out to the new worker. are concerned. Safety habits have to be learned. This The first two parts of the job of a super means they have to be taught (Safe habits visor tie in very closely with the next two identified by the safety director. How to which we have mentioned, that of adjusting teach by the training director.) Safety train attitudes and developing skills. I would like ing should be an integral part of job in to combine these for our consideration. structions and in teaching a man how to do Accident prevention is directed to provid ing the supervisor with the knowledge, skill and attitude necessary to discharge his re sponsibility for effective safety training. To do this, training conferences and regular meetings should be carried on for super a job a supervisor should be sure to show him the safe way of doing it If an em ployee picks up unsafe habits in learning the job and keeps repeating them, the law of'averages will catch up, sooner or later, and there will be an accident. visors. If mechanical hazards are not taken care A general safety program should be de of the same law of averages will work and veloped for the plant to enable a planned there will be another black mark on the approach to the safety problem by the department's safety record. It's the super supervisor. Safety training, where it has visor's job to see that safe working condi been greatly successful, has been directed to tions are maintained. If he does.that he has giving the supervisor advice, aid and direc 5 per cent of the problem licked, the other tion which enables him to set up and carry 95 per cent depends on how well he knows out his unit's safety program. his people and how closely he watches the In the past the supervisor and the em underlying causes of accidents--emotions. ployees have been admonished to be safe. In briefly reviewing the process of work Today it appears that they are beginning ing through people I have said that the to get information on how to be safe. To safety and training directors can assist the the supervisor this is largely a matter of supervisor by identifying and providing in getting safety know-how as it applies to his centives which influence motivation, by pro section or department To the man on the viding the specifics of safety and the methods job it means that the supervisor must teach of teaching and training, by assisting the him what he must do to work safely, how to supervisor in adjusting the attitudes after be safe, and why. The worker and everyone first identifying the correct attitudes for } nt ,ut hostile but one gives a ; safety proach. ; listen 's side er side it, if isy and safety (anted) cessary trendy :ted in danger exists uld be a long list be rorker. This habits ow to trainab in to do show e saw later, t care < and 1 the uperondie has other nows $ the ns. ,*orkthe : the f inpro hods the liter for Food Industry 25 safe work, by providing the supervisor with information which he may use in develop ing the highest skill of his employees and by assisting the supervisor in developing the status of the employees, or 1 should say, in developing the status of safe em ployees. To some degree status may be developed by instilling in the supervisor's men and in the supervisor the conviction that safety is everybody's job, by encouraging every mem ber of the work group to make suggestions that will reduce the probability of injury' to himself and to others. bad depends on what it does for safety, for you, in your plant If accidents can be pre vented by the use of some new or different device or tool of control, then use that tool or.device. In addition to making his own analysis of potential trouble spots in the department the supervisor can get valuable assistance from his company safety director. Safety directors cannot only give advice about over coming specific problems, but they usually have reports covering the department safety record over the years that can help the su pervisor pinpoint the chief accident sources. The job of a supervisor is working with people. First by communication. Safety, it has been said, is largely a state of mind, for despite good working environment, safe equipment, effective mechanical safeguards and standards of safe and efficient opera tions, accidents do happen on the job and heir frequency in most cases corresponds with the degree of safety-mindedness that has been instilled in the work group. To a large extent then accident prevention is a matter of communication. The super visor's responsibility for accident prevention entails a responsibility* to communicate to workers the critical importance of giving conscious thought to their own safety and to that of their fellow workers. The safety and training director can assist the super visor in knowing what to communicate to his workers and in knowing how to com municate. For example, a compjarison was made of the chief sources of injuries in two depart ments of a large plant during a selected period. Welding and catting equipment was the major problem in Department A account ing for about one-third of the cases. In Department B hand tools, especially ham mers, were the major factors. Therefore each supervisor concentrated his efforts on different areas to reduce accidents. After identifying the chief trouble spots in con junction with the safety director, the super visor must make a further analysis to determine the frquency and severity of the different type of accidents that they cause. A study of various causes of grinding wheel accidents shows that a measure to eliminate the next to last cause would have prevented only four injuries but measure to eliminate the first cause could have prevented 23. Safety-mindedness, like productivity or morale or good employee relations, cannot be achieved by command. It cannot be ordered into existence. Like other by products of good supervision, it is developed, often slowly, by persuasion, appeal and leadership, and like good morale it cannot exist without good communication. The job of a supervisor is consultation with people. In talking with the safety director, with the training director, with the engineers who design the equipment, with his fellow supervisors and with his employees a supervisor may determine and may put int oaction a safe program for his employees. A supervisor's job is working with people by control. Whether control charting in the field of safety and accident prevention is good or The job of a supervisor is working with people by exercising leadership. Ordway Tead has said, "Leadership is the activity of influencing people to cooperate towards some goal which they come to find desirable." In assisting the supervisor to exercise his leadership, the training and safety directors may identify goals which are desirable from a safety standpoint as well as from a point of view which is useful and desirable for the people concerned. The job of a supervisor is organizing and creating patterns. Certainly this is one area where the safety director may exercise very specific influence and may furnish aid and assistance to the supervisor. In work simpli fication the safe way is most often the best way. In coordinating the work a safety and training director may aid the supervisor in seeing the entire pattern whether it be po- k.ji tential danger to personnel, an irritating situation between departments, or the begining of unsafe habits. In scheduling and arranging the supervisor must be led to establish safe schedules and to arrange se quence of operations which influence his workers towards developing safe habits and in creating safe patterns of behavior. The job of a supervisor is integrating. The supervisor must know all the parts of a job so that he may relate this to Ins ivorkers because it is only as they know the over-all concept and duties of their job that they may work safely. It is the job of a supervisor to make a whole out of all the separate parts. This is true both in the daily job and in developing safe workers. A moment saved may be the most costly moment of a worker's life It is up to the supervisor to establish this relationship in the mind of the worker and he can do it as he knows all the parts and can make a unit out of all the parts. The job of a supervisor is evaluating work products, people, processes, methods and actions. Were the work products pro. duced in a safe manner? This may be deter mined by the supervisor if he will use the records which he may get from the safety director in relating work and safety mtebods. In evaluating the people who work for him, the supervisor needs to call on the safety director to determine whether or not they are accident-prone workers. He needs to call on the training director to determine whether or not there are ways by which this proneness may be overcome. In evaluating the processes which he is using the supervisor needs to call on the safety director specifically in relating over all effectiveness, with rite safety of his workers. To use the safety* director's broad knowledge of safe operations in many areas so that he may improve his own processes or operations. In evaluating methods a supervisor should call on the safety director as an expert technician to determine if the operations or methods are safe. If there are safer methods, then he should call on the training director to help him in developing training procedures which may be used in teaching his men to use safe methods. Finally the supervisor's job is evaluating actions which he, his workers, and the staff are all using in performing their job. A supervisor should determine, as the coordi nating and integrating force, whether or not he is using to the full advantage the safety director, the training director, his own skills and skills of his workmen so that a product is produced in a safe manner bysafe workers. While the day-to-day enforcement or safely is the responsibility of the first line supervisor, the staff has considerable au thority over line supervisors in the matters of plant safety, policies, procedures ami equipment, in contrast to accident prevention programs of an educational nature where they remain in a staff capacity. This prac tice seems to rest in part on a practical, legal consideration. Safety requirements and workmen compensation demand dose ad herence to a set of legal regulations, there fore, very stiff control is necessary. Where it is posable to work through the line when possible, there may be cases in which time or other circumstances do not permit it. The supervisor needs from the safety and training directors an understanding of what is-your job, in which areas and in what manner may I expect help? The training director should help the supervisor in in fluencing people. The safety director should help In the area of technical information and knowldege of incentive and motivation for safety. When we are discussing safety--whether it be with the supervisor or with the worker --there is always something else to be said for and about safety. There is always an other way it can be said. That may be the way that the supervisor or his worker understands. That may be the influence which will keep him alive. \V job type to 1C On neer wag comi lbs. W that baric cour worl shop men' icall; havi four B call emp plus resp pers wor inte T pric we of i quit drh at t a pos nisi any shi] ove Ion aw not < mu to totu -<vr m' lirri..,,r *dure$ men to Itating >e staff ob. A coordiber or ge the (is own that a oer by st of St line le aunatters s and >*endon where i pracictical, its and se adthercVVhere : when b time it. ty - * :t what aining in inshould nation ivadon hether rorker said ys anbe the rorker luence Foreman Level Safety Programs that Work The Contact System By O. H. ADAMS Executive Vice Pres., Dings Magnetic Separator Co., Milwaukee We operate basically as a typical small job shop, classified as a heavy industrial type of company. We currently employ 83 to 100 in the shop and 40 to 50 in the office. Our products are relatively highly engi neered and vary in size from small magnets weighing about 3 to 5 lbs, up to large, complete machines weighing 30,000 to 40,000 lbs. We have tried to set up an organization that steals from the large companies their baric organizational chart, tailor-made of course, to our small organization. Our works manager is in charge of the entire shop as well as our Purchasing Depart ment The shop supervision consists bas ically of four to five major foremen, each having charge of a minimum of three to four small subdepartments. Each subdepartment is headed by what we call a group leader. These men are hourly employees working as direct labor workers, plus having some of the semi-supervision responsibilities. This gives us basically 16 persons out of 100 through whom we can work with--naturally to various degrees of intensity. The Former Program The type of safety program that we had prior to installing the contact system that we now use was the typical safety program of many small companies. It was a usually quick and dirty approach, with spasmodic drives to try to correct what was important at the moment. Aside from tiring the usual type of safety posters that most insurance companies fur nish, not too much emphasis was put upon any part of the safety program. Day-to-day shipments and day-to-day problems were over-emphasized, rather than taking any long-range constructive outlook. We were awfully busy putting out fires and doing nothing to eradicate the cause. Our safety record in those days was not much to be proud of. For three years prior to our change in thinking we were averaging 40 doctor cases per year, or almost one per week. After adopting the contact system this average dropped from 40'to 30 acci dents per year rate for the first 6 months, and then down to a rate of approximately 17 to 20 for the second 6 months. From then on it leveled out to between 12 to 14, depending on the emphasis and degree of sparkplugging that was done. Eliminating Baric Causes Our entire program was based on the elimination of the basic accident causes. It started by analyzing a three-year period, finding out where die most accidents were happening and why. After doing this spade work, an over-all program was developed on the foreman's level--to eliminate the baric accident causes: 1. Unsafe conditions. 2. Unsafe work methods. 3. Unsafe personal factors. Now, knowing (or at least assuming) that these are the basic causes, it meant planning for their correction--and in the same order. Therefore, it was logical to proceed on this basis: 1. Unsafe conditions. To eliminate these meant the company had to do some thing first It meant inspection of and correction of unsafe equipment and conditions. 2. Unsafe work methods. To eliminate them again meant inspection or obser vation of methods bring used and developing and changing to standard safe procedures. 3. Unsafe personal factors. To eliminate and correct them, naturally, means to train the employees in new procedures that were developed in the steps above. Production Group First of all, we have a foreman's meeting each Monday at 2:00 p.m. for as long as necessary. Here the works manager and his foremen, plus the purchasing agent gather 28 1956 National Safety Congress to discuss the normal production problems. 1. Manila rope. We also have one safety meeting each 2. Chain. A month during which time that same group limits its discussion to one specific hazard. From the specific hazard under discussion is 3. Wire rope. 4. Hooks. tact aa vpe'i developed the format of the next month's Under each of these general titles were by < work for all members attending. specific items they were to inspect for. When shot The hazard is broken down to three points: 1. Inspection. Is equipment unsafe? Ma terial being incorrectly located? 2. The second point is to correct; if un safe equipment and unsafe physical conditions are responsible action is planned. The correction of this second general phase, if a "method," is ana lyzed from all standpoints. It is writ ten up and we have developed a standdard safety procedure. 3. What specific training should be given to the individual employee concerning standard safety procedure or the new procedure just developed? We feel that we get a double-barrelled effect with this approach. First, the fore man "participates" in the specific safety meeting just mentioned. Then comes the second shot. He has to make his contact during the ensuing month by inspecting for and/or correcting the hazard. they were inspecting tnanila ropes, for ex ample, they were to look for four things: 1. Braided and broken fibers on the out side. 2. Dull, spotted and chafed fabrics on the inside. 3. Loss of feeling of pliability or stretch ness, feeling of dryness and brittleness. 4. Strength, if doubtful, unwind 8 in. of one yarn and test it by hand. On the back of the contact record sheet they were to list each piece of equipment that they had in their departments that had been checked following the actual inspection instructions of this hitching equipment con tact.- Naturally, this couldn't be done all at one time or one day. But it had to be com pleted within the month--more and longer carryover value of genera! safety conscious ness naturally resulted. The second contact was entitled "Safe Crane Operating Procedures." This contact as it was developed in the safety meeting cont ities took peof sary Si for asses spec pain final panj peof T1 cont np that We the The; equi theii keep own He has to contact each of his employees was so large it had to be broken down into mam each month, discusring the new procedures, which he has had a part in setting up, and to train and retrain his people. Safety con sciousness can really be developed as a regu lar part of their work on a long sustained basis, rather than a hurried "shot in the arm" type of an approach. two sessions. Here we requested the fore men to contact each employee and review with him personally the suggestions we had outlined. Some of those suggestions covered were the obvious ones, such as: 1. Whenever possible, haul all loads over Es lecte plan cord theii tone T1 Material Handling the aisles, not through the work area. lems i Let's take an example now and trace it through to see all the steps that were de veloped. Material handling was responsible for a high percentage of our earlier accident 2. Carry the load close to the ground-- between the knees and waist height. (Point out that the exact heights vary' with each job, depending upon other over cone cam atior causes. Here is how we attacked the prob lem of material handling by cranes. objects to be cleared, and also on as suring good vision for the operator.) line gene Following our outline procedure, Step 1 calls for inspection of hitching equipment on our safety contact sheet. A copy of this 3. When it is necessary to carry a load overhead, or over a work area make certain that the area is cleared of lappi belli divic sheet, incidentally, goes to each of the fore workmen before the lift is made. men. No employee contact is necessary at 4. Never carry a load over a person or this stage of the game, but equipment only walk or stand under a suspended load. is to be checked. Here's a list of what had to be checked by each man in his depart ment : The foreman here could elect to contact each person individually or to go through his contact in small groups. Food Industry 29 lies were for. When s, for exr things; the out- abrics chi r stretchrittleness. 8 in. o{ >rd sheet quipmetn that had aspection lent conne all at be comd longer nsdotis- 1 "Safe contact meeting ro into ie v. Tv Jx we had id were ds over 1c area, `ound-- height Is vary other on asrator.) a load make ed of Good Housekeeping Another example of what a typical con tact is and how it could be worked, includes a contact on housekeeping. Actually, what we're doing is eliminating an accident caused by dirty; disorderly, and poorly maintained shop conditions. This particular series of contacts led to investigating additional facil ities or better housekeeping. When we really took a look at what we were trying to have people do, without giving them the neces sary equipment, we were a bit embarrassed. Special sling racks had to be provided for the crane slings, as well as for our major assembly tools. Aisles had to be marked, specific storage areas allocated, rubbish cans painted and located. These and many other small, but nevertheless vital items, the com pany had to do first before we could ask our people to do their part. The second phase of the housekeeping contact was frankly discussing with our employees what we had done and the fact that our part was only half of the story. We had to have their cooperation to make the good housekeeping program a success. They had to do their part by using the equipment that had been provided. It was their responsibility and part of their job to keep the aisles clean and maintain their own space work area in a safe and orderly manner. Each month a new general topic was se lected, not on a chance basic but on a well planned one. The planning actually went ac cording to analysis of accident causes and their eliminations, over the past three his torical base periods. The retraining procedure and their prob lems led us into the second phase of the over-all program. During this phase we concentrated on the human relations and earning of understanding and better cooper ation from employees. There is a very fine fine between the specific safety training and general training. We found ourselves over lapping and wishing many times we had a better knowledge of how to unlock the in dividual and accomplish as much through him, or people in general, as we have through machines. The third phase of the over-all program was setting up and maintaining`the original program. This program was outlined again one year at a time and always leading by three months. We're currently carrying on with the monthly inspections and contacts. The difference being, that now the subject choice, instead of coming from the manage ment level, is coming from the group leader level. In looking back and trying to make an over-all appraisal of our accomplishments we think of three items that helped make it a success: 1. Supervisory training was not just class room training. It required participa tion in the shop each month, and when people participate the process of learn ing is usually much faster. 2. The supervisors become part of man agement, taking part in departmental improvement, as well as developing procedures of their own. There is nothing more discouraging to anyone than to be merely told to follow the safety program. Any program we have helped develop has a much better chance of succeeding. 3. As far as the employees are concerned, because each month management did something first and then requested their cooperation in complying with the safety procedures, we felt we had a minimum of bucking. All too fre quently we have had the tendency to put the full burden of responsibility for bring safe on the individual. We feel very definitely it is a two-way responsibility. AH in all, we feel that the contact system not only helped to eliminate many of the hazards out in the plant, as well as develop ing a more safety consciousness among em ployees and supervisors, but it serves as an excellent medium for active management participation via the supervisors, and in our case this last year, the group leaders. son or 1 load, ontact rough ) 30 The Quaker Oats Program By RALPH HARTMANN Mgr. of Training & Development, The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago There are a number of basic needs of human nature which are essential to the effectiveness of vour work and mine in making our employees more safety con scious. If more attention were paid to them, 1 believe, it would have a profound effect on the accident problem. Participation Probably the most effective technique to gain cooperation of fellow workers is to proride for their participation. Participa tion helps to bring about a mutual desire for operators, supervisors and executives to work closely together by creating the conditions necessary* for cooperation. Indi viduals who are "in" on the problem, and whose help has been solicited, are better able to understand and feel the need for cooperation. One of the chief reasons for failure to indicate safety consciousness is the worker's feeling that the rules are arbitrary and do not apply- to his particular job. But, when employees help to write the rules--they observe them. Individuals who liave participated in solv ing a safety problem feel bound to carry out the solution which they had a. part in formulating. How to Secure Participation When establishing, directing and adminis trating safety activities, procedures should require participation of all individuals spe cifically concerned. This probably means effective communications between all levels of personnel and in this way the importance of safety can be brought to the whole group. We believe that accidents and injuries are luxuries that our company employees cannot afford. Every member of supervision is held responsible for the safety of men and women working with him. This makes it an integral part of every job. Top Executives Participate 2. Distribution of monthly, annual and special reports to executives, who write to plants concerned. 3. At annual meetings of plant execu tives, top management reviews the accident experience and safety activities, at the same time productions records and problems arc reviewed. 4. The safety performance or record for each supervisor and plant executive is ex amined as a part of his annual appraisal or performance review. Ability to get work done without injury is an important con sideration for promotion, and for salary* increases. Plants are required to submit safety arti cles for publication in company and plant house- organs. 6. Company executives regularly recog nize plants, departments and individuals for safety accomplishment 7. Plants are required to submit a monthly resume of safety activities at their location to our company staff office. Summaries arc in turn sent to all plants which provides helpful information and tend to promote a competitive spirit 8. Monthly accident data on each plant is exchanged among all Quaker plants. This in turn is made available to super visors and plant safety and inspection com mittee members. Annual safety and fire reports are distributed in a similar manner. 9. Representative from company staff department will visit at plant periodically each year to specifically review accident and health problems with plant executive and supervision. 10. Use is made of safety* engineers from insurance carrier. Since we feel safety is a personal respon sibility, our plant activities are beamed to show employees the purpose of safety*, to instill responsibility fer safety and to take pride in accomplishment 1. Our safety philosophy is expressed in our policy manuals, in our annual reports and regularly by top executives in com munications with plant management people. We make every effort to have safety and accident prevention build in to production-- engineering preventive maintenance costs, and so forth. We still however need activi- tal and irrite to execuicddent te same ns arc ord for is aisal or t work ot con- salary ty artid plant recoglals for nonthly location ries arc irovides rnio*'^ li plant plants. supero comnd fire nanner. t staff sdicallv ent and ve and . s from responmed to 'ety, to to take sty and iction-- costs, activi- Food Industry 31 ties that involved large numbers of people to assist in creating safety consciousness. 1. Safety and inspection committees are present with specific assigned responsi bilities. 2. Detailed records are kept at each plant of accidents. The data is made avail able weekly to supervisors concerned; and they in turn must visit with em ployees involved and report back on discussion and action taken. 3. The plant nurse or first aid attendant visits with each person reporting for first aid concerning accident, cause, and so forth. 4. Departmental safety meetings are held for all employees with non-supervisory employees conducting meetings, ad vance preparation, and so forth. 5. Employees are asked to assist in the revision of existing safety regulations and the preparation of safety pro cedures for hazardous jobs. 6. Safety suggestions are solicited. They are given honest consideration and re ceive priority when job sheets are sub mitted to the plant engineering de partment. 7. More recently, some specific activities in our plants have been used. They are: (a) Assigning different departments to sponsor safety activities for par ticular months of the year. (b) Annual safety rally night--involv ing families of all employees. (c) Departmental recognition parties. 8. Try to tie in annual observance of National Fire Prevention Week with the home. Same is true at vacation time, start of school Use these oc casions to send letters and pamphlets on safety to the homes. Since 1944 our total number of accidents has steadily declined, in spite of an increase of some 3,000 employees and the addition of 13 new plants. When considering lost time accidents our record is as follows: Year 1944 1945 1950 1955 No ofAccidents 311 276 92 76 (9 plants) (10 plants) (25 plants) We still have a long way to go, but I believe the proper utilization of accident information, involving the participation of increasingly greater number of employees has done more to reduce the number of accidents in our company than any other factor. 33 Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Industries Build It In--Don't Tack It On By CLAYTON ORCUTT Coordinator, Supervisory Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. I have been attending the National Safety each job. Some of the method; used by Council Congresses since 1931. Every one these plants, may be adaptable to your situa of these congresses has had one thing in tion and position. I would like to present common. Several times during the sessions, some of these techniques by asking some several statements have been made to the questions. effect that safety and efficiency are "indus trial twins;" that the safe plant is the effi cient plant, and vice versa; that you can't separate die two. Mr. Plant Manager, do you realize the im pact on your supervisory organization and others, if you make it a habit of occasion ally inquiring of bow safety is going? Mr. I dearly recall the 1938 Congress, and the Plant Manager, do yon have a plant safety American Society of Safety Engineers Ban policy in writing, so that everyone knows quet Mr. L. C. Hill, Manufacturing Man that safety is important--so important that ager, Murray Corporation of Detroit was it rates a policy posted in every department the speaker. I do not remember the title of and in every office? Mr. Plant Manager, his talk, but I made some notes of the "high do you have the safety responsibilities of lights." They are typical of many others. every individual in the organization spelled "You can't divorce safety and production efficiency, because doing a job safely is al ways doing it efficiently." "Is your safety a part of the cake or just the frosting?" "Efficiency may be defined as doing a job the easiest way; at the lowest cost, and on time. When accidents are a by-product of your production, you are getting results the hard way, at extra costs, and always with delays." out? Do you know that on four 854x11 pages you can put down the responsibilities of every man in the organization, every de partment; every activity? Is your safety pro gram a safety program or a production standard? Mr. Plant Manager, do you make it a practice to demonstrate aclh/e interest in the injuries that are occurring every day in your plant? "The methods for control of occupational Some one has said that "a plant is as safe hazards are Identical with methods for con as the man in charge-wants it to he!" This trolling costs, quality, or production volume." should be amended--"a plant is as safe as "Because the line foreman is in the best the man in charge wants it to be, and con position to know and do something about tinually demonstrates his sincerity on the unsafe conditions and work practices, he matter!" must assume the major reponsibility in a sound program. A sound program is one that has three dimensions--length (conti nuity); width (scope); depth (based on tested principles)." Mr. Shop Superintendent; as a first lieu tenant of top management, do you assist those above you in showing active interest? Do you, in your production meeting, "kick off" the meeting by inquiring if anyone has I am sure that all of you have heard been injured since the last meeting? Do you similar statements in the course of your spend five minutes at the start of a meeting work or your travels, and that as a funda to put safety "on the map"--keep it in the mental principle, you too subscribe to the "main tent," so that it isn't just a "side idea that safety must be made a part of show?" one's job, to be really effective. Mr. Shop Superintendent, do you demand Some plants that I know of, have done a of your foreman that you be the first to be very good job of making safety a part of informed in case of a serious injury? Do 34 1956 National Safety Congress you take an active part in accident investi gations? Do you put die emphasis on blame or the prevention of a recurrence? To "build safety into each job," a new employee will be interviewed as to his past safety record; his viewpoints on safety; Mr. Shop Superintendent, when you pro what he considers his responsibilities to be. mote a man to the position of supervisor, when do you brief him on his safety respon sibilities? When you do. this is as important as what you tell him if yon want to con vince him that he as a foreman, must accept the major responsibility for detecting and removing accident causes in Us department A new man can be made to realize that he didn't get the job until he had passed the safety "test" When safe methods are "built in," safety discipline problems are reduced. It is one thing to correct a man for not following Safety ideals, policies, and attitudes have a way of deteriorating as they are passed along down the line from top management to the employee who got injured. So the $64.00 question for superintendents and gen eral foremen is "are you conductors or in instructions, and it is quite a different prob lem to get an employee to follow a safe practice recommended by a safety committee or some one rise, sometime after the em ployee has been lured or placed on new work. sulators in the chain of command from top Years ago it was common practice for an man to employee?" employee to be lured with not much, if any, Mr. Foreman, how do you look at that oft: repeated admonition "you are the key man!" Your reaction to the statement is Ughlv im portant, because in no other activity does your attitude play such an important part as it does in injury prevention. Employees are apt to have one or more negative attitudes toward safety. Most com mon is the fatalistic attitude--that if jour mention of safety. Many times the em ployee's first exposure to safety was when he was injured or when some safety com mitteeman observed him doing something unsafely. If the employee was lucky, the foreman would attempt to "tack some safety on." Maybe it impressed; usually it lasted only until the committeeman turned the cor ner and left the scene. number is up. you will be hurt. Another Foremen who appreciate the soundness of dangerous attitude is the one that the acci malting safe thinking a part of every job. dent will happen, but to someone else. Some will establish a system of "across the board" people feel that a past record of no-injuries equipment inspections to detect unsafe con is insurance for the future. Some employees ditions. fed that safety precaution is a sign of weak ness. Some employees charge every injury to "carelessness" and let it go at that. Foremen are the logical ones to work with and correct such attitudes. A starting point is the setting of the proper example. A foreman with a negative attitude himself is in a poor position to "sell" the idea to those who "take their cue" from his actions and the examples he sets. Foremen who are sold themselves on the practical value of malting safe thinking a part of every one's job, will devdop a habit pattern for doing some of his routine work. For example, when he selects and inducts a new employee, he will never forget to emphasize that safe thinking is as much a part of every job as coming to work or collecting his pay check. He will also al ways call attention to the hazards when an old worker starts a new job. A department program will also include a system for frequent safety reminding of each employee. Frequently and recently re minded people do not have injuries. One hundred per cent safe-minded workers can do their work, without injury, regardless of the hazard involved. These two statements are facts! A foreman who makes safety a part of each job, always knows the status of his department safety wise, and he sees that each worker knows it too. A foreman who makes safety a part of everyone's job, uses safety as a morale builder. He encourages his workers to talk safety at home; to re mind those at home, that safe thinking pre vents accidents there too, and that it must be made a part of our every day life. What better evidence of sincere interest in an employee can a fonnan have than of con tinued interest in each of his employee's offthe-job safety? ' iS 8 g- B it a^ is safety; to be. that he ed the safety is one lowing t proba safe trainee te etnn new for an if any. e em- when comelhing y. the safetylasted ie cor- ess of > job. Xrd" Delude ng of Jy re- One "s can ess of merits irt of >f his ; that t who , uses irages to ret Premust What in an con 's off- Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Industries 35 These are but a few of the methods we can use if we become disciples of a safety theory that says "build it in--don't tack it on!" Such a theory is in step with proven safety engineering principles. In addition, it strengthens our position in all of our safety training, safety disciplining, and safety selling activities, "Build it in--don't tack it on" is a phiiosophy to live by in a fast moving world. It is a philosophy that will help us help others live happier too. By MAY M. ROACH Associate Dir. of Rural Education, Central State College, Stevens Point, Wis. When I set out to prepare for my first try because the number quoted varies, but it safety program, I recalled that a great Greek is somewhere between 50 and 70 per cent philosopher had once said, "Know yourself and you will know everybody." With that in mind I began to ponder "Safety Begins At Home," the title assigned to me. What acci dents had come to me in my home? I listed too long a list. Turning the boiling syrup over my hand when I was making candy in a kettle with a bail poorly attached. Blowing my hair into an open flame Falling in the bath tub and breaking ribs. Falling down stairs and breaking an elbow. But what about home accidents? There the story is entirely different In pamphlet after pamphlet I have read that accidents in homes top those in every other area "irae and time again I hear experts in sa.etv educa tion say that accidents in the home far ex ceed those in other fields. Recently, as I was riding along to a Wisconsin Industrial SafetyConference, I was listening to a radio pro gram when I heard this statement "Every 90 seconds in the United States some person Then I began to talk to my friends and dies because of an accident which happened learned that I was not peculiar, but probably in a home I figured as far as my mental quite typical. The list of home accidents arithmetic would take me In an hour 40 grew and grew. The fall from a step ladder people would die In a day 960 would lose and the broken ankle The fall from the their lives, and in 12 months this would be chair when the leg gave way. The electrocu 345,600 people in America who would reach tion when the air drier fell into the filled the end of their lives because of home acci bath tub. The beautiful organdy apron on dents. Isn't it between 40,000 and 50,000 who fire die in traffic accidents? There is a compari I studied the long list and asked myself "Why?" I decided there were two major reasons. They were: Ignorance and careless ness. The safety slogan someone has coined and many have used became most meaningful to mel Accidents don't happen; they are caused. son which should impress, us, each and every one with the seriousness of the dangers which are so near us in that dear place where most of us feel so safe. Isn't this a real challenge to find a solution to a serious problem? Doesn't it call for the best think ing of each and all of us? In seeking a solution for this knotty problem, I have been The next step in my preparation took roe reviewing my study and reliving my ex to my friends in the Hardware Mutuals in periences to decide what makes us act as we Stevens Point. They provided me with a do. I recall one chapter in that first psy great amount of material on Home Safety. chology course which dealt with habit, the Later, the Employers Mutuals in Wausau, power of habit and the method of developing Wisconsin, added more to my safety library, habit. From that time to this, I have heard and many other groups and individuals have those same thoughts proclaimed in one man continued to increase my store. For all this ner or another. I am very grateful. Ninety per cent of what you and I do re A little investigation and study can show sults from habit When we consider that us what has happened and is happening in the foundation of our habits are more or the area of safety in industry. Laws have less made by the time we are eight years old, been passed and administered to protect we can see the significance of my title all of us in our employment. Many people "Safety Begins At Home." I have been a are employed to make certain employers teacher for more than 50 years, and I am live up to the laws. Industry itself recog fully aware of the importance of those early nizes the loss which results from accidents years in school. Tins, of course, places a among its personnel both in time lost and tremendous responsibility upon the home money used. I am not sure as to the exact and those primary years in our schools. But percentage of reduction in accidents in indus if the responsibility is great the privilege is fet cat tuc ant op cul an ( S* z' ) jut it ait. * the after omes and hica: ex' ms afetv proivery trson tened ental r 40 lose d be each acciwho pan try* igers place lis a rious tin.Ig w been ex5 we psythe ping card i rethat t or old, tide ma am arly is a ome But e is Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Industries 37 correspondingly great Have you noticed that responsibility and privilege go hand and hand? How can we help our people to make habits of safety a part of their armor against that enemy we call accidents, power ful enough in all areas, but far more so in our own homes? As a teacher for more than half a century, I am sure we must begin when folks are young. The most powerful technique is good example. Next we must teach our people to recognize dangers and to realize that accidents are expensive in life, health and wealth. We must continue safety education during the entire life of our citi zenry through every media we have at our disposal, but the job will become much easier in later years if it is done well in the young and impressional days. My friends in the Industrial Safety Con ferences tell me that there are wide differ ences among their employees in their 'atti tudes toward safety programs in particular, and safety education in general. Some co operate quickly and easily; others have diffi culty fitting in. Let us remember that our attitudes have their roots in our early years! Can we look forward to the time when we can point to as great a reduction in home accidents as you in the Industrial Safety Conferences can boast about in your pro gram? We as individuals must have as much will to protect ourselves in our homes as we demand that those who employ us provide for us outside of our homes. There is a little poem which may fit in here as I conclude. Protecting my life, my body, and the materials over which I have control is surely a moral responsibility. All these are gifts to me from the Good Lord which 1 must use wisely, so Isn't it queer the princes and longs. And clowns that caper in sawdust rings. And common folks like you and me Are builders for eternity. To each is given a bag of tools, A bit of time and a book of rules. And each must finish e'er life has flown, A stumbling block or a stepping stone. Every accident, the result of ignorance or carelessness, helps to make a stumbling block of somebody's life. The habit and the atti tude planted hi those early years are surely powerful contributing factors, so we can say with much assurance safety does begin at home. 38 And They Still Get Hurt By FREDERICK H. DEEG National Association of Mutual Casualty Cos., Chicago The history of the accident-prevention movement in the U. S. is full of accomplish ments. Certainly great strides have been made since the industrial revolution and the early days when power-driven equipment first appeared on the industrial scene. With the revolution, you'll recall, came a num ber of accidents, resulting in amputations, mangled bodies and fatalities in numbers greater than anyone cares to remember. But history tells us that each generation, when faced with problems of seemingly unsurmountable magnitude, has always produced men of skill, vision and fortitude who have tackled the problem with vigor and brought it under control. This certainly was true of the accident problem created during that period of transition to mechanization Born during this period were pioneers of safety, men whose courage, determination and hard work laid the foundation on which tremendous progress has been made. Any table of accident facts tells us that the trend has been downward. The national accident frequency rate was cut in half between 1926'33. It was more than halved again between 1933-'56. Industry's trend has followed the same pattern. But another problem faces us. In spite of conscientious effort, workers still are get ting hurt in industrial accidents--hurt phys ically, emotionally and financially. Some 900,000 were injured in 193S. As long as accidents continue, our job as management, supervisors and as safety men and women is incompleted. The challenge before us today is greater than ever. Why do I say that? Let's look at the picture. In 1952, the American Society, of Gvil Engineers asked its members to select the seven outstanding construction projects in the U. S. In terms of lives lost, here's what these projects cost. Fourteen person died during construction of the Empire State Building; 110 during construction of Hoover Dam; 24 during construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge; 80 during construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct; 1,219 during con struction of the Panama Canal, not includ ing deaths from non-accidents, and 97 died during the Grand Coulee Dam and Colum bia River Basin project. This is 1,544 deaths --a tremendous accident toll! Industrial expansion, accomplishments of our engineers, reaching new horizons by our scientists--all are presenting new material, new methods, new processes and new prob lems. As men and women interested in and dedicated to the continuing job of safety we must see that the downward trend con tinues. We must keep abreast of progress and provide the knowledge and means to help prevent tragedy and needless waste. We must face up to new problems, knowing full well that some of the old ones are still with its and still have to be solved. In attempting to solve these problems, we must know where to begin. It has been suggested that "safety begins at hone." I agree. I believe that if we are able to instill in our children a "safety is a way of life" philosophy, they will grow up to be better and safer citizens and workers. They will go into our industries with positive rather than negative thoughts and ideas regarding their safety and that of fellow workers. This, I believe, is important Far too many persons commonly regard accident prevention as negative. It's not Accident prevention is action, logical, profitable action, resulting in more ability, more time, more production, more wealth, more happiness and security. One reason workers still get hurt is because we haven't found a way to get the "safety story to everyone so effec tively that they' understand the problem as well as we. Take management for an ex ample. One safety axiom is that manage ment has the best opportunity and ability to initiate prevention work, and therefore, should assume the responsibility." Nobody disputes that fact, and manage ment usually accepts this responsibility' and gives its support But there is still a tre mendous number of management people, par ticularly in small businesses, who haven't recognized their place in the broad picture In these instances, apparently we haven't indud7 died xdumdeaths nls of by our Uerial, prob in and safety d conogress ans to te.We ig full e still ns, we > been oe." I instill f life" better will go r than t < ") ir too trident trident action, more ipiness ill get ray to effecem as in exanageability efore. anagey and a trec, parlaven't icture. taven't Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Industries 39 got our point across. In recent years, much has been done to reach smaller plants through the National Safety Council's smallbusiness program, a program designed to reach small-business men through trade as sociations, local safety councils and com munity groups. It is a known fact that some supervisors are more effective than others in accident prevention, even when they come from the same company and have similar opportuni ties and similar assistance in their safety responsibility. Why should that be? That's a question we are still trying to answer. The experts don't know for sure, although they say it's probably due in part to differences among supervisors as to understanding their part in the safety program and their attitude toward this part of their job. Perhaps there's more to it than that But meanwhile; we have to keep plugging away with tools and material available so we get to every super visor, at whatever level he may be, a dear understanding of his part, and win him over to the "safety is a way of life" philosophy. And this philosophy must be carried down through the ranks to the employee. We are told that human error is responsible for a great percentage of accidents, and this error can be corrected through the employee train ing program. This is important to success. Other parts of the human-error problem must be tackled through improved mechan ical design, design which is more intimately related to the physiological and psychological characteristics of equipment operators. Perhaps another reason they still get hurt is that not enough appeal is put into pro grams. That's always a problem, and we are always looking for new and unusual ways to get our programs across. Clever promotion, of course; is never a substitute for the basic principles of accident preven tion. But, like the ribbon on the package, stunts do help sell safety to workers. In recent months, we have collected some ideas industries throughout the country have used to promote on-the-job safety in their plants. Here are a few: Mystery Man. In one plant, a mysteryman--who will violate a safety rule--is se lected. First person to spot his violation and tel! him the rule he's breaking, gets a certifi cate. Naturally, other unsafe actions are un covered each month because of this scheme. Safety Slogan. Weekly, a safety slogan is posted on a bulletin board, and an employee able to repeat the slogan later in the week, is awarded a prize. Safety Smoke. On "safety smoke" day members of divisions having improved acci dent records during the past month receive free rigarets, cigars or candy bars. Telephone Communicator. By dialing a speerial plant telephone number, the listener hears a tape-recorded announcement, includ ing safety messages, wage increases, base ball scores. Family Night. At family night each . month, safety plaques and other prizes are awarded members of departments with acci dent-free operation. Drawings. Periodically a "roulette" wheel is spun. If the employee on whose number the wheel stops has an accident-free record for a certain length of time, he's awarded a prize. Someone said recently that safety men don't have to be pitchmen, barkers, or circus performers. But sometimes it helps. NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1956-57 General Chairman--N. E. THIEL, Director of Safety, Southern Dairies, Inc, Charlotte, N. C First Vice-Chairman--STANLEY \V. PARSONS, General Safety Director, Carnation Company, Los Angeles, Calif. Second Vice-Chairman--I. W. SHUTT, Safety Director, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Louisville, Ky. Secretary--GREGG R. MEYERS, Director of Safety, Blatz Brewing Company, Milwau kee, W'is. Newsletter Editors--NORMAN L. HEUER, Safety Director, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., St. Louis, Mo.; LESLIE J. QUINKER, Director "of Safety, Schenley Distillers, Inc., Louisville, Ky. Program Director--L. H. GRETZER, Director, Safety & Prev. Maintenance, Cargill, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn. Off-the-Job Safety Chairman--W. F. LEONARD, JR., The Southland Corporation, Dallas, Texas. Membership Chairman--ROY E. CAMPBELL, Safety Engineer, Campbell Soup Com pany, Chicago, 111. Health Director--P. W. RUSH, M.D., Medical Director, Cbm Products Refining Com pany, Argo, I1L Trade Associations Committee--J. REDELBERGER (Chairman), Safety Director, Browr.Forman Distillers Corporation, Louisville, Ky.; EARL F. GOMOLL (Vice-Chairman), Safety Supervisor, Clinton Foods, Inc, Clinton, Iowa; ROBERT GILLETTE (Secre tary), Wisconsin Industrial Commission, Madison, W'is. Visual Education Committee--HARRY B. SPANAGEL (Chairman), Ind. Relations Mgr., Schenley Distillers, Inc, Lawrenceburg, Ind.; R. \V. BLUNCK (Vice-Chairman), Safety Director, The Quaker Maid Co., Inc, New York, N. Y.; A. J. DEILE (Secre tary), Training Director, General Foods Company, White Plains, N. Y. Engineering Committee--EDWARD J. STEIXKELLNER (Chairman), Safety Director, Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wis.; HARRY F. WEGEHOFT (ViceChairman), Manager, Employee Services, Anderson, Clayton Food Products Co., Jack sonville, 111.; JACK CANTRELL (Secretary), Safety Manager, Miller Brewing Com pany, Milwaukee, W'is. 40 Gt Fo Fo Ex St, 1 ration Sons, Iwau- t, St Inc, . Inc, ation. Cc Com rowrnan). iecre- Mgr, nan), Jecre- ector, ViccJackCom- Bakers Division--EDWARD Z. BANKA (Chairman), Safety Engineer, National Biscuit Company, New York, N. Y.; W. C MAHLSTEDT (Vice-Chairman), Safety Engi neer, Continental Baking Company, New York, N. Y. Brewers Division--W. A.. MULVENNA (Chairman), Director, Safety & Fire Prev., C Schmidt & Sons, Inc, Philadelphia, Pa.; JOHN EDWARDS (Vice Chairman), Safety Director, Jackson Brewing Company, New Orleans, La.; JOSEPH MENENDEZ (Secretary), Safety Director, Falstaff Brewery, St Louis, Mo. Confectioners Division--WILLIAM G. SMITH (Chairman), Safety Director, The Nestle Company, Fulton,.N. Y.; PATRICKJ. O'BRIEN (Vice-Chairman), Personnel Director, Bunte Bros., Chase Candy Company, Chicago, III. Dairy Products Division--VICTOR G. HENDRIES (Chairman), Safety Division, Land OTakes Creameries, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.; G. RUSSEL REISS (Vice-Chairman), Foremost Dairies, Philadelphia, Pa.; MIKE M1KLAS (Secretary), The Borden Com pany, Tampa, Fla. Distillers Division--JAMES H. SNYDER (Chairman), Mgr., Safety & Plant Protection, Hiram Walker & Sons, Peoria, UL; OSCAR COUDOUX (Vice-Chairman), National Distillers Corporation, New York, N. Y.; ED BENNETT (Secretary), Schenley Dis- - tillers, Inc., Frankfort, Ky. Gram Handling and Processing Division--JOHN M. JENSEN (Chairman), Safety Di rector, Com Products Refining Company, Chicago, I1L; J. R. McCANN (Vice-Chair man), Fire Prevention Director, Ralston Purina Company, St Louis, Mo.; GEORGE L. KITCHEN (Secretary), Safety Director, Van Dusen & Harrington Company, Minneapolis, Minn. Food Processors Division--VICTOR R. JOHNSON (Chairman), Safety Supervisor, Gerber Products Company, Fremont, Mich.; R. CARTWRIGHT (Vice-Chairman), Personnel Director, Haxton Foods, Ino, Oakfield, N. Y.; ERNEST L. HOOD (Secre tary), Director, Training & Safety, C Brewer & Co, Ltd., Honolulu, Hawaii. Food Retailers Division--ROGER J. BEAR (Chairman), Safety Director, The Kroger Company, Cincinnati, Ohio; M. G. JACKSON, (Vice-Chairman), Safety Director, J. Weingarten, Inc, Houston, Tex.; ROBERT NORMAN (Secretary), Safety Chair man. ACF--Wrigley Stores, Detroit Mich. Executive Advisory Committee--NIXON DE TARNOWSKY, Safety Engineer, The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Company, Brooklyn, N. Y.; ROBERT C LEITNER, Supervisor of Industrial Relations, Libby, McNeill & Libby, Union Stock Yards, Chi cago, 111.; CLIFFORD P. McBRIDE, Personnel Manager, Pabst Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wis.; GORDON E MORRISON, Employee Relations & Safety, Kellogg Company, Battle Creelt Mich.; BURTON H. MAY, Director of Safety and Health, Mars, Incorporated, Chicago, I1L; E. G. HUTZLEY, Safety & Fire Prevention Engineer, Campbell Soup Company, Camden, N. J.; GEORGE H. STEEL, Safety Director, Ralston Purina Company, St Louis, Mo.; DEAN M. CLARK, Grain Elevator and Processing Superintendents, Chicago, UL; HOWARD T. BOND, Insurance & Personnel Manager, The South Coast Corporation, New Orleans, La. Staff Representative--RAY ELLIS, JR, National Safety Council, Chicago, III. Officers of the Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products Section NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1956-57 General Chairman--HOWARD REBHOLZ, Safety Director, The Rath Packing Company, Waterloo, Iowa. First Vice-Chairman--CHAS. H. ELSBY, Employers Mutuals of Wausau, Milwaukee, Wis. Second Vice-Chairman--To be appointed. Newsletter--DONALD S. MacKENZIE (Chairman), American Meat Institute, Chicago, 111.; RALPH APPELL, Wolverine Shoe & Tanning Corp., Rockford, Mich. Secretary--JOHN THURMAN, Safety Director, Oscar Meyer & Company, Madison, Wis. Membership Committee--RALPH APPELL (Chairman), Wolverine Shoe & Tanning Corp., Rockford, Mich.; CLARE BROMAN, Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company, Grand Haven, Mich.; HOWARD CUTTER, Safety Director, G. A. Durr Packing Company, Utica, N. Y. Engineering Committee--R. W. UNWIN, SR. (Chairman), Reliable Packing Company, Chicago, III.; MARTIN CERTNETISCH, Safety Director, John Morrell & Company, Ottumwa, Iowa; RALPH K. POMEROY, A. C Lawrence Leather Company, Peabody, Mass.; PAUL A. PETERSON, Zurich Insurance Company, Chicago, III.; MIKE CHOMICKI, Safety & Fire Chief, Hunter Packing Company, East St Louis, 111.; H. L. CLOVER, Safety Director, International Shoe Company, St Louis, Mo. Visual Aids Committee--DON MacKENZIE (Chairman), American Meat Institute, Chi cago, 111.; N. R. SHERMAN, Cudahy Bros. Company, Cudahy, Wis.; J. J. MILLER, General Superintendent's Office, Swift & Company, U. S. Yards, Chicago, 111.; M. C. MORAN, Wilson & Company, Prudential Plaza, Chicago, 111. Health Committee--DR. K. F. KAPOV, Medical Director, Armour & Company, Chicago, IU.; DR. JOSEPH H. SCHIFF, Chicago, IIL Publicity Commi/ter--GREGORY PIETRASZEK, Technical Editor, National Provisioner, Chicago, IIL; LEIF KRONIN, Tanners' Council of America, New York, N. Y. Program & Advisory Committee--E D. PEELER, JR, Safety Director, General Shoe Corp, Nashville, Tetm.; ALEX SPINK, Director of Health and Safety, Kingan Div. Hygrade Food Products Corp, Indianapolis, Ind.; A. J. DITTMER, Office Mgr, Gutmann & Company, Chicago, IIL; JOSEPH POCHOP, Safety Director, John Morrell & Company, Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; R. A. HARSCHNEK, Safety Director, Swift & Com pany, U. S. Yards, Chicago, IIL; MARTIN CERTNETISCH, Safety Director, John Morrell & Company, Ottumwa, Iowa. Staff Representative--J. C KATO, National Safety Council, Chicago, III. 42 Other Volumes in this Series Users of this volume will find much value in its companion volumes. Here is the list: TITLE VOLUME No. General Sessions and Detailed Index to all Volumes.......................................................... 1 Aviation (Aeronautical Industries Section & Air Transport Section).............................. 2 Cement and Quarry Industries................................................................................................. 3 Chemical Industries............................................................................................................. 4 Coal Mining Industry................................................................................................................ S Construction Industry and Public Employment (Public Employees Section)................... 6 Electrical Equipment Industry and Public Utilities Industry............................................ 7 Farm Safety .............................................................................................................................. 8 Fertilizer Industry . ................................................................................................................... 9 Food Industry and Meat Packing Industry............................................................................... 10 Glass and Ceramics & Rubber Industries................................................................................. 11 Home Safety ............................................................................................................................ 12 Industrial Subject Sessions (Sponsored by ASSE)....*............... ..................................... 13 Maritime Industries (Marine Section).....................................................................................14 Metals Industry* ......................................................................................................................... 15 Metal Products Industries (Automotive and Machine Shop Sections, Power Press and Forging Sections).................................................................................... 16 Mining Industry.........................................................*...............1............................................. 17 Motor Transportation Industry (CommercialVehicle Section)............................................. IS Occupational Health Nursing Section......................... ......... ................................................... 19 Petroleum Industry..................................................................................................................... 20 Printing and Publishing Industry..............................................................................................21 Pulp and Paper Industry............................................................................................................ 22 Railroad Industry ....................................................................................................................... 23 School and College Safety...........................................................................................................24 Textile Industry ......................................................................................................................... 25 Traffic Safety* .............................................................................................................................. 26 Transit Industry ................................................*..................................................................... 27 Wood Products Industries...........................................................................................................28 Live A More Abundant Life (Early Morning Sessions)...................................................... 29 PRICES OF EXTRA COPIES OF INDIVIDUAL VOLUMES TO MEMBERS VOLUME SIZE Ho 9 copies Each 12 or less pages-- 13 to 24 pages-- 25 to 48 pages-- 49 to 96 pages-- Over 96 pages-- $0.25 .35 .45 .60 .85 10 to 99 copies Each $0.20 28 -37 .50 .75 100 to 999 copies Each $0.17 25 .33 .45 .70 1000 or more Each $0.17 .25 .33 .45 .70 Complete set of Transactions (29 vols.)--$9J>0. All Prices shown are subject to a 10 per cent discount to National Safety Council Members. NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 NORTH MICHIGAN AYE. . CHICAGO 11, ILL. ninu in 290023702 44