Document nkpvbXG8b4dwXO45QpKMB6371

1961 National Safety Congress Transactions VOL. 12 INDUSTRIAL SCF-A L L F -02096 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 North Michigan Avenvo Chicago 11, Illinois CONTENTS INDUSTRIAL SUBJECTS SESSIONS Integrating Accident Prevention with Production....................Thomes A. Sullivan 5 Modem Role of the Safety Specialist.....................................................Chvrtes A. Craft 7 The Psychology of Accidents................................................................John Mactvcr, MM. II Communications for Safety--How Can We Male our Safety Messages More Effective?.............................................................Lee W. Baker 13 Safety Engineering--A Modem Concept.....................................................John J. Ahern 18 Dynamic Safety Criteria--an Engineering Approach. . . .William A. McAdams 19 Mechanical Accidents ....................................................................................Robert P. Borrows 23 Review of Significant Accident Case Histories, Electrical Accidents .................................................................................Herbert J,, Metzger 27 Safety in Multi-Plant Operations .......................................................................................Panel 30 Are There Too Many Safety Rules?...................................................................J. E. Nichols 33 Achieving and Maintaining Respect for Company Rules.......................................................................................James F. Van Namee 35 The Constructive Use of Discipline in Safety Violations. Standish C. Riddle 39 Safe Application of Electric Controls on Machine Tools.................F. C. Peregoy 43 The ASA Disabling Injury Frequency Rate Is a Good Measure of Safety Performance.....................................................E. R, Wallace 45 A More Dynamic Approach to the Prevention of Back Injuries in an Industrial Environment..................................C. F. Martin, MM. 48 Safety's Role in Preventing Back Injury............*.................................Charles W. Boggs 51 Human Engineering and Material Handling Safety.................... ..................................Willem S. Frederik, M.O., Ph.D. 54 CONTENTS -- Continued Safe Handling of Low Level Radioisotopes ...............................................B, R, Hants 59 Safety Rule Enforcement----A Key to Accident Prevention. . .Richard R. Wiley 62 Damage Control--A New Horizon in Accident Prevention. . .Frank B. Bird, Jr, 66 Training the Plant Defense Corps . . . . John E. Twomey 70 What Do We Expect of the Safety Engineers?.....................................G. W. Harper 73 Design Specifications for a Safety Engineer T. H. Rockwell, Ph.D, 75 Preparing the Safety Engineer and Upgrading Performance . .0. A. Wcover 79 The Kintz and Browne Fire and Static Electricity Demonstration.............. . . . G. M. Kintz and W. F. Browne 85 Better Driving for the Whole Family..................................................William f. Sobota 87 Getting People to Understand Law Enforcement.....................Franklin M. Kreml 93 Officers of the Industrial Conference 1961-62........................................................................ 95 Other Volumes in the 1961 National Safety Congress Transactions. . . Back Page A industrial Subjects Sessitms INTEGRATING ACCIDENT PREVENTION WITH PRODUCTION By THOMAS A. SULLIVAN A. O. Smith Corporation, Milwaukee, Wis. We would like to offer the experience of our Granite City plant as a case study in the integration of accident prevention with production. We have tried to present facts to you and not draw conclusions. If these facts can give you clues as to steps you can take in your own plants to tie accident prevention into your production processes this is the most that we believe can come from such a study. We would be the last to claim we have discovered any panacea for the complex subject of plant safety . This case study is interesting because it was a new plant in a new area for A. O. Smith Corp. The exposure volume is sig nificant. about 3,000,000 manhours per year. From the beginning we had a safety direc tor. who is still there. He is a staff man and must get alt action through the operat ing people. At the start-up ot the plant two problems developed which complicated our problem immediately: Certain automatic assembly equijencnl wn not ready when product deliveries had to be made. Our comjctitor> were not ready to pro duce at alt so we had to cany the entire requirements of our customer for the first few months o: our operation. As you might suspect, this required the hiring of green workers and green super visors and made the training problem almost insurmountable at the beginning. We lave tried to put our whole story on this chart. It looks complicated but if you will follow* along with me we w*il! take it one step at a time. The chart is divided into four areas: The accident frequency data. Production demands and union ships. Management action. Safety and housekeeping. relation Accident and frequency data show the number of lost time accidents per month since the plant began production in Sept. 1954. You will note that we have identified injuries to maintenance men separately from production people as the nature of their ex posure is different and may be of some sig nificance. For example, in 1959 and i960 every other accident was in maintenance, although the hours of exposure of the pro duction people is 10 times that of the main tenance men. The frequency rate is a 12 month running average. Production demands and union relation ships are grouped together as things over which the management of the plant did not have complete control The start-up of new models in the summer of each year should have an adverse effect on safety because new equipment t* present and men are back from a layoff of 4 to 6 weeks and presumably "out of practice.** An examination of the chart docs not dis close such a trend. Rather the accidents seem to bunch up in the later months when the heat is on to produce at peak efficiency. How*ever, the data is not conclusive here either. The effect ui union activity on safety, while at first appearing adverse--after the . union certification in 1955--does not show any discernible pattern. The accidents oc curring after the major work stoppages in 1956 and 1957 do not $cem to be relate*! to the stoppage any more than to the model changes which occurred shortly thereafter. In tact, it looks as though the formation >t the L'nion-Management Safety Commit tee in 1959 had a major favorable effect un accident frequency. The frequency rate tor the two year period since April 1959 is 0.78 per million manhours of exposure. Management actions -- There were lour manufacturing superintendents during the period on the chart--identified as A. B, C and D. The frequency rate for each was A--3.47; 15--1.20; C--3.15 and D--1_53 1961 Xciional Safety Congress follow rules, it is impractical to expect that workers will comply. Generally speaking--any rule that can withstand an honest appraisal of its worth is enforceable and is worthy of respect. The comments made concerning some of the shortcomings ox safety rules arc intended to point up some of the general areas of fault that contribute to workers having a lack of respect for them. Consequently, if you are finding a general disregard for your plant's rules--may I suggest that you take a hard look at them to see if you find similar symptoms ox weakness. Another important thing is to acquaint employees with the nature of ihe rules they are required to observe, in short, these guides to action must be sufficiently publicized to make them part of the "working knowledge" ox every employee. While the educational approach will lead to the observance by a large segment of the work force, unfortunately, there is always a small minority that will insist upon violating rules. Thus, where edu cation fails, supervision must be prepared to take proper disciplinary action. I believe that the following statement --made by Exnilc K. du Pont ox the Du Pont Company--sums up the whole story* concerning enforcement of safety rules. "We believe strongly tn the philoso phy of preventive safety rather than afier-the-fact correction. We place great stress upon safety violations rather than upon Injuries as such. We are tough toward wilful violators, as we are more interested in eliminating the chance for injury by working safely without violations of good practice than In setting records, where we are reasonable but firm on viola tions. a safety consciousness is grad ually developed among the entire work force.'* This brings us to the all important prob lem ox enforcement and discipline. If rules are to be enforced they must--as has been said before--be dear and known by the em ployees. They must be fair and undiscriminatory--and they must be uniformly applied-- otherwise you may find them contested by union representatives. The need for acceptance of safety rules by union representatives is mentioned be cause under the terms of some labor-man agement contracts a company may find that improper rules can become a haris for the nling of a grievance--or even arbitration. Two examples will illustrate this point. A union local in Trenton, Xew Jersey, filed a grievance against management's newly inaugurated rule which required 100 per cent compliance with an eye protection program. The following statement is taken directly from a report tliat the union local made to its membership concerning the outcome cf action taken on the grievance: *Tbe lOOSv >*e protection prugriun -- the union argued that many areas in the plant did not require safety glasses. Management agreed and have modified their pit-gram accordingly. The areas and Jobs not required to wear glasses are--purchased parts cribs, receiving docks, salvage building, main stock cribs, overhead crane operators, steel bay area, yard area, parts checker, tool room aisles, waste material disposal operations, car washing activity and drivers not working ir. production areas.'* "Management'* unilateral promulgation of a safety rule present* an arbitrable jnerante. On a question brought against a company by the Oil. Chemical and Atomic Workers Union an arbitrator said. "The company had issued a regulation, which the union chal lenged. requiring all employees to wear hard hats and toe guards. The company argued that it had the unquestioned unilateral _ right to establish reasonable safety regulations-- such as those being challenged. The union contended that safety regulations involving special protective devices, which employees were required to wear, constituted conditions of employment for which the union had been recognized as the sole and exclusive bargain ing agent. The union held that these were matters for Joint consultation between tr.e parties In the first instance and subject to review in the grievance procedure in the event that a Job was described and classified in a manner with which the union did not agree. The arbitrator held that although the employer ordinarily has the right to deter mine for itself rules for protection of em ployees there are circumstances in which the union may challenge the imposition of cer tain types of rules as well as the reasonable ness ox particular rules and that the union's protest in these cases presented an arbitrable grievance under a contract which defined a grievance as any disagreement between the company and union Involving interpretation or alleged violation of contract." While I do not wish to invade the subject or discipline, there are a few precepts con cerning discipline that also may have a bear ing on the respect tendered to safety rules. Briefly they arc: First: Disciplinary' action under some la bor-management contracts may be subject to arbitration. When such is the case--remem ber that an arbitrator may determine whether there was just cause for the discipline, and also whether it was overly severe. Second: The burden is usually yours to prove that your rulings are proper--and that the penalty given wasn't too severe. Industrial Subjects Sessions Third: Discipline and discharge are seri ous matters. Consequently, be sure to have the answers to such questions as: "Did the employee know he was violating a ruler"-- "Was his violation intentional and "Were previous violations condoned r" Fourth: Discipline must be the same for bargaining and non-bargaining employees. From the foregoing discussion, three basic principles emerge as being the basis for creating and maintaining respect for safety rules. They are: 1. The rules themselves must not be a: fault. 2. Employees must be educated concerning the needs for the rules--and the benefits to be derived from compliance with them. 3. When all else fails, enforcement and discipline must be resorted to, but on an equitable basis. In summarizing this discussion, I would like to stress that: First--Safety rules are essential to the attainment of both production and safety objectives. Second--Ways must be found to make employees want to abide by safety rules. Third--The rules must not be unreason able or improper--for if they are they won't be respected or accepted by the workers-- and without acceptance they are doomed to failure. THE CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF DISCIPLINE IN SAFETY VIOLATIONS By STANDISH C. RIDDLE Senior Safety Eng., Cleveland Foundry & Engine Plants Ford Motor Co., Cleveland, Ohio On of the too many things aggravating the world situation today is the different interpretations applied to identical words by various persons or culture?. I want to consider the term, "constructive discipline," with a common and single interpretation of its meaning and implication. First, let's look to Webster, who says, "Construct (verb) 1. To put together the parts ox something. Tc buiid. 2. To set in order mentally, to arrange. "Discipline--1. Training (to train). 2. Punishment--(to punish). 3. Orderly Con duct. Synonyms are---'educate, teach, chas tise and correct.' " . Second, let's toss out these words and concepts: punishment, to punish end chastise. They have no place in our philosophy. We are not running penal institution?! \Ve are operating business organizations where we are attempting to instruct our employees to perform their assigned duties to the best of their ability and with the lea-t possible hazard to themselves and their co-workers. Third, now, let's look at what we have left from Webster's definitions: 1. To put together the parts ot something. To build. 2. To set ir. order mentally. 3. To arrange. 4. To train. 5. Orderly conduct. 6. Educate, teach and correct. Fourth, from these concepts, let's con struct our definition of "Constructive disci pline"--to arrenge by educating and cor recting to motivate our employees to conduct themselves in an orderly fashion, both men tally and physically. * What this means ts that we must strive to reach the minds of our employees and move them to conform to the standards of conduct as represented in the Ford Motor Co. safe practices rule books. This is not always an easy matter, for a man is not a simple organism, like some of the lower animals. A man can be very complex. He is u:hat he has lived. He is zvhat his ancestors haze been. Keeping this in mind, we must consider that, just as no two individuals have identi- 1961 National Safety Congress cal fingerprints, so too, no two individuals have identical thinking processes. Because this is true, we must remain very flexible in handling this matter or discipline. We must keep in mind that the old days when a "straw boss** kept order in his crew by developing the hardest knuckles, the biggest biceps and the loudest mouth, are long gone. Possibly a few cases of straw bosses also developing the widest toothless grins might have had something to do with this. Seriously, though* we do not believe that physical or severe mental or emotional force has any real place in today's application of corrective discipline to industrial employees. The concept of discipline at the Ford Motor Co. is that it must be corrective. This concept also dictates that only as much corrective action be applied as is necessary to result in the desired correction. In other words, it is the expressed philosophy that all personal feelings be divorced from the case and only the facts are to be considered. This is what we mean by the term, "con structive discipline.** Discipline that is con structive through reasonable and fair cor rection. We do not r<ean to imply by what we have said up to this point that we do not want our supervisors to maintain con trol over their employees. To the con trary. it is insisted that they do. It is in sisted that they be firm. Point No. 6 of the 14-point Ford Motor Co. Safety Pro gram states, "Maintain firm plant discipline.** Please distinguish between firm and harsh. These two words are poles apart in our philosophy. As a matter of fact, if yon think of it in the right light, bring firm and in sisting on strict adherence to the requiremoits of safety rules is actually being kind to an employee. Being kind to him to the extent that you force him to avoid having an accident. He may not appreciate your kindness in applying corrective disci pline when it is merited. It is, neverthe less, kindness of the first water. Speaking of the 14-point Ford Safety Program, points No. 4 and 5 are also worthy of note here. "Sell safety to the new em ployee,** and "Re-sell safety repeatedly.** It might appear that there is a discrepancy of terms here. Is there really a conflict between "selling" an idea and tiring "disci pline?** We think not Rononber what Webster says? Discipline is education. Sell ing, too, is education. Therefore, Selling %s a form of discipline. Regardless of what we call it, or how we define it it means nothing unless it is applied. I am reminded of a story I read some time ago in a magazine. The story told of a rather large company that had been experiencing numerous serious accidents and injuries to employees with an ever-increas ing frequency. According to the story, this went on for several years. (Hard to be lieve, but that is the story.) Numerous meetings to find causes and remedies were held but always wound up with someone saying that they hoped the "bad luck** would make a turn for the good, soon. Finally' it got to the point that someone at the top decided to bring the thing to a head. He called the managers of the various departments together and told them that it was up to them to find ways of controlling the situation or he would find someone who could. Rather drastic but a very effective form of discipline. It turned out to be very constructive, as welL The top man's ultimatum finally made them realize that, far from their running the organization, the organization had actually beas running than! Finally jolted out of their false seise of job se curity, each manager passed the jolt on to his subordinate supervisors. Each man was told to tender his resignation right then if be didn*t think he could stop his em ployees from injuring themselves. "Wow! The bosses are rally mad now." they all thought, as they started scratching heads in search of ideas. It didn't take much scratching to come up with the idea of opening the safety* rule books that for So many years had laid unopened in the desk drawers. One after another got the bright idea of starring to insist that the rules must be adhered to. There were no changes in normal work procedures, no supervisors lost their jobs. The supervisors just started to supervise within the framework which already ex isted in the organization. The foreman started to be the "boss'* and exercised his almost forgotten responsibility to discipline 40 Industrial Subjects Sessions employees who violated the rules. Accidents fell off sharply and other benefits were also realized. Morale was strikingly improved, absenteeism decreased and not too surpris ingly, there was also a significant increase in productivity. Let's go hade again to Webster. Remem ber--he says that discipline also means "to teach." Ford Motor Co. accepts this mean ing wholeheartedly and considers the teach ing and training of its employees to be one of its most important functions. Sure, we realize that our prime function and reason for existence is to serve our customers with a top quality product at a price they are willing to pay. But, to do this we must have a trained, disciplined work force, at all levels of the organization. For the purpose of this dis cussion, however, we are considering only how this policy affects our program to prevent accidents, with particular emphasis on the enforcement of safety rules. In order for established safety rules to have any meaning, it is a prerequisite that the persons to whom they are to apply, have a thorough knowledge of their con text and meaning. This is accomplished through a very* thorough system of train ing for both supervisors and hourly em ployees. These training techniques take many forms, and include: 1. A six months training period for new supervisors. 2. One-hour weekly training meetings with required attendance by all supervisors. 3. Frequent contacts between supervisors and plant safety engineers. 4. Wide distribution of safety rule book lets, to both supervisors and hourly em ployees. 5. Requirement that all supervisors of hourly employees hold weekly safety talks with their employees. 6. Indoctrination program for new em ployees which requires that the supervisor go over pertinent safety rules with the new man to insure he understands them. A check sheet and card which the em ployee signs must be returned to the safety office for each new employee. But that is enough of detail. I think you have the idea that the Ford Motor Co. has an excellent training program and does a good job of educating its employees on how to do a good job safely. We have given our employees the knowledge, now we must see to it that they use that knowl edge to the best advantage--to the advantage that employees will not suffer accidents and injury from someone's disregard of safe practices established and spelled out in the rule books. Let us take a quick look at how "con structive discipline" of a progressive nature works in cases which demonstrate the prin ciples we have been discussing. First, consider a simple theoretical case. Suppose that one of the plant safety en gineers observed an employee working at a machine while he was not wearing his safety glasses, as is required of all Ford Motor Co. employees. The safety engineer contacted the employee's foreman and ver bally informed him that the employee was exposing himself to the hazard of a po tential eye injury*. Thereupon the foreman, knowing the em ployee has jtist returned from lunch and merely has forgotten to put safety glasses back on. approached the man and reminded him to do so. The man. being a cooperative individual, did so, with thanks to the fore man for reminding him. (This man knows which side of his bread has the butter). This man required very little correction since he realized that the eye protection rule was for his benefit. Just a word of caution was all the discipline (motivating education and correction) that was needed in this case and that was all that was ap plied. Mission accomplished! Let us now* consider a little more com plicated and still theoretical case. Again, the plant safety- engineer reported a worker, not wearing the prescribed eye protection, to his foreman. This individual was resent ful and expressed himself fluently, indicat ing he did not want to comply with the rule requiring him to wear safety* glasses. In this case the foreman realized that positive action was needed to change this individual's thinking. The foreman, there fore, called the man into the department office and, explained to the employee that the Ford Motor Co. safety rule requiring all employees to wear approved types of 1961 Xattend Safety Congress eye protection was established to prevent serious eye injuries, himself ineluded. The man was then informed that because his record did not show any previous cita tion for rule violations the disciplinary ac tion report resulting from this case would show tliat he had merely been given a reprimand and warning without the loss ox any time. The warning indicated that he had been informed that any subsequent violations of the rules might result in in creased corrective action on a progressive scale. Here again, the case was dispositioaed with only enough "constructive discipline** to arrive at the desired correction of the employee's attitude and performance. This program of scaled action to fit the case is carried out through the whole range of cases which might occur. Each succeed ing time that it is necessary to apply dis ciplinary action to an individual employee, his previous record is taken into considera tion. In those cases where it is clearly evident that the previous actions liave no: resulted in the expected improvement in the employee's attitude and behavior, ad ditional motivation is applied, each step be ing progressively more severe. In a few very serious case*, the end result may finally be a discharge. I am glad to be able to say that very few cases go to this extreme. The lack o extreme cases indicates that the system of progressive actions takes hold and does the job some where along the line before the final stage is reached. Since a disciplinary penalty i? imposed solely to obtain improvement of future be havior. follow-up i< important in determin ing whether it has been effective, cr whether further action as necessary* Up to the present time we have dwelt extensively on the techniques utilized is the "constructive use of discipline :n safety violations." Now, let's give a little considera tion to the end results of such actions. This is the meat on the menu. This is the pay off. While we do not, by any means, give our company program of "constructive dis cipline" the zehole credit, we are sure that it played a Z'cry important part of the re cent accomplishment of the Cleveland foundry of the Ford Motor Co. in establish ing a new all-time National Gray Iron Foundry Best Record of 3,421,133 man-hours of exposure without a di<ahing injury. We also are sure that this technique of using discipline for corrective purpose* played an important pan in the record of our two Cleveland engine plants. These two plants have, within the span of less than ten years, posted periods of over 3,000,000 man-hours of exposure without disabling injury on seven separate occasions. The use of "constructive discipline" can never be the answer to all problems. I: can. however, help in the efforts to create a safety azvareness in our employees which we all are striving for. Safety awareness? Now there is a term I like! Turn that over on the tongue of your mind for a minute! Get the taste of it? Let me give you an example. Recently, while I was walking through an aisle in our foundry at Cleveland, an hourly man walking in the same direction but some distance ahead, noticed a small length of pipe lying in trie aisle where it had apparently fallen from a passing scrap truck. Tiie man, with scarcely a pause, stooped down, picked up the pipe and tossed it into another scrap truck and continued on his way. It was done in such a casual manner it appeared to be an act of habit. That is zvhat zee zrant! We want safety so ingrained in our employees that they exhibit similar thoughtfulness in all their actions. Thoughtfulness that is a habit! And there is no contradiction of terms in this instance. Here was living proof of the "safety awareness'* we are striving for. Here was evidence of one of the factors which helped the foundry set a new record, helped the foundry exceed the old record, which had stood for five years, by a margin of well over 500,000 hours. Here was evidence that, properly motivated, employees can be moved to consider the "other fellow's" welfare as well as their c vn. This man's action may well have pre vented the next man coming along front taking a bad spilL Such patterns of thought can cause a man who, in the past, had been guilty of leaving a guard off a machine, to now pause to replace it upon completion of his job. Development of sueh safe work habits can truly make a man become, al most unconsciously, his "brother's keeper." Industrial Subjects Sessions We do not know whether this man had ever had occasion to have "constructive discipline" applied to him. We have no way os determining since the man was not iden tified. We like to think, however, that this is the sort of attitude which can be developed by the technique of applying discipline in a corrective sense, rather than in a punitive sense. You all know what happens when you pu-h a pendulum. You give it a push and it -wings right back at you. If you give a man a push lie also has the same reac tion : he has a tendency to take a swing at you in return, in one way or another. It i- .ur thinking at Ford that much more can }< accomplished by leading a man onto the right road by correcting his errors in a constructive manner. This leading, never theless, must be firm to avoid being mis understood as weakness. Someone says, "Nuts! There are some guvs you can't reach with anything but a big dub and a size 14 boot.*' There may be seme truth in this staiemcit. but. (and that is a big but) these cases are few and far between and we should not fall into the trap of accepting this as a dump for all of our problem children. It costs money, a lot money, to train employees to perform todays complex jobs. It costs money, a lot of money, to have our employees suffer in dustrial injuries. It is our job to save our employers from the unnecessary expense ox" discharging er rant employees. It is also our job to save our employers from the unnecessary expense i accidenxal injury** It is even more cur job to discharge our moral responsibility of preventing the human misery' to the em ployee and his family which invariably re sults when the bread-winner is laid 1 \v hccause he or his fellow-employee failed : heed the safety rules. In nearing the conclusion of this di.-cu^-ion, let tis remember that the old days *.: the woodshed as a symbol of discipline ar*._-one and past. More enlightened thinking :utd the teaching of experience has opened a better door. A wider portal with broader vistas: "constructive discipline." based * : correction, not punishment. It is a prime tenet of psychology that the human animal has a greater tendency to re member pleasure than pain. How many n: you can remember the occasion* on your Ma or Pa bent the bejnbher? out - :* your little hind-end? 1*11 bet not one of you can. or, at most very faintly. On the other hand. Ill also wager that many of you cur. still clearly remember the old swimming hole, how much fun you used to have at the County Fair or many other pleasure- of your childhood. Not that we mean to imply that applying even "constructive discipline" to our em ployees will be a pleasure to them. Rather, we should attempt to remove as much c: the pain as possible from our corrective ac tion to lc?en the tendency* to forget un pleasant experience?. Educate, teach, rorr,*.-*. that's the ticket. Punishment for pun:-'., ment's sake belongs !' the Dark Ages. SAFE APPLICATION OF ELECTRIC CONTROLS ON MACHINE TOOLS By F. C. PEREGOY Supervisor of Safety, Wesiinghouse Electric Corp.. Baltimore, Md. By definition, machine tools include all power-driven equipment performing cold working of metal by progressively removing metal in the form of chips. The National Association of Machine Tool Builders has classified some 200 types of machine tools under five basic functions--turning, boring, milling, planing and grinding. Authorities agree that injuries from ma chine operation are likely to be more severe than injuries irr,m other causes; and more likely-to result in liCrmancnt disability. For example. Accident Facts shows machinery to be the source of 10 per cent of all injuries, but the source of 19 per cent of permanent disabilities