FV Blog – FIRST, VERIFY

Safety Culture vs. Safety Systems: Why the Conversation Needs to Shift

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:57:04 GMT

“Safety culture” is one of the most widely used phrases in EHS. It shows up in boardroom conversations, incident reviews, and annual reports. It signals commitment and suggests accountability.

But it also does something else:

It turns attention toward people, and away from how the organization is actually designed. That distinction matters more than most organizations realize; because when incidents happen, the difference between what people did and what the organization made possible is often the difference between surface-level fixes and meaningful risk reduction.

The problem with “safety culture” as the default explanation

In many incident reviews, the conclusion sounds familiar:

“The culture needs improvement.”
“There was a lack of accountability.”
“People didn’t follow procedures.”

Those statements may be true, but they are rarely complete. Investigations across high-risk industries including repeated findings from the U.S. Chemical Safety Board have consistently pointed to organizational and system-level failures as underlying causes of major incidents.

Heather MacDougall made a substantive case for this in her papers “ Moving Beyond Safety Culture: Why Language Matters in Building Strong Organizations ” and “ How Organizational Design Can Influence Safer, Healthier, and More Productive Workplaces ”: when the language of “culture” becomes the primary explanation, it can obscure the organizational decisions that shape how work actually gets done.

And when that happens, “culture” doesn’t just describe the problem - it becomes the stopping point in the analysis.

What actually drives safety performance

There’s a practical distinction that often gets blurred: Culture reflects shared expectations and intent, but outcomes are produced by how the organization is structured, how decisions are made, how information flows, and how consistency is maintained.

In contractor-intensive environments, those outcomes are shaped long before work begins. They’re shaped by whether an organization can confidently answer questions like:

Do we know this contractor’s safety documentation is current?
Has required training been completed and verified?
Does their insurance meet our requirements today, not last year?
Are we applying the same standards across every site?

If the answer to any of those is unclear, the issue is not culture alone - it’s how the system has been designed to manage risk.

Where risk actually enters the organization

Most incidents don’t begin in the field. They begin earlier: in onboarding, inconsistent requirements, and gaps in verification. Consider a common scenario:

A contractor is approved to start work. They’ve worked with the company before. The team is under time pressure. Everything appears in order. But…

Their safety documentation hasn’t been updated this year.
Their insurance no longer meets current requirements.
Their training records were submitted, but not verified.

No one made a reckless decision, but the organization allowed uncertainty to pass as compliance. That’s what systemic risk looks like in practice, and it often remains invisible until something goes wrong.

Safety is not just managed - it is designed

This is where the conversation needs to shift. Safety performance is not simply the result of individual behavior or even shared values. It’s the result of how the organization is designed to operate. That design shows up in places that are easy to overlook:

How contractor requirements are defined
How information is collected, reviewed, and validated
Who has authority to approve or reject work
How consistency is maintained across locations

When those elements are fragmented, safety becomes inconsistent. When they are structured, safety becomes repeatable. This is why organizations with similar stated “cultures” can produce very different outcomes; because culture does not standardize execution - design does.

Human error is often the last step - not the first

It’s easy to attribute incidents to human error, but that’s rarely where the story starts.

A worker misses a step. But why?

They weren’t fully trained. But why?

Training wasn’t verified. But why?

The system for managing information was incomplete or inconsistent. At that point, the issue is no longer individual behavior - it’s how the organization allowed critical information to break down.

What strong systems actually do

Effective safety systems are not complex for the sake of complexity. They’re structured to remove ambiguity and enforce consistency.

In practice, that means:

Contractors go through a defined prequalification process with clear criteria
That process is applied consistently across locations and teams
Safety documentation and insurance are centralized, current, and accessible
Requirements are verified, not assumed
Training is completed, documented, and visible before work begins
Information is continuously maintained so decisions are based on current data

None of this replaces culture, but it reduces the degree to which safety outcomes depend on it.

Why language still matters

Calling something a “culture issue” can feel constructive, but it can also be imprecise. And in safety, imprecision has consequences.

When organizations shift their language, they begin to ask different questions: Not “How do we improve culture?” but “Where is our design allowing gaps?” Not “Why didn’t they follow the process?” but “Was the process clear, consistent, and enforced?”

That shift moves the conversation from intention to execution.

The takeaway for EHS and risk leaders

Safety culture still matters, but it is not, by itself, a control mechanism. It does not verify documentation. It does not enforce consistency. It does not ensure that decisions are based on current, reliable information.

Those outcomes depend on how the organization is designed to operate.

And in environments where multiple contractors, locations, and teams intersect, that design is what determines whether risk is controlled or introduced.

Final thought

Most organizations don’t have a culture problem - they have a visibility problem. They lack consistent, verified, centralized information about the contractors working on their sites.

Until that changes, “safety culture” will continue to carry more weight than it should, because it’s easier to talk about than the systems that actually drive outcomes.

Organizations that make the shift away from abstract language and toward deliberate design don’t just improve safety performance. They make it repeatable. And repeatability is what turns good intentions into reliable results.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY can provide the safety control system for your organization.

The Physics of Accidents: Why Small Errors Create Catastrophic Outcomes

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 12:08:58 GMT

A contractor skips a step.

Nothing happens. So the work continues.

Until something does happen and it’s serious.

This is how most incidents unfold. Not suddenly. Not dramatically. But gradually, through small gaps that go unnoticed until they combine into something larger.

For Safety Directors, Risk leaders, and Operations teams, this is where understanding workplace accidents physics becomes critical. Because incidents don’t escalate randomly - they follow predictable rules driven by energy, motion, and control.

Accidents Don’t Start Big - They Build

Every worksite operates with energy. Equipment moves. Loads are lifted. systems are pressurized. Electricity flows.

These forces are not the problem. They are necessary. The problem begins when control over those forces weakens.

A missing document delays verification. A contractor arrives without fully documented training. A certificate of insurance is outdated, but not caught in time.

Individually, these seem minor. Operational noise. But they remove safeguards. And once those safeguards are gone, energy behaves exactly as physics dictates without restraint.

This is the essence of the physics of accidents : energy is always present, and when controls fail, outcomes escalate.

OSHA standards are built around this principle. Requirements such as lockout/tagout procedures exist specifically to control hazardous energy before it causes harm

Why Small Errors Lead to Catastrophic Outcomes

Most incidents don’t begin with a major failure. They begin with something administrative: A missing training record. Incomplete safety documentation. Unverified contractor information.

These gaps don’t create immediate consequences. That’s why they’re easy to ignore. But over time, they compound.

Industry data consistently shows that inadequate training, poor documentation, and weak hazard commu-nication are among the most common contributors to workplace incidents

When those gaps align with uncontrolled energy, the result is no longer small. This is how small errors create catastrophic outcomes .

The Misconception About Human Error

After an incident, the explanation often centers on one idea: human error. But people make mistakes every day without consequence. What determines whether an error leads to an incident is the system around it.

If contractor requirements are clear, documentation is verified, and information is accessible, mistakes are caught early.

If not, those same mistakes interact with uncontrolled energy and that’s when escalation happens. This is why accident causation physics is not just about behavior. It’s about whether systems are strong enough to contain inevitable human error.

Where Risk Quietly Enters the System

In most organizations, risk doesn’t come from lack of effort. It comes from inconsistency: Contractor data is often managed across multiple systems. Documentation is stored in different places. Insurance tracking becomes reactive instead of structured. Over time, this creates variation.

One contractor is thoroughly reviewed. Another is rushed through onboarding. One COI is checked carefully. Another is accepted without full verification. These inconsistencies are where exposure builds.

For example, incomplete or incorrect insurance documentation such as expired policies or missing endorse-ments can lead to significant financial and legal consequences if an incident occurs. The issue isn’t policy. It’s execution.

Why Systems not Effort Prevent Incidents

Most safety teams are not lacking commitment. They’re managing complexity. Tracking contractor compli-ance manually takes time. Verifying documents takes time. Following up on missing information takes time. And when time is limited, decisions are made with partial visibility.

That’s where risk compounds. A structured approach changes this.

When contractor prequalification follows defined criteria, when safety documentation is centralized, and when insurance is reviewed consistently, variability is reduced. Instead of chasing information, teams can rely on it.

A centralized system allows organizations to gather, organize, and maintain contractor data in one place, improving visibility and supporting consistent compliance across teams and locations. And consistency is what keeps small issues from becoming serious incidents.

The FIRST, VERIFY Perspective

At FIRST, VERIFY , the focus is on bringing structure to contractor management processes that are often fragmented. Through a rules-based prequalification process, organizations can evaluate contractors against consistent requirements before work begins.

Through centralized compliance data, safety documentation, certificates of insurance, and business details are accessible in one place.

Through structured COI management, organizations can identify gaps in coverage and address them before they impact operations.

The result is not more data, but better clarity. And when teams have clear, consistent information, they are better equipped to make decisions that reduce risk.

What This Means for Your Safety Strategy

When incidents are viewed through the lens of workplace accidents physics , a clear pattern emerges. Risk builds when small gaps go unaddressed.

Incomplete documentation. Inconsistent verification. Limited visibility. Over time, these gaps weaken the controls that keep energy contained. And when those controls fail, outcomes escalate beyond the scale of the original mistake.

For organizations managing contractors across multiple sites, consistency is not just an operational improvement - it is a critical part of risk management.

Moving from Reaction to Control

Many safety programs are designed to respond to incidents. The more effective ones are designed to prevent escalation before work begins. That shift happens when contractor information is structured, verified, and con-sistently maintained. It allows teams to make decisions based on complete, accurate data - not assumptions.

At FIRST, VERIFY , the goal is to support that shift.

By standardizing contractor prequalification, centralizing compliance data, and improving visibility into COIs and training documentation, organizations can reduce variability across their contractor base. And when variability is reduced, so is risk.

Because in environments where energy is always present, control - not chance - determines the outcome.

Contact FIRST, VERIFY to learn more.

Aging Workforces and Rising Risk: What Demographics Mean for Workplace Safety

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 10:55:01 GMT

Workplace safety conversations usually center on equipment, procedures, or compliance. But there’s a quieter shift happening one that’s harder to measure and easier to overlook.

The workforce is aging.

Across industries where risk is already high, more experienced workers are staying on the job longer. That experience brings value. It also introduces a different kind of exposure one that doesn’t always show up in traditional safety metrics until it’s too late.

For safety and operations leaders, this isn’t just a demographic trend. It’s a change in how risk behaves.

The risk isn’t increasing - it’s changing

Most safety professionals already know that older workers tend to have fewer incidents overall. That part of the story hasn’t changed. What has changed is what happens when something does go wrong.

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently shows that workers over 55 are more likely to experience fatal injuries compared to younger groups. The issue isn’t frequency, it’s severity.

That distinction matters.

An incident that might result in a minor injury for a younger worker can become a serious, even life-threatening event for someone older. Recovery times are longer. Complications are more likely. Operational disruptions are harder to absorb.

At the same time, the most common OSHA-related risks haven’t gone away. Fall protection, machine guarding, lockout/tagout - these are still among the most cited violations year after year.

So now you have a workforce that is more experienced, working within the same risk environments, but with different physical realities. That combination changes the equation.

Experience doesn’t eliminate risk - it reshapes it

There’s a natural assumption that experience offsets risk. In many ways, it does.

Seasoned workers tend to recognize hazards faster. They understand processes. They’ve seen what can go wrong, and they often make better decisions because of it.

But experience doesn’t change reaction time. It doesn’t prevent fatigue. It doesn’t reduce the physical strain of repetitive tasks or demanding environments.

What we’re seeing more often is a subtle gap between awareness and response.

Someone may recognize a hazard immediately but may not be able to react quickly enough to avoid it. In high-risk environments, that delay can be the difference between a near miss and a serious injury.

That’s where the conversation around employee age and injury risk needs to evolve. It’s not about capability in a general sense. It’s about how capability interacts with specific hazards, in real-world conditions.

Where this becomes a bigger problem: contractor environments

This challenge becomes even more complex when contractors are involved, which in many organizations is where a large portion of high-risk work happens.

Most companies don’t have a clear view of contractor workforce demographics. More importantly, they often don’t have consistent visibility into the fundamentals that matter just as much:

Is training current?
- Are safety programs documented and up to date?
- Does insurance actually meet requirements?
- Has anything expired without being caught?

In theory, all of this should be easy to answer. In practice, it rarely is.

Many teams are still relying on spreadsheets, email threads, and self-reported information to manage contractor compliance. Industry research has repeatedly shown that these manual approaches create administrative burden, introduce inconsistencies, and limit visibility into risk.

That’s manageable when risk is stable. It’s far less manageable when the workforce itself is changing.

The compounding effect of incomplete information

An aging workforce on its own doesn’t create unsafe conditions. But when it’s paired with incomplete or unverified information, the margin for error narrows quickly.

If a contractor’s training documentation is outdated, that matters more.
- If a certificate of insurance has lapsed, the exposure is higher.
- If safety programs exist but haven’t been reviewed, the risk is harder to assess.

These aren’t new problems. What’s changed is how much they matter.

As injury severity increases, small gaps in documentation or verification can carry disproportionate consequences. That’s where many organizations find themselves still operating with systems designed for a different risk profile.

This is where structure starts to matter

Improving workplace safety for older workers isn’t about rewriting safety manuals or introducing entirely new programs. It’s about tightening the fundamentals, especially around contractor management.

What tends to make the biggest difference is consistency.

When contractor prequalification follows a structured, rules-based process, organizations are no longer relying on subjective or incomplete inputs. Contractors provide defined information business details, safety documentation, and supporting records; and that information is evaluated against clear, client-specific requirements. It’s a repeatable process, not a one-off review.

From there, centralizing that information becomes just as important. When safety documentation, insurance records, licenses, and certifications are stored in one place, teams can actually access what they need without chasing emails or reconciling different versions of the same file.

Insurance tracking is another area where small improvements have a big impact. When certificates of insurance are collected, reviewed against requirements, and monitored for expiration, teams aren’t left reacting to gaps after the fact.

Training plays a similar role. When contractors complete site-specific safety orientation before arriving onsite and that completion is documented it removes uncertainty at the point where risk is highest.

And finally, there’s validation. Reviewing documentation through structured remote audits looking at training records, enforcement practices, and written programs provides a clearer picture of how safety is actually being supported, not just how it’s described.

None of these steps are new individually. The difference is putting them together in a way that creates consistency.

Looking ahead, this doesn’t get simpler

The impact of aging workforce on safety isn’t going to level off anytime soon. If anything, it’s going to become more pronounced.

Over the next several years, organizations will need to think more deliberately about ergonomics, fatigue, and how physical capability intersects with specific job demands. At the same time, compliance expectations aren’t easing. Documentation, verification, and audit readiness will remain constant pressures.

What’s changing is how much those processes depend on having reliable information.

Because at a certain point, workplace safety stops being just a field issue. It becomes a data problem.

Final thought

The aging workforce isn’t introducing entirely new risks - it’s exposing the weaknesses in how existing risks are managed.

Organizations that continue to rely on fragmented systems and manual processes will find it harder to keep up, especially as injury severity becomes a more dominant factor.

Those that focus on structure on consistency, visibility, and verified information will be in a better position to adapt.

Not because the work is less dangerous, but because the decisions around it are more informed.

Take the next step

If your team is still piecing together contractor compliance through spreadsheets, emails, or disconnected systems, it may be time to take a closer look at how that process is holding up.

FIRST, VERIFY provides a structured, centralized approach to contractor prequalification, COI tracking, safety documentation, and training verification - helping teams make clearer decisions before work begins.

Request a demo to see how FIRST, VERIFY can support safer, more consistent operations as workforce demo-graphics continue to shift.

The Economics of Safety: Why Preventing One Accident Is Worth Millions

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:38:52 GMT

There’s a moment every safety leader dreads: the call that something has gone wrong. In seconds, the focus shifts from prevention to damage control.

For EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders, that moment is not just operational - it’s financial. A single serious incident can quietly cost millions through lost productivity, litigation, rising insurance premiums, and project delays.

This is the reality behind the economics of safety : what looks expensive upfront is often the most cost-effective decision your organization can make.

The Economics of Safety: Why the Numbers Tell a Different Story

Safety programs are often treated as cost centers. But data shows the opposite.

According to the National Safety Council (NSC) , the average cost of a medically consulted workplace injury is over $40,000 , while a fatality can exceed $1.3 million in direct costs alone, excluding indirect costs like productivity loss and reputational damage.

When indirect costs are included, studies show total costs can be 2 to 4 times higher than direct costs ( OSHA Safety Pays Program ).

This is where the financial impact of workplace accidents becomes undeniable and why the return on safety investments is often significantly underestimated.

The Hidden Costs of Accidents That Erode Profit

Most organizations only track visible costs. The real damage lies beneath the surface.

Productivity Loss and Operational Disruption

When an incident occurs, work doesn’t just pause - it slows across teams. Crews are reassigned, investigations begin, and morale drops.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that workplace injuries and illnesses result in nearly 4% of global GDP losses annually due to lost productivity and workdays.

This highlights the true scale of productivity loss due to accidents .

Insurance Premiums and EMR Impact

A higher EMR directly increases insurance premiums and reduces competitiveness in bids. Insurance carriers use incident history to price future risk, meaning one incident today can affect costs for years.

This is why insurance premiums and safety compliance are tightly linked in high-risk industries.

Project Delays and Contract Risk

In construction and industrial operations, even a short disruption can trigger:

Missed deadlines
Penalties
Increased labor costs

According to industry analyses, safety incidents are a leading contributor to project delays due to accidents , directly impacting profitability and client trust.

Litigation and Compliance Exposure

Incomplete or unverifiable documentation of training records, OSHA logs, or a certificate of insurance can significantly increase legal exposure.

OSHA penalties alone can reach $16,131 per violation (2024 OSHA penalty guidelines), making the cost of non-compliance in safety a major financial risk.

What’s Driving These Costs?

The issue isn’t lack of intent - it’s lack of visibility.

Across organizations, the same challenges persist:

Manual tracking of contractor compliance
Inconsistent prequalification processes
Outdated or unverified safety documentation
Fragmented systems for COIs, training, and audits

For Safety Directors, this creates uncertainty.
For Risk Officers, exposure.
For Procurement Leaders, blind spots.

Without verification, decisions are made on incomplete data amplifying risk.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Safety Measures: Prevention Wins

A clear cost-benefit analysis of safety measures shows a consistent pattern:

Organizations that invest in preventive safety systems see:

Lower incident rates
Reduced insurance costs
Fewer operational disruptions

According to the Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index , employers pay over $1 billion per week for serious workplace injuries in the U.S. - much of which is preventable.

This reinforces the economic benefits of accident prevention and the measurable return on safety investments .

How FIRST, VERIFY Strengthens Risk Management in Workplace Safety

Effective safety economics comes down to one principle: Verification eliminates uncertainty.

FIRST, VERIFY helps organizations move beyond manual processes by:

Verifying contractor safety data against established standards (EMR, OSHA records, training documen-tation)
Ensuring insurance coverage and compliance records are accurate and current
Standardizing contractor prequalification across projects
Providing clear visibility into contractor risk

This approach directly supports reducing workplace incidents financially by enabling better, faster decisions.

Improving the ROI of Preventive Safety Strategies

If you want to strengthen your preventive safety strategy's ROI , focus on these fundamentals:

Standardize contractor evaluation so every vendor meets consistent safety criteria.

Verify - not just collect - documentation to ensure compliance data is accurate and current.

Centralize safety visibility to identify risks before they escalate.

Align safety metrics with financial outcomes , including productivity and insurance costs.

These steps turn safety into a measurable business advantage - not just a compliance requirement.

Safety vs Cost Analysis: The Decision That Matters

Every organization faces the same choice:

Invest in prevention now
Or absorb significantly higher costs later

The data is clear: prevention consistently delivers stronger financial outcomes. The most expensive decision is not investing in safety - it’s delaying it.

The Bottom Line: Safety Is Financial Strategy

The occupational health and safety economics are no longer debatable. Accidents are not just safety failures - they are financial events with long-term consequences. Organizations that treat safety as a strategic investment, not a cost, gain:

Lower risk exposure
Stronger compliance
Better financial performance

Take the Next Step

If you’re leading EHS, Risk, or Operations, the question isn’t whether safety matters.

It’s whether your decisions are based on verified data or assumptions.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY helps you replace uncertainty with clarity so you can reduce risk, control costs, and unlock the full economic value of safety.

Because preventing one accident doesn’t just save lives - it protects millions.

Guest Blog: Stewardship - The Moral Core of Risk Leadership

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 21:52:31 GMT

Erica Montefusco , Senior VP, Risk & Compliance at PROtect tells us why risk management is ultimately an ethical responsibility

Risk leadership is often described in technical terms: compliance, controls, mitigation strategies, regulatory alignment, and performance metrics. These are essential components of the profession. However, beneath the operational framework lies something more fundamental. At its core, risk leadership is stewardship.

Stewardship is the disciplined management of responsibility that extends beyond immediate performance outcomes. It reflects an understanding that decisions made today influence people, communities, and organizations long after the meeting ends. In industrial environments, that responsibility is substantial.

Beyond Compliance

Compliance establishes the minimum standard of acceptable performance. It defines regulatory boundaries and legal expectations. For any responsible organization, meeting those requirements is non-negotiable. Stewardship, however, begins where compliance ends.

Compliance asks: Are we meeting the requirement? Stewardship asks: Are we operating in a way that genuinely protects people and communities?

The distinction matters. Organizations that treat compliance as a ceiling often find themselves reacting to incidents. Organizations that treat it as a foundation build systems designed to endure scrutiny, change, and pressure. Risk leadership that is grounded in stewardship does not focus solely on avoiding penalties. It focuses on preserving trust.

The Weight of Decision-Making

In senior risk roles, decisions are rarely theoretical. Approving a safety program, validating environmental controls, or certifying operational readiness carries implicit accountability.

Those approvals signal confidence in the systems that protect:

Employees working in dynamic environments
Communities located near industrial operations
Investors and clients who depend on operational stability
Teams whose livelihoods rely on organizational continuity

The moral dimension of risk leadership emerges in these moments. The question is not simply whether a control satisfies documentation standards, but whether it reflects honest diligence.

Under pressure, there is always an incentive to accelerate timelines or accept marginal controls. Stewardship requires restraint. It demands the discipline to pause, verify, and, when necessary, insist on higher standards. That discipline protects more than compliance metrics. It protects people.

Environmental Responsibility as Trust

Environmental risk management illustrates stewardship particularly clearly. Air emissions, water discharge, and waste handling are not abstract regulatory categories. They represent tangible impact. Communities extend trust to organizations that operate in their vicinity. That trust assumes thoughtful oversight, transparent reporting, and consistent monitoring.

When environmental programs are treated as administrative exercises, risk increases. When they are treated as operational priorities grounded in ethical responsibility, long-term credibility strengthens. Stewardship requires leaders to recognize that environmental decisions carry consequences that extend beyond corporate boundaries. Reputation is built on cumulative behavior. It can be weakened by a single preventable lapse.

Culture and Accountability

Stewardship is also reflected in organizational culture. In high-performing environments, leaders accept responsibility before assigning it. They encourage reporting rather than suppress it. They evaluate systemic factors rather than defaulting to individual blame.

This approach does not dilute accountability. It strengthens it by addressing root causes instead of surface symptoms. A culture grounded in stewardship reinforces psychological safety, operational transparency, and long-term resilience. It ensures that policies are not merely documented but lived.

Long-Term Thinking in a Short-Term Environment

Modern business environments reward speed and visible growth. However, unmanaged acceleration can introduce structural weakness. Stewardship requires leaders to think beyond quarterly performance. It emphasizes sustainable growth, scalable governance, and disciplined oversight. Strong risk programs are often invisible. They do not generate headlines because they prevent them. The value of stewardship is measured not only in what happens, but in what does not.

The Ethical Center of Leadership

As responsibilities increase, so does perspective. Risk leadership evolves from technical oversight into strategic guardianship. It becomes less about enforcing rules and more about preserving integrity.

This shift requires:

Intellectual honesty when evaluating controls
Courage to slow decisions when necessary
Transparency in reporting and communication
Consistent reinforcement of standards under pressure

Stewardship is not dramatic. It is steady. It is expressed in careful documentation, consistent supervision, disciplined environmental oversight, and principled escalation when risks emerge. Over time, this steadiness builds trust. Trust strengthens culture. Culture protects performance.

Conclusion

Risk leadership is often viewed through operational metrics, but its foundation is moral clarity. The responsibility entrusted to risk leaders extends beyond regulatory alignment. It encompasses the safety of employees, the well-being of communities, and the stability of organizations. Compliance is required. Performance is expected. Stewardship is chosen. And in complex, high-risk environments, that choice defines the character of leadership.

Why Humans Underestimate Risk: The Psychology Behind Workplace Accidents

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 10:28:29 GMT

When workplace accidents occur, investigations often focus on equipment failures, procedural violations, or environmental hazards . Those factors certainly matter. But beneath many incidents lies a less visible driver: the way human beings perceive and judge risk.

Decades of research in psychology and safety science show that people are not naturally good at evaluating danger. The human brain relies on mental shortcuts known as cognitive biases that help us make quick decisions in complex environments. These shortcuts are useful in everyday life, but in industrial settings they can quietly distort risk perception.

One of the most influential concepts explaining this phenomenon is normalization of deviance , a term introduced by sociologist Diane Vaughan in her landmark study The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (1996). Vaughan examined how NASA engineers and managers gradually came to accept warning signs in the space shuttle’s O-ring seals. Each time a launch occurred without catastrophic failure, the anomaly appeared less alarming. Over time, the abnormal condition became treated as acceptable. What began as a warning signal slowly transformed into routine operating practice.

This process where deviations from safety rules gradually become normalized because nothing bad happens immediately has since been observed across many industries, including aviation, healthcare, and chemical processing. It illustrates a critical truth about safety: risk does not always reveal itself immediately , and when negative outcomes are delayed, organizations often adapt to the risk rather than eliminating it.

Another well-documented bias that influences workplace safety is optimism bias . Psychologists have found that people consistently believe they are less likely than others to experience negative events. In the context of workplace safety, this means individuals may acknowledge that accidents occur, but subconsciously assume they personally are unlikely to be involved.

Research examining construction workers has shown that optimism bias can directly influence risk-taking behavior. In a 2022 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, researchers found that workers who believed accidents were unlikely to affect them personally were significantly more likely to accept hazardous conditions or bypass protective measures. In other words, the perception of low personal risk - not just the actual hazard - shaped decision-making on the job.

A related phenomenon is risk habituation . The first time someone works near high-voltage equipment, heavy machinery, or elevated structures, their awareness of danger is intense. But repeated exposure without incident can gradually dull that sense of caution. Psychologists describe this as desensitization: the brain adjusts to familiar conditions and begins to treat them as normal, even when the underlying hazard remains unchanged.

In practice, this means the most experienced workers are not necessarily immune to risk blindness. In fact, familiarity can sometimes create its own hazards. What once triggered careful attention may eventually feel routine.

These tendencies are not signs of carelessness or poor judgment. They are simply part of how the human brain processes information. Evolution equipped us to make quick decisions in uncertain environments, not to calculate statistical probabilities of injury or system failure.

For this reason, modern safety science increasingly emphasizes system design rather than relying solely on individual vigilance. Researchers in the field of human factors engineering along with scholars such as James Reason, Karl Weick, and Sidney Dekker have shown that effective safety systems build multiple layers of protection to compensate for predictable human limitations.

These layers may include structured procedures, physical safeguards, independent verification processes, documentation requirements, and organizational checks that prevent single decisions from creating catastrophic outcomes. Each layer reduces the influence of momentary judgment and helps prevent small errors from cascading into major incidents.

This is particularly important when organizations rely on contractors and third-party vendors , where the hiring company does not directly control the day-to-day safety practices of the workers performing the job. In these situations, risk is introduced at the point where information about a contractor’s safety programs, training, insurance coverage, and operating practices must be evaluated before work begins .

Because human judgment alone can be unreliable, organizations increasingly rely on structured verification systems to ensure that critical safety information is reviewed consistently and objectively. This is where platforms such as FIRST, VERIFY play an important role.

FIRST, VERIFY helps hiring clients manage contractor risk by structuring how safety and compliance infor-mation is collected, verified, and evaluated before contractors begin work. Rather than relying on informal reviews or incomplete documentation, the platform organizes contractor data into standardized question-naires, supporting documentation, and review workflows that help safety teams confirm that required programs, training, and insurance coverage are in place.

In effect, the system acts as an additional layer of organizational defense, reducing the likelihood that important risk indicators are overlooked because of time pressure, incomplete information, or simple human oversight. By making contractor qualification a structured and repeatable process, organizations can ensure that safety expectations are applied consistently across projects and over time.

Understanding the psychology of risk does not eliminate hazards. But it does change how organizations approach safety.

When leaders recognize that humans naturally underestimate risk, the goal shifts from simply urging workers to “be careful,” toward designing systems that anticipate human behavior. The result is a more resilient approach to safety; one that acknowledges the realities of human decision-making and builds safeguards accordingly.

In complex industrial environments, accidents rarely occur because people intend to take risks. More often, they occur because the human mind quietly adapts to danger over time. Recognizing that tendency and building systems that compensate for it is one of the most important steps organizations can take in creating workplaces that remain safe not just in theory, but in everyday practice.

Contact FIRST, VERIFY to learn how a well-designed contractor prequalification program can be an essential part of your safety system design.

Guest Blog: Resilience and Leadership Under Pressure

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 19:16:24 GMT

Erica Montefusco , Senior VP, Risk & Compliance at PROtect tells us why composure is one of the most underestimated risk controls

There is a version of leadership that looks strong: Decisive. Authoritative. Confident. Unshaken.

And then there is the version of leadership that is actually strong: Calm. Measured. Intentional. Grounded under pressure.

The difference only reveals itself in difficult moments. Curiosity enables leaders to identify emerging risks. Resilience determines how they respond when those risks materialize.

Pressure Is the Real Leadership Test

Industrial and operational environments are inherently dynamic. In industrial environments, pressure is inevitable. Production deadlines tighten. Weather shifts unexpectedly. Incidents occur. Regulators call. Clients demand answers. In those moments, policies matter. Procedures matter. Training matters. Leadership behavior becomes as consequential as policy design.

But something else matters just as much: Tone.

When pressure rises, people do not default to the manual. They calibrate to leadership. If the leader escalates, the room escalates. If the leader steadies, the room steadies. The tone established by senior leaders influences how information is shared, how accountability is approached, and how effectively teams navigate uncertainty. Escalation can either compound disruption or contain it. Composure is not personality. It is a decision. And it is one of the most powerful risk controls we have.

Sustained resilience preserves the conditions necessary for effective risk management. It protects decision quality, maintains organizational trust, and ensures that even under scrutiny, the organization responds with stability rather than volatility.

In high-consequence industries, that stability is not simply a leadership trait — it is a strategic asset. Curiosity helps us identify risk. Resilience shapes how we respond when that risk becomes real.

Anyone who has worked in industrial or operational environments knows that pressure is not hypothetical. Deadlines compress. Expectations escalate. Incidents require immediate clarity. External scrutiny can intensify without warning. In those moments, policies and procedures matter — but so does something less tangible.

Leadership tone matters.

Over time, I have come to understand resilience not as toughness, but as intentional calm. It is the ability to pause when acceleration feels easier. It is choosing clarity over reaction. It is protecting the quality of a decision, even when timelines feel compressed.

Resilience Is Not Loud

Resilience is often misunderstood as toughness. In my experience, resilience is quieter than that. It is the ability to absorb impact without amplifying it. To process urgency without transmitting panic. To hold responsibility without deflecting it. Resilience does not mean indifference. In fact, it often requires absorbing more than you show. It means holding responsibility without transmitting panic. It means reinforcing accountability without creating fear.

There have been moments in my career when decisions had weight.

When incidents required difficult conversations. When leadership alignment was not immediate. When the right path was clear but not easy. Resilience is not the absence of doubt. It is the ability to move forward thoughtfully despite it.

Resilience in risk leadership is therefore not emotional detachment, nor is it rigid confidence. It is disciplined composure. It allows leaders to slow decision-making when urgency threatens clarity, to distinguish between material risk and momentary noise, and to reinforce accountability without creating defensiveness or fear.

The Invisible Weight of Responsibility

Risk leadership carries a particular kind of weight. When you approve a program, sign off on a system, or certify readiness — you are implicitly saying: “I believe this protects our people.”

That should never feel casual.

Under pressure, the temptation is to accelerate. To compress review cycles. To assume stability. But experience teaches something different; the cost of rushing risk decisions compounds quietly. Strong leadership sometimes means slowing down when everyone else wants to speed up. That is not obstruction. That is stewardship.

Crisis Reveals Culture

Difficult moments reveal culture more clearly than routine ones. When pressure rises, do people continue to speak openly? Do teams stay focused on understanding what happened, or do they shift toward protecting perception? The answers to those questions tell you whether resilience is embedded in the organization — or merely assumed.

You can learn more about an organization in a single difficult week than in a year of routine operations.

When something goes wrong, watch:

Do people look for blame? Or do they look for understanding?

Do leaders protect reputation first? Or protect people first?

Do teams communicate openly? Or retreat into defensiveness?

Resilience is not built during crisis. It is revealed. The culture you shape on ordinary days determines how your organization behaves under extraordinary ones. Organizations reveal their cultural maturity during periods of stress. In resilient environments, reporting remains transparent, analysis remains objective, and improvement efforts focus on systems rather than blame. In fragile environments, pressure suppresses reporting and shifts attention toward reputational protection rather than operational correction.

In my experience, resilience is built long before crisis arrives. It develops through experience, through reflection, and through learning when to slow down rather than speed up. It is strengthened every time a leader chooses steadiness over escalation.

In high-risk environments, that steadiness is not just a leadership trait. It is a protective force. It safeguards decision quality, preserves trust, and creates the conditions where honest conversations can continue — even under pressure.

And often, that makes all the difference.

Personal Evolution Under Pressure

Early in my career, I believed strength meant always having the answer. Now I understand that strength often means holding space long enough to ask better questions. “What are we missing?” “What assumptions are we making?” “What would this look like if it went wrong?”

Pressure can narrow perspective. Resilient leadership expands it. Over time, I have learned that steadiness is not automatic. It is built through experience. Through adversity. Through moments that test your confidence. Resilience is not inherited. It is earned.

The Discipline of Staying Calm

Remaining calm under pressure does not mean you are unaffected. It means you are intentional. Intentional about your words. Intentional about your pace. Intentional about your influence. In high-risk environments, emotional regulation is not a soft skill. It is operational infrastructure. It protects decision quality. It protects team cohesion. It protects escalation pathways. Calm leadership does not remove risk. It reduces secondary damage.

Why This Matters More Now

We are operating in an era of accelerated visibility. Data moves faster. Public scrutiny is sharper. Regulatory expectations evolve quickly. Pressure will not decrease. The leaders who endure will not be the loudest. They will be the most grounded. Resilience in leadership is not about dominance. It is about stability. And stability, in high-risk environments, is strength.

Closing Reflection

There is a difference between reacting and responding. Reaction is emotional. Response is intentional. Under pressure, that distinction determines outcome. Resilience is not something we list on a résumé. It is something people feel when they stand in a room with you during a difficult moment. And in risk leadership, that feeling can make all the difference.

Strengthening Multi-Site Safety Programs: The Role of Consistent Contractor Verification Across Locations

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 12:02:38 GMT

When safety standards vary by location, risk multiplies

Walk into two facilities owned by the same organization and you may find two completely different approa-ches to contractor management.

One site carefully reviews contractor safety documentation and verifies certificates of insurance.
- Another relies on email attachments and spreadsheets.
- A third may not verify contractor information until a problem occurs.

For Safety Directors, Risk Managers, and Operations leaders responsible for multi-site safety programs , this inconsistency creates a serious problem.

- Contractors move between locations.
- Work scopes change.
- Safety expectations vary.

And suddenly the organization no longer has a unified standard.

Without consistent contractor verification across locations , organizations lose visibility into contractor com-pliance, safety documentation, and insurance coverage.

That lack of alignment can create administrative burdens, compliance gaps, and increased operational risk.

This article explains why organizations with multiple facilities struggle to maintain consistent contractor over-sight and how a contractor verification platform helps unify safety and compliance standards across every location.

The Hidden Challenge in Multi-Site Safety Programs

Managing contractor safety at a single facility is already complex.

Now multiply that challenge across five, ten, or fifty locations. Each facility may have:

Different contractor onboarding processes
Different insurance tracking methods
Different safety documentation requirements
Different administrative teams managing contractors

The result? A fragmented contractor management process.

Instead of one coordinated safety program, organizations end up with dozens of independent systems.

This fragmentation creates several operational risks:

1. Inconsistent Contractor Prequalification Standards

Some locations perform detailed contractor reviews. Others rely on minimal documentation.

Without centralized contractor prequalification , organizations cannot ensure that every contractor meets the same safety and compliance expectations.

2. Limited Visibility Into Contractor Compliance

When contractor data is stored in spreadsheets, emails, or local folders, corporate safety teams cannot easily view contractor compliance across all sites.

This makes it difficult to answer critical questions such as:

Which contractors are currently prequalified?
Which contractor documents are missing or outdated?
Which contractors are approved to work at multiple locations?

3. Insurance Documentation Gaps

Insurance compliance is one of the most common challenges in contractor management. Organizations often struggle to track certificates of insurance (COIs) across multiple facilities. Manual processes frequently lead to:

Expired insurance documents
Incorrect coverage information
Missing endorsements

These gaps can expose organizations to financial and legal liability.

4. Administrative Burden on Local Teams

When contractor documentation is collected manually, local safety teams spend significant time managing paperwork instead of focusing on safety oversight. Tasks like:

Requesting insurance updates
Tracking documentation expiration
Reviewing contractor safety information

quickly consume valuable operational resources.

Why Contractor Verification Across Locations Requires Centralization

The solution is not simply adding more administrative oversight. The real solution is standardization .

Organizations with successful multi-site safety programs establish a single system for managing contractor compliance across every facility.

This approach ensures that:

Contractor safety documentation is collected in a consistent format
Insurance information is stored and reviewed in one system
Compliance standards remain consistent across locations

A centralized contractor verification platform creates this alignment by serving as a single system of record for contractor information.

How a Contractor Verification Platform Supports Multi-Site Safety Programs

A structured contractor management system helps organizations bring consistency to contractor compli-ance across locations.

Key capabilities include centralized prequalification, structured document collection, and standardized contractor records.

Centralized Contractor Prequalification

Contractor prequalification establishes a baseline standard for contractor safety and compliance.

Through structured questionnaires and documentation requirements, organizations can collect key infor-mation from contractors, including:

Business information
Insurance documentation
Safety program information
Supporting compliance documentation

This information is reviewed before contractors are approved to work. Prequalification ensures that contractors meet established safety and compliance requirements before entering a worksite.

The prequalification process typically follows a defined lifecycle:

Contractors are invited to complete the prequalification questionnaire.
Contractors submit required documentation and supporting materials.
Submissions are reviewed for completeness and accuracy.
Contractors receive a status indicating whether they are approved.

This structured approach helps organizations maintain consistent contractor standards across multiple locations.

Organized Contractor Compliance Documentation

A centralized platform provides a single location for storing contractor compliance information.

Instead of searching across email chains and spreadsheets, safety teams can access:

Contractor safety documentation
Insurance records
supporting compliance documents

This centralized documentation improves transparency and allows safety leaders to quickly confirm contractor compliance status.

Structured COI Tracking

Tracking COIs is one of the most time-consuming aspects of contractor compliance management.

A centralized contractor compliance system allows organizations to collect and organize insurance documen-tation as part of the contractor prequalification process.

This structured approach helps ensure that insurance records are maintained in a consistent and accessible format across all facilities.

Consistent Standards Across All Locations

Perhaps the most important benefit of centralized contractor verification is consistency.

When every facility uses the same contractor management system:

Safety expectations remain consistent
Compliance requirements are standardized
Documentation requirements are uniform

This alignment strengthens the overall integrity of the organization’s contractor safety compliance program.

Strengthening Contractor Risk Management Across Facilities

Organizations managing contractors across multiple locations face a common question:

How can we maintain the same safety and compliance standards everywhere? A centralized contractor verification platform provides the answer.

By standardizing contractor onboarding, organizing compliance documentation, and maintaining consistent contractor records, organizations can strengthen contractor risk management across their entire facility network.

Instead of relying on fragmented systems and manual processes, safety leaders gain a structured, scalable approach to contractor compliance management.

A Unified Approach to Contractor Compliance Management

Multi-site organizations cannot rely on inconsistent contractor management processes.

Without standardized verification procedures, contractor compliance gaps become almost inevitable.

A centralized contractor verification approach enables organizations to:

Maintain consistent contractor standards across locations
Organize contractor compliance documentation
Support stronger contractor safety compliance programs
Reduce administrative complexity for safety teams

This unified approach strengthens the effectiveness of multi-site safety programs and provides greater visibility into contractor compliance across the enterprise.

Final Thoughts

Managing contractor safety across multiple facilities requires more than good intentions. It requires structure.

When contractor verification is centralized, safety leaders gain a clear and consistent framework for evaluating contractor compliance across all locations.

This approach supports stronger contractor compliance management , improved documentation oversight, and more consistent contractor standards.

For organizations operating across multiple sites, consistency is not just a process improvement.

It is a safety strategy.

Strengthen Contractor Verification Across Your Locations

Managing contractor compliance across multiple facilities does not have to be fragmented.

FIRST, VERIFY provides a centralized contractor verification platform designed to support consistent contractor prequalification, organized documentation management, and structured contractor compliance oversight.

If your organization is looking to improve visibility, consistency, and efficiency across multi-site contractor programs, FIRST, VERIFY can help.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY can support your contractor compliance strategy across every location.

Guest Blog: The Risk Leader as Explorer: What Industrial Safety, Anthropology, and Resilience Have in Common

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 19:16:14 GMT

EDITOR'S NOTE: Our friend Erica Montefusco , Senior VP, Risk & Compliance at PROtect, wrote the following post on LinkedIn. We liked it so much we asked if we could republish it as a guest blog. This is the first of four com-panion pieces on resilience and leadership, which will appear in future guest blogs.

_______________

There is a misconception that industrial risk leadership is rigid. Regulations. Standards. Checklists. Audits. Metrics. On the surface, it can look procedural. But the longer I’ve worked in risk, safety, and compliance, the more I’ve realized something unexpected:

This career is not about rigidity.

It’s about exploration.

Curiosity Is a Risk Control

Before I worked in industrial environments, I was fascinated by anthropology, archaeology, and scientific dis-covery. Why civilizations rise. Why they collapse. How systems evolve. How small environmental or cultural shifts compound over time. That lens never left me.

In industrial risk, the same principles apply. Organizations don’t experience catastrophic failure without signals. Drift occurs gradually. Norms shift quietly. Pressure normalizes shortcuts. If you’re not curious, you miss it. Curiosity is not abstract in this profession. It’s protective.

Asking:

Why is this procedure written this way?
Why are near-miss reports declining?
Why does this site feel different than others?
Why did supervision behavior change under schedule pressure?

Risk leadership requires scientific thinking - observation, hypothesis, pattern recognition. It is less about enforcement. More about investigation.

Cultural Understanding Shapes Safety Culture

Traveling the world, experiencing different countries, belief systems, and social norms, it reshaped how I view organizational culture. Every culture, whether national or corporate, has invisible rules. What is spoken openly. What is avoided. Who challenges authority. Who doesn’t.

Safety culture operates the same way. You cannot implement risk controls without understanding cultural dynamics. If speaking up is culturally discouraged, Stop Work Authority will fail. If production pressure is celebrated as heroism, incidents will rise. If environmental stewardship is treated as compliance instead of responsibility, corners will eventually be cut. Leadership requires cultural literacy. And cultural literacy begins with humility.

Exploration Builds Resilience

Exploration, whether physical or intellectual, builds resilience. When you’ve navigated unfamiliar terrain, when you’ve faced environments outside your comfort zone, when you’ve experienced adversity and uncertainty… you learn something essential:

Calm is a choice.

In industrial risk leadership, calm is not optional. Emergencies happen. Incidents occur. Regulators ask hard questions. Executives look to you for clarity. Your tone becomes the baseline for everyone else. Resilience is not bravado. It’s steadiness under pressure. That steadiness is built long before crisis arrives. It is built through challenge.

Scientific Curiosity and Regulatory Discipline

Risk work is often viewed as regulatory. But at its core, it is scientific. Observe. Measure. Analyze. Adjust.

Environmental compliance demands precision. Safety programs demand behavioral understanding. Risk mitigation demands systems thinking. The most effective leaders in this space are not just rule-followers. They are investigators.

They want to understand: What is really happening? What patterns are emerging? What assumptions are we making? Where is drift occurring?

Exploration and science share a common foundation: Intellectual honesty. If something isn’t working, you change it. If evidence contradicts belief, you adapt. That mindset has shaped how I lead.

The Connection Between Stewardship and Leadership

The longer I work in this field, the more I see risk leadership as stewardship. We are entrusted with: People’s safety. Community trust. Environmental integrity. Corporate reputation. Financial stability.

That is not a small responsibility.

Travel has taught me how interconnected systems are. Environmental work reinforces that daily. Air doesn’t stop at property lines. Water doesn’t respect ownership boundaries. Reputation doesn’t isolate itself to a single event.

Leadership requires long-term thinking. Exploration teaches you to look beyond the immediate horizon.

Why This Matters Now

We are entering a period of increased transparency. AI-driven analytics. Real-time environmental monitoring. Data visibility at unprecedented levels. The future risk leader must be more than compliant. They must be: Curious. Culturally aware. Scientifically grounded. Emotionally steady. Ethically anchored.

Industrial leadership and exploration are not opposites. They are parallel disciplines. Both require courage. Both require humility. Both require adaptability. Both require respect for forces larger than yourself. And both demand resilience.

Closing Reflection

If there is one thing my professional career and personal philosophy share, it is this: Never accept the surface. Look deeper. Ask harder questions. Challenge assumptions. Stay steady under pressure. Protect what matters. Risk leadership, like exploration, is not about control. It is about understanding. And understanding is what ultimately keeps people safe.

Reducing Administrative Burden Without Reducing Safety: How Centralized Contractor Data Supports Lean Teams

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 11:40:23 GMT

When “Doing More with Less” Starts to Threaten Safety

Safety leaders are not short on responsibility. They are short on time.

EHS, Risk, and Procurement teams across construction, manufacturing, and utilities are being asked to manage growing contractor populations with leaner internal staff. The result? Spreadsheets multiply. Email chains expand. Certificates expire unnoticed. And highly trained professionals spend more time chasing paperwork than strengthening safety performance.

The real concern is not administrative frustration. It’s risk.

When documentation becomes fragmented and contractor onboarding is inconsistent, the exposure is operational, financial, and legal. This is where a structured contractor prequalification platform becomes essential - not as a luxury, but as a risk control.

This article explains how centralized contractor data, uniform templates, and automated reminders reduce administrative burden without reducing safety standards and how FIRST, VERIFY supports lean teams with scalable contractor compliance management.

The Hidden Cost of Manual Contractor Compliance Management

Most contractor risk management programs did not fail overnight. They evolved slowly, adding layers of manual processes to handle increasing regulatory and operational demands.

What’s Causing the Administrative Strain?

Common breakdown points include:

Manual tracking of certificates of insurance (COIs)
Inconsistent prequalification requirements across business units
Email-based contractor on boarding
Self-reported questionnaires without document review
Decentralized storage of safety programs and training documentation
Annual renewals tracked in spreadsheets

When OSHA standards such as 29 CFR 1910 (General Industry), 1926 (Construction), or 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout) are involved, documentation is not optional. Safety statistics, EMR history, training records, and policy enforcement procedures must be collected and organized.

Without centralized contractor documentation management, teams are forced into reactive mode.

The Operational Impact on EHS and Procurement Leaders

For Safety Directors and Risk Officers, administrative overload creates three serious challenges:

1. Time Diverted from Higher-Value Safety Work

Instead of conducting field observations or strengthening site-specific safety protocols, teams are managing expired COIs and incomplete submissions.

2. Inconsistent Contractor On boarding

When onboarding processes vary by location or department, contractor risk management becomes uneven. This inconsistency increases legal exposure under negligent hiring claims.

3. Delayed Projects

Missing documentation can delay site access. Expired insurance or incomplete prequalification slows opera-tions and frustrates project managers.

Lean teams cannot afford inefficiency in their contractor compliance software. They need structure.

How a Contractor Prequalification Platform Reduces Administrative Burden

A structured contractor prequalification system centralizes compliance workflows into one consistent process. Instead of relying on disconnected tools, everything from questionnaires to documentation uploads to status tracking is managed within a unified framework.

At FIRST, VERIFY, the platform was designed specifically to create operational consistency while supporting rigorous contractor compliance management.

Here’s how.

1. Centralized Contractor Data Creates Organizational Clarity

When contractor information is housed in a single system:

Prequalification statuses are clearly defined ( Pending, Processing, Prequalified, Exception, Probation )
Supporting documents, including insurance and safety programs, are stored within each contractor’s record
Admin and client users have defined access roles

This eliminates version confusion, duplicate storage, and scattered compliance files.

For lean EHS teams, centralized contractor data means immediate visibility into:

Who is prequalified
Who is in exception status
Which contractors require renewal
Which documentation is incomplete

Administrative energy shifts from searching to decision-making.

2. Uniform Templates Standardize the Contractor Onboarding Process

One of the largest administrative drains is inconsistency.

Different locations often require different forms. Different managers request different documents. Contractors receive conflicting instructions.

Within FIRST, VERIFY, customizable templates define the relationship between client and contractor. These templates:

Organize requirements into structured sections
Allow risk-based differentiation (e.g., safety-intensive vs. low-risk templates)
Lock requirements so contractors complete only what is assigned

This structured contractor onboarding process:

Reduces back-and-forth communication
Eliminates unclear expectations
Ensures consistency across business units

Lean teams benefit from predictability. Contractors benefit from clarity.

3. Automated Reminders Reduce Manual Follow-Up

Manual reminder systems are unreliable and time-consuming.

Within the platform:

Contractors receive email invitations and instructions
Automated reminders prompt vendors to complete questionnaires or update expiring documents

This automated communication significantly reduces the burden on internal staff.

Instead of chasing renewals or expired COIs, the system prompts action. Administrative workload decreases without weakening enforcement.

4. Certificate of Insurance Tracking Without Spreadsheet Risk

Insurance tracking remains one of the most time-intensive aspects of contractor compliance management.

The platform supports:

Upload and storage of insurance documentation
Status tracking tied to prequalification validity periods

Because prequalification validity is one year and requires renewal, documentation stays current within a defined lifecycle.

This structured certificates of insurance tracking approach:

Reduces missed renewals
Minimizes uninsured contractor exposure
Creates audit-ready documentation

Lean teams cannot afford expired coverage gaps. Centralized tracking provides control.

5. Remote Contractor Audits Support Risk-Based Oversight

Administrative burden often prevents deeper program review.

The Remote Audit Program allows evaluation of:

Safety training documentation
Evidence of comprehension
Ongoing observation
Enforcement practices

Rather than reviewing every program in full, the audit focuses on high-risk categories, similar to financial audit methodology .

This supports scalable remote contractor audits without overwhelming internal teams.

Importantly, this documentation-focused approach keeps costs manageable while strengthening contractor risk management.

Practical Steps to Reduce Administrative Burden Without Compromising Safety

Lean teams can implement a structured approach immediately:

Step 1: Map Current Documentation Workflows

Identify how COIs, safety programs, and training records are currently collected and stored.

Step 2: Standardize Prequalification Requirements

Create uniform templates based on risk categories.

Step 3: Centralize Contractor Documentation Management

Eliminate disconnected spreadsheets and email archives.

Step 4: Automate Renewal Reminders

Remove manual follow-up tracking.

Step 5: Apply Risk-Based Remote Audits

Focus audit resources where exposure is highest.

This framework supports both operational efficiency and contractor compliance software optimization.

Administrative Efficiency Is a Safety Strategy

Reducing administrative burden is not about cutting corners. It is about reallocating professional expertise.

When EHS and Risk leaders spend less time tracking paperwork, they gain time for:

Site-specific safety planning
Contractor coaching and engagement
Review of OSHA compliance programs
Continuous improvement initiatives

A structured contractor prequalification platform allows lean teams to maintain high standards without expanding headcount.

At FIRST, VERIFY, the goal is simple: provide centralized, uniform, and scalable contractor compliance manage-ment so safety professionals can focus on what matters most - protecting people and operations.

Ready to Strengthen Contractor Risk Management Without Expanding Your Team?

If your organization is still relying on spreadsheets, fragmented files, or inconsistent on boarding processes, it may be time to centralize.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY supports centralized contractor data, contractor documentation management, remote contractor audits, and structured contractor onboarding without increasing administrative strain.

Contact us to request a demonstration and see how a purpose-built contractor prequalification system can support your lean team.

Contractor Training Verification: Why Documentation Matters More Than Training Format - Part 2

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:51:53 GMT

A contractor arrives at your facility ready to begin work.

They assure you their team completed safety training. The supervisor confirms it. The paperwork is “some-where.” The project is on schedule.

Then an incident happens.

In that moment, the only question that matters is this:

Can you prove the training was completed, understood, and properly documented?

For Safety Directors, Risk & Compliance Officers, and Operations leaders, contractor training verification is not about whether instruction was delivered online or in person. It is about documentation discipline. It is about having defensible, retrievable proof of contractor training completion that protects your organization during audits, investigations, or litigation.

This article explains why verified contractor training records matter more than format, how documentation gaps create liability exposure, and how FIRST, VERIFY ensures contractors arrive onsite with required training completed and documented.

The Real Exposure: Training Without Proof

Most organizations require contractors to complete safety orientation. Many conduct strong, site-specific training programs.

The breakdown rarely occurs in the classroom.

It happens in recordkeeping.

Common failure points include:

Manual spreadsheets tracking contractor onboarding documentation requirements
Training certificates stored in email chains
Inconsistent contractor compliance record management across business units
No centralized access to verified contractor training records
No structured contractor training verification process

When documentation is fragmented, organizations face risk in multiple directions:

Inability to demonstrate compliance with OSHA training documentation requirements
Delays in confirming whether contractors are cleared to work
Exposure to negligent hiring allegations
Difficulty producing contractor training completion certificates during audits
Weak contractor liability risk management controls

In high-hazard industries, documentation gaps are not administrative inconveniences. They are operational risks.

OSHA Training Documentation Requirements: What Regulators Expect

OSHA standards consistently require employers to provide training and in many cases, to document it.

Examples include:

Hazard communication (29 CFR 1910.1200)
Lockout/Tagout (29 CFR 1910.147)
Fall protection (29 CFR 1926.501)
Respiratory protection (29 CFR 1910.134)

While host employers and contractors have defined responsibilities, the practical reality is this: if a contractor is injured onsite, your organization must demonstrate that required safety protocols were verified.

That means documented safety program compliance must be retrievable, organized, and defensible.

Training format does not satisfy that requirement. Documentation does.

Training Format vs. Training Verification

Online training can be effective.

In-person training can be effective.

From a risk management standpoint, neither format inherently reduces liability unless it produces:

Proof of contractor training completion
Evidence of comprehension (quiz results or acknowledgment)
Archived contractor training completion certificates
Accessible, centralized safety training recordkeeping for contractors

Without these elements, contractor safety compliance verification is incomplete.

The strongest contractor training verification programs are structured around documentation standards, not delivery preferences.

The Legal Dimension: Negligent Hiring Prevention Documentation

When serious incidents occur, investigators and legal counsel often ask:

Did the organization verify contractor qualifications?
Was required training documented?
Were contractor onboarding documentation requirements enforced consistently?

If the answer relies on verbal confirmation or informal attestations, exposure increases.

Negligent hiring prevention documentation requires:

Defined onboarding standards
Verified contractor training records
Archived completion certificates
A consistent contractor training verification process

Courts and regulators look for documentation discipline not intent.

The Administrative Burden of Manual Recordkeeping

Many Safety and Risk teams operate with strong policies but limited infrastructure.

Manual safety training recordkeeping for contractors creates:

Inconsistent enforcement across facilities
Expired training going unnoticed
Delays in contractor onboarding
Audit anxiety
Increased administrative workload

Procurement may not know whether a contractor has completed orientation.

Security may not know whether an employee is cleared to enter.

EHS may not be able to retrieve documentation immediately.

The issue is rarely commitment to safety. It is lack of centralized contractor compliance record management.

What an Effective Contractor Training Verification Process Looks Like

A defensible contractor training verification process includes:

1. Defined Requirements

Establish clear onboarding documentation requirements tied to scope of work and risk level.

2. Standardized Delivery

Ensure consistent safety orientation across contractors and locations.

3. Comprehension Confirmation

Use quizzes or formal acknowledgments to confirm understanding.

4. Automated Documentation

Generate contractor training completion certificates upon successful completion.

5. Centralized Storage

Maintain verified contractor training records in a searchable system.

6. Renewal Tracking

Automatically notify contractors when training is due for renewal. When these steps are structured, contractor safety compliance verification becomes predictable and scalable.

How FIRST, VERIFY Supports Contractor Training Verification

FIRST, VERIFY’s Online Safety Orientation module was designed specifically to eliminate documentation gaps during contractor onboarding.

According to the confirmed FIRST, VERIFY services documentation, the system enables organizations to:

Host safety orientation videos (yours, or...)
Produce videos from your Power Point slide decks
Include quizzes (failed questions are displayed for review)
Enable electronic acknowledgment of corporate policies
Generate completion certificates for download and printing
Display employee pass/fail results within each contractor’s account
Run aggregate reports by contractor, employee, course, and date
Automatically email renewal reminders
Provide Spanish or other language translation
Use professional voiceover

These capabilities ensure that contractors arrive onsite with required training completed and documented - not assumed.

Importantly, FIRST, VERIFY focuses on documentation and verification. The system centralizes training records and ties them directly to contractor prequalification status, strengthening contractor compliance record management across the organization.

Documentation as a Risk Control

Training improves knowledge.

Verification protects the enterprise.

When contractor training verification is standardized:

Proof of contractor training completion is immediately accessible
Contractor onboarding documentation requirements are enforced consistently
OSHA training documentation requirements are easier to satisfy
Contractor liability risk management is strengthened
Audit readiness improves

The shift is operational. Instead of asking, “Did they complete training?,” you can state, “Here is the documented record.”

Integrating Training into Broader Contractor Compliance

Contractor training verification should not operate in isolation. It should integrate with:

Prequalification processes
Contractor evaluation records
Formal agreement acknowledgment
Remote audit documentation review
Certificates of insurance tracking

When training documentation is part of a centralized contractor compliance record management system, organizations gain clarity, consistency, and control.

A Practical Self-Assessment for EHS and Risk Leaders

Ask yourself:

Can you retrieve contractor training completion certificates within minutes?
Are verified contractor training records centralized across all locations?
Do you track renewal deadlines automatically?
Is comprehension validated and documented?
Is your contractor training verification process consistent company-wide?
Can you demonstrate documented safety program compliance if audited tomorrow?

If any answer is uncertain, the risk is not theoretical. It is operational.

Documentation Is Operational Discipline

Contractor training verification is not about choosing online over in-person instruction. It is about:

Defensibility
Consistency
Accountability
Risk mitigation

In high-hazard environments, documented safety program compliance is a foundational control - not an administrative afterthought.

FIRST, VERIFY enables Safety Directors, Risk Officers, and Operations leaders to standardize contractor onboar-ding documentation requirements, generate contractor training completion certificates, and maintain verified contractor training records within a centralized system.

When documentation is structured, compliance becomes manageable and defensible.

Strengthen Your Contractor Training Verification Process

If your organization still relies on spreadsheets, email confirmations, or decentralized files for safety training recordkeeping for contractors, it may be time to formalize your approach.

Contact FIRST, VERIFY to learn how our Online Safety Orientation module and contractor compliance platform can help ensure contractors arrive onsite trained, documented, and properly verified.

Because when documentation is in order, safety leadership becomes stronger and risk becomes more controlled.

Contractor Training Verification: Why Documentation Matters More Than Training Format - Part 1

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:41:56 GMT

Most safety leaders don’t lose sleep over how contractor training is delivered.

They lose sleep over one question:

Can we prove it happened?

When a contractor incident occurs or when an OSHA audit, insurance review, or internal investigation begins, the discussion doesn’t center on whether training was online or in person. It centers on whether training was completed, documented, and verifiable .

That’s why Contractor Training Verification matters far more than training format.

For EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders, documented proof of training completion is what protects the organization, supports compliance obligations, and reinforces a safer, more disciplined contractor onboarding process.

Why Contractor Training Verification is a Compliance Requirement... Not a Preference

Training, by itself, is not defensible.

Documentation is.

Regulatory agencies, insurers, and internal audit teams expect organizations to demonstrate that contractors received required safety training and that completion can be validated. Without clear documentation, even well-designed training programs create risk.

Training documentation compliance is what connects safety intent to operational reality.

From OSHA recordkeeping expectations to contractor onboarding requirements, the common denominator is verification: clear records showing who completed training, when it occurred, and whether requirements were met before work began.

The Real Risk Isn’t Online vs In-Person Training

It’s Incomplete or Unverifiable Records

Most organizations already invest in contractor safety training. The breakdown happens after delivery.

Common issues Safety Directors and Risk Officers face include:

Training records scattered across emails, spreadsheets, and shared drives
Manual sign-in sheets that are incomplete or hard to retrieve
No centralized view of contractor training records
Contractors arriving onsite before training completion is confirmed
Inconsistent enforcement across locations or business units

These gaps create exposure during audits and incident reviews, not because training didn’t exist, but because training completion verification cannot be demonstrated.

Online vs In-Person Contractor Training: What Actually Matters

The debate over online vs in-person contractor training often misses the point. From a compliance and lia-bility standpoint, both formats are acceptable only when supported by reliable documentation.

Online Training

Enables consistent delivery across contractors and locations
Scales easily for large contractor populations
Works effectively when paired with documented completion, acknowledgments, or assessments

In-Person Training

Valuable for site-specific hazards and local orientation
Often relies on manual attendance tracking
More difficult to standardize documentation across projects

Neither format protects the organization unless training is documented and verifiable .

That’s the core purpose of safety training verification .

What Strong Contractor Training Documentation Looks Like

Effective contractor safety training documentation programs share several characteristics:

A Practical Checklist for Training Compliance

Training completed before site access is granted
Records tied to individual contractor employees
Documented completion and acknowledgment
Centralized storage for easy access during audits
Consistent enforcement across all contractors

When these elements are in place, organizations reduce administrative burden while strengthening compli-ance confidence.

How FIRST, VERIFY Supports Contractor Training Verification

FIRST, VERIFY approaches training from a documentation and verification perspective with a focus on ensuring that required training is completed and recorded before contractors arrive onsite.

Online Safety Orientation Built for Verification

FIRST, VERIFY’s online orientation module enables organizations to:

Require contractors to complete orientation prior to site access
Capture and document proof of training completion
Generate completion certificates for recordkeeping
Store verified training records centrally within the contractor’s profile
Support consistent contractor onboarding compliance across locations

The result is a structured, defensible process that replaces uncertainty with clarity.

Why Verified Training Records Protect Your Organization

When an incident occurs, the question is not whether training exists.

It is whether training can be proven .

Verified training records help organizations:

Respond confidently to OSHA audits and inspections
Demonstrate consistent enforcement of safety requirements
Reduce exposure related to negligent on boarding claims
Support internal risk assessments using accurate, centralized data

Documented contractor training transforms safety from a reactive obligation into a controlled, auditable process.

Final Takeaway: Training Without Verification Is a Risk

Training improves awareness.

Documentation protects the organization.

The most effective safety programs recognize that Contractor Training Verification is not optional - it is essential.

Regardless of training format, organizations that prioritize verified, centralized training records are better positioned to support safer operations, meet compliance expectations, and reduce unnecessary exposure.

If your team is still relying on spreadsheets, email chains, or manual sign-in sheets to track contractor training, it may be time to strengthen your verification process.

FIRST , VERIFY helps EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders ensure contractors arrive onsite trained, documented, and verified without adding administrative complexity.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY supports contractor orientation verification and training compliance for contractors.

Remote Safety Audits: A Practical Approach to Verifying Contractor Program Implementation

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:09:15 GMT

There is a moment every Safety Director or Risk leader recognizes.

You know your contractor safety requirements are clear. Your policies are documented. Your prequalification process is in place.

But you also know you don’t have the staff or the calendar to physically audit every contractor, every site, every year.

That gap between expectation and capacity is where risk quietly grows.

This is why remote safety audits have become a practical, credible solution for organizations that need stronger oversight without overextending internal resources. When done correctly, remote audits provide structured, documentation-based verification that contractor safety programs are not just written but actively implemented.

This article explains how remote safety audits work, why they matter, and how FIRST, VERIFY delivers a repeatable, cost-effective approach to contractor safety program verification.

Why In-Person Audits Alone Are No Longer Enough

Most organizations agree that onsite audits are valuable. Direct observation matters especially for high-risk work.

The challenge is scale. As contractor populations grow, relying solely on in-person audits creates unavoidable constraints:

Limited internal EHS staff capacity
Travel costs and scheduling delays
Inconsistent audit coverage across contractors
Long gaps between reviews

The result is often a fragmented compliance picture. Some contractors are reviewed frequently. Others are not reviewed at all.

Remote contractor audits address this imbalance by providing consistent, repeatable oversight without the logistical burden of sending auditors into the field.

The Core Problem: Programs on Paper vs. Programs in Practice

Many contractor safety failures don’t stem from missing policies. They stem from lack of verification .

Common breakdowns include:
Safety manuals that exist but are not updated
Training conducted but not documented
Inspections completed inconsistently
Enforcement policies that are written but unsupported by records
Certificates of insurance (COIs) tracked manually or reviewed inconsistently

Without documentation-based safety audits, organizations are left relying on self-reported information, creating blind spots that affect OSHA compliance, contractor insurance compliance, and overall risk posture.

What Remote Safety Audits Actually Evaluate

A well-designed remote safety audit is not a checklist exercise. It is a structured review of how a contractor’s safety program is implemented and maintained over time.

FIRST, VERIFY’s remote audit service focuses on documented evidence , including:

Safety training records, such as dated and signed training rosters
Jobsite inspection processes and documentation
Documented safety meetings (“toolbox talks”)
Incident investigations and corrective action documentation
Disciplinary policies and enforcement records
Alignment with required safety programs

This approach allows organizations to verify contractor safety program implementation without physically visiting each site.

A Practical, Repeatable Audit Model

Remote safety audits work best when they follow a consistent framework.

Step 1: Define What Matters Most

Not every contractor presents the same level of risk. Remote safety audits can be customized to focus on:

High-risk scopes of work
Critical OSHA program areas
Contractor types with elevated exposure
Client-specific safety standards

This ensures audit effort aligns with actual risk.

Step 2: Review Documentation Not Just Declarations

Remote audits rely on evidence, not assurances. Contractors are required to submit documentation that demonstrates:

Training occurred
Policies are current
Inspections are performed
Enforcement is documented

This documentation-based safety audit model reduces reliance on unchecked self-reporting.

Step 3: Apply Consistent Scoring

Each remote audit is evaluated using a structured scoring methodology. This creates:

Objective comparisons across contractors
Clear identification of gaps
Repeatable benchmarks year over year

Consistency is critical for contractor compliance auditing at scale.

Step 4: Use Audits Strategically

Remote audits are not meant to replace onsite audits. They are designed to:

Establish baseline compliance
Identify contractors that require follow-up
Support annual or rotating safety program implementation audits
Extend oversight across the full contractor population

This hybrid approach strengthens oversight without overwhelming internal teams.

How Remote Audits Support Contractor Insurance Compliance

Safety and insurance compliance are closely linked. When contractor safety programs lack documentation, insurance gaps often follow:

Expired or incorrect COIs
Missing endorsements
Inadequate coverage alignment with scope of work

Remote contractor audits complement contractor insurance compliance by reinforcing disciplined documen-tation practices supporting both safety and risk management objectives.

The FIRST, VERIFY Approach to Remote Safety Audits

FIRST, VERIFY provides remote safety audits as a structured service - not a generic questionnaire. Key elements include:

Documentation-focused safety program verification
Customizable audit scope based on risk tolerance
Weighted scoring for clear prioritization
Flexible scheduling (annual or multi-year rotation)
A repeatable, cost-effective model

By focusing on documentation rather than field observation, FIRST, VERIFY delivers meaningful oversight with-out the expense and disruption of constant onsite audits.

When Remote Safety Audits Make the Most Sense

Remote safety audits are particularly effective for:

Contractor prequalification reinforcement
Annual contractor compliance auditing
Large or geographically dispersed contractor populations
Organizations with limited EHS staffing
Programs seeking consistency and defensibility

They provide a practical way to strengthen oversight while preserving internal resources.

Turning Oversight Into Confidence

The goal of contractor safety oversight is not perfection. It is confidence .

Confidence that training is documented.

Confidence that programs are implemented.

Confidence that compliance decisions are based on verified information not assumptions.

Remote safety audits, when executed with structure and discipline, provide that confidence.

If your organization is balancing growing contractor risk with limited internal capacity, FIRST, VERIFY’s remote audit service offers a practical path forward.

Learn how remote safety audits can strengthen your contractor compliance program without stretching your team further.

Why Annual Safety Documentation Renewal Matters in High-Hazard Environments

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 11:00:47 GMT

Contractor Prequalification Requirements Can’t Be a One-Time Event

It usually starts with confidence.

A contractor was approved. The paperwork was complete. The boxes were checked. Work moved forward.

Then months pass.

A safety manager asks for updated records. An insurance review reveals a policy quietly expired. An audit request surfaces documentation that no longer reflects how work is actually being done. Suddenly, the question is no longer whether the contractor was qualified but when they were last truly reviewed.

In high-hazard environments, this is where risk hides. Not in what you failed to collect but in what you assumed never changed.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: many organizations treat contractor prequalification requirements as a one-time hurdle, not a living process. And that assumption creates exposure long before anyone realizes it.

This article explores why annual contractor prequalification and safety documentation renewal are non-negotiable, why relying on “previously approved” contractors is one of the most common blind spots in contractor risk management, and how FIRST, VERIFY enforces a structured renewal cycle that keeps compliance current - not assumed.

Why Annual Safety Documentation Renewal Matters

In high-hazard industries, contractor risk does not remain static. A contractor that was compliant twelve months ago may no longer meet your requirements today.

Annual renewal cycles ensure:

Safety documentation requirements remain current
OSHA requirements for contractors are addressed consistently
Certificates of insurance (COIs) are renewed and compliant
Contractor qualification status reflects present-day condition

Without a defined renewal process, contractor onboarding and compliance quickly become fragmented - spread across spreadsheets, emails, and disconnected systems.

The Real Risk of Outdated Contractor Information

1. OSHA Requirements for Contractors Continue to Evolve

OSHA regulations and enforcement priorities shift regularly. Annual compliance review for contractors ensures required documentation such as OSHA forms, safety history, and written safety programs aligns with current expectations, not last year’s standards.

2. Insurance Coverage Changes Often Quietly

Insurance policies renew annually, but coverage limits, carriers, or endorsements can change. Without COI renewal and COI compliance tracking , organizations may assume coverage exists when it does not.

3. Safety Programs Are Not Static

Contractors revise safety programs based on new hazards, workforce changes, or regulatory updates. Annual safety program updates confirm that documented programs reflect how work is actually being managed today.

4. Manual Processes Create Blind Spots

Manual tracking of contractor documentation often leads to:

Missed expirations
Inconsistent contractor qualification status
Delays caused by expired or incomplete records
Increased audit exposure

These gaps directly impact Safety Directors, Risk Officers, and Procurement Leaders who are accountable for contractor compliance but lack centralized visibility.

Annual Contractor Prequalification: A Practical Compliance Safe-guard

An annual contractor documentation renewal cycle establishes a predictable, enforceable rhythm for com-pliance. Instead of chasing updates reactively, organizations gain a structured process for updating contrac-tor safety records before gaps become liabilities.

An effective annual renewal includes:

Updated business and contact information
Current safety documentation and OSHA records
Renewed COIs
Verification of licenses, certifications, and bonding limits

This approach supports consistent contractor information verification across sites, departments, and projects.

How FIRST, VERIFY Supports Annual Compliance Reviews

FIRST, VERIFY is built around the reality that contractor information must be reviewed and renewed regularly - not assumed valid indefinitely.

Structured Annual Renewal by Design

The platform enforces annual contractor prequalification by requiring contractors to resubmit safety documentation, COIs, and business information each year. This ensures that contractor qualification status reflects current conditions, not outdated approvals.

Centralized Safety & Compliance Data

All contractor records safety documentation, OSHA history, COIs, licenses, and supporting records are gathered and organized in one centralized system. This structure supports faster audits, clearer visibility, and more consistent decision-making.

COI Compliance Tracking Without Guesswork

FIRST, VERIFY streamlines COI renewal by:

Collecting required insurance documentation
Verifying submissions against client-defined requirements
Sending reminders for expiring policies
Displaying insurance compliance clearly within contractor profiles

This reduces delays caused by expired COIs and supports safer contractor onboarding and compliance.

Consistency Across Contractors and Locations

Using client-defined templates such as safety or low-risk templates ensures contractors provide the correct documentation based on the work they perform. Annual renewal applies those same standards consistently year after year.

A Simple Annual Compliance Checklist for High Hazard Environ-ments

Safety and compliance leaders can use this checklist to assess their current renewal process:

☐ Are contractor prequalification requirements reviewed annually?

☐ Are safety documentation requirements updated and verified each year?

☐ Are COIs actively tracked and renewed?

☐ Is contractor qualification status clearly visible and current?

☐ Is contractor information centralized and accessible for audits?

If any of these answers are uncertain, your renewal process may be exposing your organization to unneces-sary risk.

Annual Renewal Is About Control, Not Bureaucracy

Annual compliance review for contractors is not about adding friction - it is about maintaining control in environments where the margin for error is small.

When contractor onboarding and compliance rely on outdated records, organizations absorb risk silently. When renewal is structured, documented, and enforced, safety teams gain confidence that contractor information reflects reality.

That is the purpose behind FIRST, VERIFY: providing a consistent, rules-based system that keeps contractor documentation current, visible, and defensible year after year.

Take the Next Step Toward Consistent Contractor Compliance

If your organization operates in high-hazard environments, annual safety documentation renewal is not optional - it is foundational.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY supports annual contractor prequalification, COI compliance tracking, and centralized safety documentation to help EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders maintain confidence in their contractor compliance programs.

Request a demonstration today and see how structured annual renewal strengthens contractor risk man-agement without adding administrative burden.

Why Incomplete COI Information Leads to Costly Delays and How Centralized Tracking Prevents Them

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 13:31:59 GMT

A project is ready to move forward.
The schedule is approved.
Contractors are lined up.

Then everything stops because a certificate of insurance (COI) is missing, expired, or incomplete.

For Safety Directors, Risk Managers, and Operations leaders, this scenario is not hypothetical. It’s a recurring operational disruption that quietly derails timelines, strains internal teams, and exposes organizations to unnecessary risk. Incomplete COI documentation is one of the most common and most preventable causes of insurance-related project delays.

This article explains why COI issues happen so often, how they impact safety, compliance, and operations, and what organizations can do to prevent delays through a structured, centralized COI tracking approach.

Why COI Issues Are Still Causing Project Delays

Most organizations understand that contractors must meet insurance requirements before work begins. The challenge isn’t awareness - it’s execution.

Common COI Gaps That Trigger Delays

Incomplete or inaccurate COIs typically fall into a few predictable categories:

Expired certificates of insurance that were valid at onboarding but lapsed mid-project
Missing insurance endorsements , such as additional insured requirements
Coverage limits that don’t align with contractual or risk requirements
Incorrect entity names , locations, or policy details
COIs submitted without required supporting documentation

Each issue creates a compliance gap that must be resolved before work can proceed often under tight deadlines.

The Root Cause: Manual and Fragmented COI Tracking

Many organizations still manage contractor insurance compliance using spreadsheets, shared folders, and email threads. This approach creates risk at scale.

What’s Breaking Down Behind the Scenes

COIs are collected during onboarding but not consistently tracked afterward
Expiration dates are monitored manually, increasing the chance of oversight
Different departments track different versions of the same contractor’s documentation
Updates rely on contractors proactively sending new certificates

The result is contractor onboarding delays, last-minute document scrambles, and preventable stoppages when compliance gaps surface too late.

The Operational and Legal Impact of Incomplete COIs

Incomplete COI documentation isn’t just an administrative inconvenience - it has real consequences.

For Safety and Risk Leaders

Contractors may mobilize without verified coverage
Insurance gaps increase exposure during incidents or claims
Documentation deficiencies complicate audits and internal reviews

For Procurement and Operations

Projects stall while insurance issues are resolved
Start dates slip, impacting downstream schedules
Internal teams lose time chasing documents instead of managing operations

From OSHA audits to contract enforcement, contractor compliance documentation is foundational. When it’s incomplete, everything slows down.

What Effective COI Management Actually Requires

Preventing delays requires more than collecting certificates - it requires a defined COI management process.

A Practical COI Compliance Checklist

An effective approach ensures:

COIs are collected before work begins
Coverage is reviewed against client-defined requirements
Expiration dates are tracked centrally
Contractors receive reminders ahead of renewals
Insurance status is visible at a glance

This is where centralized systems outperform manual processes.

How Centralized COI Tracking Prevents Delays

Centralized COI tracking replaces fragmented workflows with a single, structured source of truth.

What Changes When COIs Are Centralized

All contractor insurance records live in one system
Coverage requirements are applied consistently
Expiring policies are flagged before they become a problem
Compliance status is easy to confirm across teams and locations

Instead of reacting to issues at the gate or on the jobsite, teams identify and address gaps early before they affect schedules.

FIRST, VERIFY’s Approach to COI Management

FIRST, VERIFY supports organizations by maintaining and tracking contractor insurance documentation as part of a broader compliance framework.

Through its COI management process, FIRST, VERIFY:

Collects COIs and required supporting documents
Reviews insurance details against client-defined requirements
Tracks expiration dates and provides renewal reminders
Displays insurance compliance clearly within each contractor’s profile

This structure helps teams reduce insurance-related project delays, improve visibility, and maintain consistent compliance documentation management across their contractor base.

Importantly, FIRST, VERIFY does not rely on real-time insurance feeds or predictive analytics. Instead, it provides accurate, centralized documentation that enables teams to manage compliance proactively and with confidence.

Moving From Reactive Fixes to Proactive Control

Incomplete COIs don’t have to be a recurring problem.

When organizations replace manual tracking with a centralized system, they gain:

Fewer onboarding disruptions
Clearer contractor insurance compliance
Stronger audit readiness
More predictable project timelines

For safety, risk, and operations leaders, this shift isn’t about technology - it’s about protecting schedules, reducing exposure, and keeping work moving.

Ready to Reduce COI-Related Delays?

If expired certificates, missing endorsements, or last-minute insurance issues are slowing your projects, it may be time to reassess how COIs are managed.

FIRST, VERIFY helps organizations centralize COI tracking, streamline contractor compliance documentation, and identify issues early before they become costly delays.

Contact us to learn how FIRST, VERIFY can support your COI management process and help keep your operations moving forward.

Inside OSHA’s Most Frequently Cited Violations: What They Mean for Contractor Selection

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:39:08 GMT

When OSHA Shows Up, It’s Already Too Late

The most difficult OSHA conversations don’t start with a citation.

They start with a phone call.

A serious incident.
An unplanned shutdown.
A contractor injury that suddenly becomes your problem.

By the time OSHA arrives, the real question is no longer what happened - it’s “Why was that contractor on your site in the first place?”

Year after year, the same hazards dominate OSHA’s most frequently cited violations list: fall protection, machine guarding, lockout/tagout (LOTO), and hazard communication. These aren’t obscure technical issues. They’re foundational safety requirements that every qualified contractor should already have documented, trained, and enforced.

Which raises a critical issue for EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders:

If these violations are so common, how confident are you that your contractor selection process is actually identifying them before work begins?

This article examines what OSHA’s most frequent citations reveal about contractor safety gaps and how a structured, centralized contractor safety prequalification process helps organizations verify required programs and documentation before those gaps turn into incidents.

Why OSHA’s Top Violations Matter in Contractor Selection

OSHA enforcement data doesn’t just highlight unsafe work - it exposes systemic weaknesses in contractor safety programs.

The violations that appear most often are rarely caused by a lack of awareness. In most cases, they point to missing, outdated, or inconsistently applied contractor safety programs.

For hiring organizations, this has direct implications for:

OSHA compliance for contractors
Contractor onboarding decisions
Pre-job risk exposure
Legal defensibility following an incident

Selecting contractors without verifying required OSHA compliance documentation increases the likelihood that known hazards will go unmanaged on your site, under your supervision.

The Most Frequently Cited OSHA Violations and What They Reveal

1. Fall Protection: When Procedures Exist but Aren’t Enforced

Fall protection violations remain OSHA’s most cited issue, particularly in construction and maintenance activities.

What OSHA citations often indicate:

Written fall protection programs exist but aren’t site-specific
Training records can’t be produced during an inspection
Equipment inspection documentation is missing or outdated

What this means for contractor selection:
A contractor claiming compliance isn’t enough. Organizations need to verify that contractors can produce written fall protection programs, training documentation, and supporting materials before elevated work begins.

2. Machine Guarding: Documentation Gaps with Serious Consequences

Machine guarding violations frequently stem from missing or improperly documented safeguards.

Common issues include:

Incomplete machine guarding programs
No written procedures for specific equipment
Lack of documented training for operators

Contractor safety requirements don’t stop at the equipment.
They include the documentation that proves hazards were assessed, controls were defined, and employees were trained accordingly. Without centralized OSHA compliance documentation, these gaps often go unnoticed until OSHA asks for proof.

3. Lockout/Tagout (LOTO): High-Risk Work Without Verified Controls

LOTO violations are among the most dangerous because they involve uncontrolled energy sources.

OSHA frequently cites:

Missing written LOTO programs
Equipment-specific procedures not documented
Inability to demonstrate employee training and comprehension

For contractor safety compliance, this is critical.
LOTO programs must be verified before contractors service equipment - not after an injury occurs.

4. Hazard Communication: The Foundation of Chemical Safety

Hazard communication violations often reflect administrative breakdowns rather than intentional noncompliance.

Common failures include:

Missing or outdated written hazard communication programs
No documentation of employee training
Safety Data Sheets (SDS) not available or organized

These are basic OSHA compliance requirements, yet they remain among the most cited violations year after year.

The Root Cause: Inconsistent Contractor Safety Prequalification

Despite the predictability of these violations, many organizations still rely on fragmented processes to evaluate contractors:

Emailing documents back and forth
Tracking requirements in spreadsheets
Reviewing safety programs inconsistently or not at all

This creates several challenges:

a. Manual Tracking Masks Risk

Critical OSHA compliance documentation is scattered across inboxes, file shares, and local drives.

b. Inconsistent Prequalification Standards

Different sites and departments apply different contractor safety requirements.

c. Limited Verification

Contractors attest that programs exist but supporting documentation is never reviewed until it’s too late.

The result is a contractor safety compliance process that appears thorough but fails under scrutiny.

What Effective Contractor Selection Looks Like in Practice

Reducing exposure to OSHA violations doesn’t require predicting incidents. It requires verifying fundamentals.

An effective contractor safety prequalification process should confirm before work begins that contractors can produce:

Required written safety programs relevant to their scope of work
OSHA compliance documentation such as safety history and forms
Training records and supporting materials
Current certificates of insurance (COIs) that meet defined requirements

This verification must be consistent, centralized, and repeatable across locations.

How FIRST, VERIFY Supports OSHA Focused Contractor Selection

FIRST, VERIFY was designed to help organizations move from reactive enforcement to proactive verification.

Centralized OSHA Compliance Documentation

The platform gathers and organizes contractor safety documentation including required safety programs, supporting records, and OSHA-related materials into a single, accessible system. This allows teams to review contractor safety requirements before mobilization, not during an inspection.

Structured Contractor Safety Prequalification

Using client-defined templates, FIRST, VERIFY applies consistent prequalification standards so contractors pro-vide the correct documentation based on risk level and scope of work.

Certificate of Insurance Management

COIs are collected, reviewed against requirements, tracked for expiration, and displayed clearly within each contractor profile reducing delays and compliance gaps.

Optional Remote Safety Audits

For organizations that need deeper verification, FIRST, VERIFY conducts remote reviews of contractor safety programs and supporting materials to confirm implementation - not just existence.

Ongoing Visibility, Not One Time Review

Annual renewals ensure contractor information stays current, supporting continuous OSHA compliance for contractors across projects and locations.

A Practical Checklist for OSHA Informed Contractor Selection

Before approving a contractor for work, confirm that your contractor safety compliance process verifies:

Required written safety programs aligned with OSHA standards
Training documentation and supporting materials
Current COIs
Consistent review criteria across sites
Centralized access for EHS, Risk, and Operations teams

If any of these rely on assumptions rather than verification, OSHA citations become a matter of when, not if.

The Real Cost of Ignoring OSHA Patterns

OSHA’s most frequently cited violations are predictable.

Which means the exposure is preventable.

Organizations that treat contractor selection as an administrative task often discover during an inspection that critical documentation was never verified. Those that treat it as a risk management process gain clarity, consistency, and confidence long before work begins.

FIRST, VERIFY helps organizations do exactly that.

Ready to Strengthen Your Contractor Safety Compliance Process?

If OSHA’s most common violations reflect gaps in contractor safety programs, the solution starts before contractors arrive onsite.

Learn how FIRST, VERIFY helps EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders centralize OSHA compliance documentation, standardize contractor safety prequalification, and reduce exposure without adding administrative burden.

Request a demonstration today.

The Economics of Preventing Incidents: Why Documentation Accuracy Saves More Than It Costs

Thu, 08 Jan 2026 10:21:04 GMT

No one budgets for a serious workplace incident.

Yet when one occurs, the financial consequences arrive fast and they are rarely limited to a single line item. Medical treatment, lost productivity, regulatory scrutiny, insurance impacts, legal exposure, and reputational damage can push the true cost of a single incident well into six figures. Sometimes more.

For EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders, this reality creates a hard truth: workplace incident prevention costs are far lower and far more controllable than the cost of reacting after something goes wrong.

This article takes an economic lens to a familiar challenge. It explains how contractor documentation accuracy, verified contractor data, consistent prequalification, and disciplined certificate of insurance (COI) compliance are not administrative overhead but practical tools for risk management cost savings and long-term financial protection.

Why Incident Costs Are So Much Higher Than They Appear

The cost of workplace injuries extends far beyond immediate medical expenses. Most organizations underestimate how quickly indirect costs accumulate once an incident involves a contractor.

Consider what typically follows a serious event:

Medical care and workers’ compensation exposure
OSHA reporting, inspections, and potential citations
Project shutdowns or delays while investigations occur
Legal defense, settlements, or increased insurance premiums
Internal labor hours pulled from operations, safety, and legal teams

None of these costs are hypothetical. They are predictable outcomes when documentation gaps, expired COIs, or inconsistent contractor vetting allow preventable risks onto a jobsite.

From a financial perspective, the question becomes less about if an incident will be expensive and more about how much exposure could have been avoided upstream.

The Hidden Financial Risk in Manual Contractor Processes

Most organizations don’t fail at safety for lack of caring. They struggle because their processes haven’t kept pace with contractor volume, complexity, and regulatory pressure.

Common breakdowns include:

Manual tracking of contractor records across spreadsheets and email
Inconsistent contractor prequalification processes between sites or departments
Outdated or incomplete COIs that go unnoticed until an audit or incident
Safety documentation collected once, then forgotten until renewal

These gaps don’t just create compliance issues - they create financial blind spots. When documentation accuracy isn’t maintained, risk quietly accumulates in the background.

Contractor Documentation Accuracy as a Cost-Control Strategy

Accurate documentation does more than satisfy auditors. It directly influences financial outcomes.

When verified contractor data is centralized and consistently maintained, organizations gain:

Clear visibility into contractor safety history and qualifications
Confidence that insurance coverage meets contractual requirements
Faster response during audits, claims, or investigations
Fewer delays caused by missing or expired documentation

This is where administrative burden reduction becomes a financial benefit. Time saved by safety, risk, and procurement teams translates into lower overhead and fewer costly surprises.

Certificate of Insurance Compliance: A Small Task with a Large Financial Impact

COI management is often treated as routine paperwork. In reality, it is one of the most direct levers for compliance cost avoidance.

When COIs are inaccurate, expired, or incomplete:

Claims may fall back on the hiring organization
Coverage disputes delay resolution and increase legal costs
Projects can be halted while deficiencies are corrected

Maintaining disciplined COI compliance ensures:

Coverage aligns with contractual requirements
Expirations are addressed before work is disrupted
Insurance status is easily confirmed when it matters most

From a financial standpoint, avoiding just one uncovered claim can justify the entire effort.

The Contractor Prequalification Process: The Economics of Consistency

An inconsistent contractor prequalification process creates uneven risk across sites and projects. One location may vet thoroughly, while another relies on outdated or incomplete records.

A structured, rules-based approach changes the equation:

Contractors provide the correct information based on defined requirements
Qualification decisions are consistent and defensible
Annual renewals keep data current without restarting the process

The result is not just stronger compliance - it is predictable risk management: cost savings driven by fewer incidents, fewer delays, and fewer compliance failures.

How Centralized Data Reduces Avoidable Costs

Centralization is not about convenience alone. It is about control.

When contractor data is scattered:

Teams spend hours searching for documents during audits or incidents
Incomplete information increases stress and decision-making risk
Leadership lacks confidence in reported compliance status

A centralized structure allows organizations to:

Access safety documentation, COIs, and records in one place
Support audits and investigations without scrambling
Make informed contractor selection decisions backed by data

This level of clarity directly supports workplace incident prevention costs by reducing the likelihood of errors that escalate into expensive events.

A Practical Checklist for Reducing Financial Exposure

For organizations looking to reduce avoidable risk, focus on these fundamentals:

Standardize contractor prequalification requirements across sites
Ensure contractor documentation accuracy through verification, not assumptions
Maintain active COI compliance with clear renewal visibility
Centralize contractor safety and compliance records
Reduce administrative burden so teams can focus on oversight - not paperwork

None of these steps require predictive analytics or real-time monitoring. They require discipline, structure, and accurate data.

The Bottom Line: Prevention Is an Economic Decision

Preventing incidents is often framed as a moral or regulatory obligation and it is. But it is also a financial strategy. When organizations invest in accurate documentation, verified contractor data, and consistent prequalification, they are choosing:

Lower exposure to high-cost incidents
Fewer operational disruptions
Greater confidence during audits and claims
Measurable risk management and cost savings over time

The economics are clear. Workplace incident prevention costs far less than reacting after failure.

Take Control of Risk Before It Becomes a Cost

 FIRST, VERIFY helps organizations centralize contractor safety and compliance data, streamline the contractor prequalification process, and maintain accurate COI compliance, reducing administrative burden while supporting stronger risk management decisions.

If your teams are still managing critical contractor documentation manually, the real question isn’t whether it works today. It’s what it could cost tomorrow.

Contact us to learn how FIRST, VERIFY can help you reduce preventable financial exposure before the next incident puts it to the test.

Human Error Under Pressure: How Better Contractor Data Supports Safer Decision Making

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:25:14 GMT

Contractor safety decision making doesn’t usually fail because people don’t care.

It fails because people are forced to decide with incomplete information.

In high-risk environments, field supervisors, safety managers, and operations leaders make dozens of decisions every day - often under time pressure, production demands, and changing conditions. When critical contractor information is scattered across spreadsheets, inboxes, and filing cabinets, those decisions carry unnecessary uncertainty.

This is where human error in workplace safety most often enters the picture not through negligence, but through ambiguity.

This article explores why risk perception breaks down under pressure, how fragmented contractor data increases that risk, and how centralized, verified contractor safety documentation supports clearer, more confident decision making before work begins.

Why Human Error Increases Under Pressure

Human error is frequently cited as a contributing factor in workplace incidents, but that label oversimplifies the problem.

In reality, safety-related decisions are shaped by three overlapping factors:

Time constraints
Cognitive load
Information quality

When leaders are forced to interpret incomplete or outdated information such as missing training records, unclear insurance status, or inconsistent prequalification results, their ability to accurately assess risk declines.

In contractor-heavy environments, this challenge is amplified. Different contractors arrive with different safety programs, varying training histories, and different insurance requirements. Without reliable visibility, risk perception becomes guesswork.

The Hidden Cost of Fragmented Contractor Data

Most organizations don’t struggle with a lack of safety standards. They struggle with access to consistent contractor compliance data when it matters most.

Common breakdowns include:

Manual tracking of safety documentation across departments
Inconsistent contractor prequalification processes
Expired or missing certificates of insurance (COIs)
Training records stored in disconnected systems
Delays in onboarding due to incomplete documentation

For Safety Directors and Risk Officers, this fragmentation creates exposure during audits, inspections, and incident reviews. For Procurement and Operations leaders, it introduces delays, rework, and uncertainty around contractor readiness.

Most importantly, it increases the likelihood that field-level decisions are made without a complete picture of contractor risk.

Risk Perception Depends on Data Confidence

Effective safety decision-making in high-risk environments depends on confidence that contractors have met requirements, completed training, and provided valid documentation.

When that confidence is missing, teams tend to rely on assumptions:

“They worked here last year.”
“They’ve always been compliant.”
“We’ll fix the paperwork later.”

These assumptions are rarely intentional shortcuts. They’re often the result of systems that make accurate information difficult to access when time is limited.

How Centralized Contractor Data Reduces Ambiguity

Reducing human error doesn’t require more rules. It requires reducing uncertainty.

By centralizing contractor prequalification data, organizations give decision-makers a clear, consistent view of contractor readiness before work begins.

With FIRST, VERIFY , teams can access:

Verified contractor safety documentation aligned to client-defined requirements
COI tracking with clear compliance visibility
Contractor training records tied to site-specific safety orientation
Standardized prequalification templates for consistent evaluation
Centralized safety documentation management across locations

This structure allows safety and operations teams to spend less time searching for information and more time evaluating risk with confidence.

Supporting OSHA and Audit Readiness Without Added Complexity

Regulatory expectations don’t require perfection. They require demonstrable process and documentation.

Centralized contractor compliance data supports:

OSHA documentation requests
EMR and safety history reviews
Insurance and bonding verification
Training documentation audits
Contractor onboarding compliance consistency

When information is verified, organized, and accessible, audits become confirmation exercises not fire drills.

Practical Steps to Improve Contractor Safety Decision Making

Organizations looking to reduce risk through better contractor information can start with these foundational steps:

1. Standardize Prequalification Requirements

Use consistent templates so contractors provide the right information upfront.

2. Centralize Safety Documentation

Eliminate duplicate tracking across departments and locations.

3. Verify Before Work Begins

Ensure documentation is reviewed and validated before contractors arrive onsite.

4. Track COIs in One Place

Avoid delays and exposure caused by expired or missing insurance.

5. Make Data Accessible to Decision-Makers

Field leaders shouldn’t have to request information they should be able to see it.

Each step reduces ambiguity and supports more accurate contractor risk awareness across the organization.

Better Information Leads to Better Decisions

Human error is often framed as a personal failure. In reality, it’s frequently a systems problem.

When safety and operations leaders are equipped with centralized contractor data, verified documentation, and clear compliance visibility, they can make better decisions faster and with greater confidence.

That’s how organizations move from reactive safety management to intentional, informed decision making.

Ready to Reduce Risk Through Better Contractor Information?

FIRST, VERIFY helps organizations centralize contractor compliance data, streamline prequalification, and support safer decision making before work begins.

If your teams are still navigating contractor safety decisions with fragmented information, it may be time to simplify the system behind those decisions.

�� Request a demo to see how FIRST, VERIFY supports contractor safety decision making through accurate, centralized data.

The New Reality of Workplace Fatalities: Why Verified Contractor Information Matters More Than Ever

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 12:45:18 GMT

THE NUMBER never gets easier to read.

Thousands of workers in the United States still lose their lives on the job each year despite decades of OSHA regulations, safety programs, and corporate commitments to “zero incidents.”

For Safety Directors, Risk & Compliance leaders, and Operations executives, this reality lands hard. Because when a serious incident occurs, the questions that follow are never abstract:

Was this contractor properly qualified?
Were their safety requirements verified or just assumed?
Did we truly understand the risk we were bringing onsite?

This article examines long-term workplace fatality trends and explains why contractor prequalification, supported by verified documentation and consistent processes, remains one of the most critical and controllable levers organizations have to reduce risk in high-hazard work environments.

Workplace Fatalities Haven’t Disappeared - They’ve Plateaued

OSHA workplace safety regulations have unquestionably improved conditions over the past several decades. Fatality rates dropped significantly after OSHA’s establishment, and many organizations now have mature internal safety programs.

Yet progress has stalled.

In industries that rely heavily on contractors - construction, manufacturing, utilities, energy, and industrial services - hazardous work continues to account for a disproportionate share of serious injuries and fatalities. These environments involve:

Energized equipment
Confined spaces
Elevated work
Mobile equipment and traffic interaction
Specialized tasks performed by short-term or rotating contractor crews

The common thread is not a lack of rules. It’s a lack of consistent, verified contractor information before work begins.

The Hidden Risk: Inconsistent Contractor Prequalification

Most organizations agree that contractor prequalification is important. The challenge is how it’s executed.

Where Programs Break Down

Many contractor compliance programs still rely on:

Manual tracking of safety documentation
Spreadsheets or email-based COI collection
Inconsistent requirements across departments or sites
Self-reported information without structured review

These gaps create blind spots, especially when contractor volumes increase or work spans multiple locations.

Without a structured system, it becomes difficult to confirm that:

Safety documentation requirements are met consistently
Certificates of insurance (COIs) align with contractual standards
OSHA history and EMR data have been reviewed
Required training documentation is current and complete

Over time, these weaknesses compound, increasing exposure to both safety incidents and compliance failures.

Why Verified Contractor Information Matters More Than Ever

When incidents occur, investigations don’t stop at the jobsite. They examine the process.

Regulators, insurers, and legal teams all ask the same questions:

Were contractor safety compliance requirements clearly defined?
Was documentation collected, reviewed, and maintained?
Could the organization demonstrate due diligence in contractor risk management?

Verified contractor information is what allows organizations to answer “yes” with confidence.

This is where rules-based contractor compliance verification becomes essential - not as a bureaucratic exercise, but as a foundational safety control.

Contractor Prequalification as a Risk Control, Not a Checkbox

Effective contractor compliance management starts long before a contractor arrives onsite.

A structured contractor prequalification process should:

Define requirements based on risk

Higher-risk contractor work requires deeper safety documentation.
Lower-risk scopes can follow streamlined requirements without compromising standards.

Collect consistent safety documentation

Three most recent years’ OSHA 300A & 300 forms
NCCI Worksheets showing the Interstate Experience Modification Rating (EMR) for the last three year rating periods
Citation details (as applicable)
Required written safety programs (as applicable)

Verify certificates of insurance (COIs)

Confirm coverage types and limits meet contractual requirements.
Track expirations to avoid last-minute delays or exposure.

Apply uniform review standard

Use consistent templates so contractors are evaluated against the same criteria every time.
Eliminate subjective or ad-hoc decision-making.

Require annual renewal

Contractor risk profiles change.
Prequalification should remain current - not static.

This approach transforms contractor prequalification from a one-time hurdle into an ongoing safety documentation requirement.

How FIRST, VERIFY Supports Contractor Safety Compliance

FIRST, VERIFY was built around one core principle: accurate, centralized contractor information enables better safety and compliance decisions.

The platform provides a rules-based contractor prequalification process that helps organizations:

Apply consistent prequalification templates based on risk level
Collect and organize contractor safety documentation in one system
Track certificates of insurance (COIs) against client-defined requirements
Maintain current information through required annual renewals

Rather than relying on scattered files or informal reviews, teams gain a clear, documented view of contractor compliance status before work begins.

This structured approach helps reduce administrative burden while supporting more defensible contractor risk management practices.

Practical Checklist: Strengthening Your Contractor Prequalifica-tion Process

For organizations reassessing their approach, start here:

Are contractor safety documentation requirements clearly defined by risk level?
Is contractor information centralized, or spread across systems and inboxes?
Are COIs reviewed consistently or only when issues arise?
Can your team quickly confirm a contractor’s compliance status if asked today?
Do contractors renew and revalidate information annually?

If any of these questions are difficult to answer, the risk is not theoretical - it’s operational.

The Stakes Are Human and Organizational

Every workplace fatality represents a life lost, a family changed forever, and an organization forced to confront whether more could have been done.

While no system can eliminate risk entirely, structured contractor prequalification and documentation verification remain among the most effective ways to reduce preventable exposure, especially in high-risk contractor work environments.

The new reality of workplace safety demands more than good intentions. It demands consistency, verification, and accountability.

Take the Next Step Toward Verified Contractor Information

If your organization is evaluating how to strengthen contractor safety compliance, now is the time to assess whether your current process delivers the visibility and consistency today’s risk environment requires.

FIRST , VERIFY helps Safety, Risk, and Operations leaders implement structured contractor prequalification supported by accurate, centralized compliance data.

Learn more at www.firstverify.com or request a demonstration .

Why Behavior Drives Compliance More Than Policy

Mon, 24 Nov 2025 12:17:45 GMT

Safety programs typically fail long before an incident occurs. The policies are documented, the procedures are available, and the responsibilities are defined. Yet unsafe behaviors continue - especially within contractor workforces that rotate frequently, arrive with varying levels of training, and operate under inconsistent oversight.

For EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders, the real issue is not whether policies exist. It is whether people apply them. That gap between written expectations and real-world behavior remains one of the largest contributors to preventable injuries, compliance deficiencies, and operational disruptions.

While regulatory standards such as OSHA requirements, EMR, safety statistics, and certificates of insurance (COIs) remain essential, they do not explain why well-documented programs still produce inconsistent outcomes. The differentiator is human behavior - how workers perceive risk, how supervisors reinforce expectations, and how contractors implement their programs day to day.

FIRST, VERIFY’s role is to provide structure, documentation verification, and ongoing oversight so that safety expectations are not only stated but consistently followed across your contractor base.

Why Policies Alone Do Not Change Behavior

Most organizations have adequate policies. What they lack is consistent implementation. Several behavioral factors contribute to this gap:

Low risk perception. Routine tasks reduce hazard awareness, leading to shortcuts.
Cognitive biases. Workers overestimate experience and underestimate danger.
Supervisor influence. Inconsistent enforcement signals that rules are optional.
Training variability. Contractors arrive with different standards, formats, and verification practices.
Time pressure. Competing operational priorities lead to procedural drift.

These human factors influence safety performance more directly than documentation alone. Without systems that verify comprehension, training, and real-world application, even strong policies fail to translate into safe behavior.

Where Contractor Programs Break Down

Behavioral issues are often amplified in contractor environments because of gaps in:

Prequalification consistency
Verification of safety program implementation
Documentation of employee training
Enforcement practices
Orientation tracking
COI accuracy and renewal management
Annual program updates
Supervisor observation and corrective action

Many organizations rely heavily on self-reporting or broad safety statistics, both of which fail to confirm whether a contractor’s internal program is functioning as represented.

This leads to predictable operational risks: delayed projects, OSHA findings, invoice holds, poor audit outcomes, and increased liability exposure.

The Behavioral Impact of Inconsistent Training & Documentation

Safety compliance training is effective only when it is:

Current
Accurate
Verified
Documented
Reinforced
Applied

When contractor training records are incomplete, outdated, or unverifiable, workers enter facilities with unknown levels of competency. This problem often goes unnoticed until an incident occurs and by then, the documentation gap becomes a compliance liability.

Behavior-based safety (BBS) emphasizes observation, reinforcement, and correction. But without verified training, orientation completion, or documentation of disciplinary action, behavioral expectations cannot be enforced reliably.

How FIRST, VERIFY Strengthens Safety Behavior Through Verifica-tion

FIRST, VERIFY addresses the behavioral side of safety by ensuring contractors can document - not just declare - the implementation of their safety programs.

1. Standardized, Verification-Based Prequalification

Before a contractor is considered qualified, FIRST, VERIFY can review:

OSHA and EMR data
Required training documentation
Insurance coverage and COIs
Evidence of comprehension and implementation
Supervisor observation practices
Disciplinary and enforcement procedures

This establishes a consistent baseline across all contractors, and reduces reliance on self-reported claims.

2. Remote Audits Focused on Real-World Application

Unlike programs that focus on wording in a safety manual, FIRST, VERIFY remote audits evaluate the documentation that reflects actual behavior:

Training records matched to job functions
Documentation of ongoing observation
Incident investigation procedures
Enforcement records
Frequency of safety meetings
Implementation of written programs

This method identifies whether contractors are effectively managing safety - not just whether they maintain a policy.

3. Safety Orientation Hosting and Onsite/Offsite

Behavior improves when expectations are reinforced before work begins. The system provides:

Verified orientation completion
Pass/fail results and documentation
Compliance status visible at check-in
Automated reminders for renewals

This ensures every worker onsite meets the same behavioral and compliance expectations.

Improving Safety Behavior Across Contractor Teams

Organizations can strengthen safety behavior by focusing on the following areas:

Verification, not assumptions. Require supporting documents for all program claims.
Consistency. Standardize prequalification criteria across all locations.
Reinforcement. Ensure orientation materials reflect current risks and procedures.
Supervisor alignment. Require documented observation and corrective action.
Annual or rotating remote audits. Confirm that programs remain active and enforced.
Centralized tracking. Maintain accessible documentation for training, COIs, and compliance status.

These steps reduce variability and elevate the behavioral expectations placed on contractors.

The Outcome: Policies Backed by Predictable Behavior

When organizations combine behavioral insight with systematic verification, they gain:

Better decision-making at the point of work
Increased compliance consistency
Reduced incident rates
Improved audit outcomes
Higher-quality contractor performance
Stronger alignment between Safety, Procurement, and Operations

Behavior - not policy - determines safety outcomes. Verification ensures that behavior aligns with your standards.

Strengthen Safety Behavior Through Verified Compliance

If you want to ensure your contractors not only maintain proper documentation but also demonstrate consistent implementation of their safety programs, FIRST, VERIFY provides the structure needed to close the behavioral gap.

Learn more at www.firstverify.com or request a demonstration .

Certificates of Insurance: The Most Overlooked Risk in Contractor Management

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:55:55 GMT

When a Missed COI Renewal Turns into a Million-Dollar Problem

It happens more often than you think. A contractor’s insurance quietly expires mid-project. An accident follows an injury, property damage, or environmental spill and suddenly your company is footing the bill.

For Safety Directors, Risk Managers, and Procurement Leaders, certificates of insurance (COIs) are often treated as a formality - a box to check during onboarding. But that oversight carries real financial and legal consequences. Each expired, incomplete, or unverified COI represents potential liability waiting to surface.

The truth is simple: in contractor management, unverified insurance is no insurance at all.

The Hidden Risks Behind Contractor COIs

Most companies assume that collecting COIs means they’re covered. Unfortunately, manual and inconsistent processes leave significant gaps. These gaps aren’t theoretical - they’re the leading cause of compliance breakdowns and post-incident disputes.

Common risks include:

Expired or lapsed policies that go unnoticed until after an incident.
Incorrect coverage limits that fail to meet contractual or state Workers' Comp insurance requirements.
Missing additional insured endorsements that leave your company exposed.
Unverified subcontractor coverage , creating layers of uninsured work on your jobsite.

When these gaps go unaddressed, even the best prequalification program can unravel under legal scrutiny. A single uninsured claim can translate into six-figure losses, project delays, or legal actions that damage your reputation.

Why Manual COI Tracking Fails

For many organizations, contractor insurance compliance is managed through spreadsheets, email chains, and file folders a system that simply can’t keep up with volume or renewal cycles.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

No automated alerts when policies expire or documents go missing.
No verification that the coverage listed matches the actual policy on file.
No centralized visibility across departments or sites.

It’s not just inefficient - it’s risky. Manual COI tracking creates blind spots that auditors, attorneys, and insurers will quickly uncover.

That’s why leading EHS and Risk teams are turning to purpose-built COI management services to close the loop on contractor insurance verification.

The Compliance Standards You Can’t Ignore

OSHA doesn’t directly regulate insurance coverage, but its standards make employers responsible for ensuring safe worksites and that includes verifying contractors’ liability coverage and safety programs. A few key benchmarks include:

29 CFR 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication) – requires proof that contractors have trained employees on handling hazardous materials.
29 CFR 1926.501 (Fall Protection) – mandates protective systems for contractors at height, often triggering higher insurance requirements.
29 CFR 1904 (Recordkeeping) – enforces documentation standards that link directly to safety accountability.

Failing to maintain proper contractor liability coverage doesn’t just violate policy terms - it can be interpreted as a failure of due diligence under OSHA’s general duty clause.

Automating COI Tracking with FIRST, VERIFY

FIRST, VERIFY eliminates the administrative chaos and legal uncertainty of manual insurance tracking through a centralized, cloud-based compliance management platform.

Our platform provides:

Automated COI tracking system with expiration alerts and renewal reminders.
Document verification to confirm policy accuracy - not just receipt.
Real-time dashboards for instant visibility into contractor insurance compliance.
Custom rules and thresholds aligned with your risk tolerance and industry standards.
Seamless integration with your prequalification process, ensuring that contractors can’t begin work until their insurance is validated.

Each contractor’s file includes verified certificates of insurance, safety documentation, training records, and audit results all maintained in one secure location. That’s how FIRST, VERIFY helps companies move from reactive tracking to proactive risk mitigation for contractors.

How to Strengthen Your COI Compliance Program

Here’s a practical checklist to reduce risk immediately:

Centralize contractor records. Store COIs, safety manuals, and training documentation in a single system.
Automate renewal alerts. Never rely on contractors to remind you.
Verify coverage details. Ensure every policy meets required limits and endorsements.
Audit insurance documentation annually. Use technology to flag inconsistencies or lapses.
Integrate insurance verification with onboarding. Block site access until all requirements are met.
Track subcontractor compliance. Visibility shouldn’t stop at your prime contractors.

Each of these actions directly supports OSHA compliance and reduces negligent hiring exposure - a growing legal risk for companies that fail to verify contractor insurance validity.

From Paperwork to Protection: Why This Matters Now

The rise of multi-tier contracting, remote workforces, and complex insurance requirements has made manual COI management unsustainable. Insurance verification isn’t just about avoiding fines - it’s about preventing real harm.

A verified COI means your project and your people are protected.

FIRST, VERIFY transforms that verification process from a reactive chore into a continuous, data-driven layer of protection.

Ready to See It in Action?

Protect your company from unseen insurance gaps before they become costly crises.

�� Request a demo of FIRST, VERIFY today and discover how automated contractor insurance verification can safeguard your operations, compliance, and bottom line.

Bridging the Gap: Why Contractor Verification Is the Missing Link in Your Safety Culture

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 13:53:37 GMT

The Hidden Risk Behind Every Jobsite

Every Safety Director or EHS leader has faced that moment of uncertainty standing on a jobsite, watching a contractor crew begin work, and asking: “Are they really as safe as they say they are?”

Behind every statistic, every incident, and every near-miss lies the same underlying issue: trust without verification. In today’s fast-paced industries, where contractor workforces make up a significant portion of total labor hours, that assumption can be catastrophic.

The truth is simple: A strong workplace safety culture cannot exist without rigorous contractor verification. It’s the missing link that transforms written policies into measurable protection for your people, projects, and reputation.

Understanding the Disconnect: Why Safety Culture Fails Without Contractor Verification

Even companies with mature safety programs often struggle with a fundamental inconsistency - they hold employees to one standard and contractors to another. When verification ends at the gate, you invite unnecessary risk inside.

Here’s why the gap persists:

1. Manual tracking that breaks under pressure

Many organizations still rely on spreadsheets, emails, or scattered file systems to manage contractor docu-mentation. Certificates of insurance (COIs), OSHA logs, and training records are reviewed once, then forgotten until renewal.

This manual approach leads to missed expirations, inconsistent contractor prequalification, and hours of wasted administrative effort that Safety and Procurement teams simply don’t have.

2. Inconsistent contractor prequalification

Without a standardized contractor management system, every department - or even every site - develops its own criteria. One project may require safety manuals and EMR documentation; another may only ask for an insurance certificate.

The result? A fragmented approach that undermines compliance visibility and makes true risk management in contracting nearly impossible.

3. Reliance on self-reported data

Too many companies still take contractors at their word. But self-reporting without third-party verification leaves you exposed to OSHA citations, audit failures, and potential negligent-hiring claims.

If a contractor’s safety manual was never reviewed or worse, never existed - the liability is yours when an incident occurs.

The Ripple Effect: How Unverified Contractors Undermine Safety Compliance

The damage caused by weak verification practices runs deeper than a single jobsite:

Increased OSHA exposure: Non-compliant contractors put your entire organization at risk of citations under the multi-employer worksite policy.

Project delays and invoice holds: Missing or expired COIs often lead to delayed mobilization and unpaid invoices.

Cultural erosion: Nothing weakens a workplace safety culture faster than watching unsafe contractors work unchecked.

Reputational risk: One serious incident involving a subcontractor can undo years of brand trust.

Building the Foundation: The Role of Contractor Verification in a Mature Safety Culture

At its core, contractor verification is about transforming your safety culture from reactive to proactive - moving beyond paperwork to performance.

A robust contractor management system should deliver:

1. Comprehensive Contractor Prequalification

Collect and verify all critical compliance data from OSHA 300 logs and EMR ratings to safety program docu-mentation, insurance coverage, and employee training. FIRST , VERIFY’s online platform centralizes this information so every stakeholder sees the same, verified data in real time.

2. Continuous Safety Verification Process

Safety compliance isn’t a one-time event. Through automated alerts, remote audits, and rotating review cycles, organizations can ensure ongoing alignment with health and safety standards and reduce the administrative burden on internal teams.

3. Scalable Remote and Field Audits

A strong safety verification process doesn’t stop at document collection. FIRST , VERIFY’s Remote Audit Program validates whether contractors implement the safety programs they submit — not just that they own a manual. When documentation raises concerns, targeted onsite audits provide the final layer of assurance.

4. Integrated Risk and Access Control

From prequalification through onboarding, contractor verification should tie directly into site access. With FIRST , VERIFY’s Onsite/Offsite feature, only approved contractors can enter your facilities, closing the loop between digital compliance and physical control.

From Compliance to Culture: Embedding Contractor Verification into Daily Operations

True safety leadership doesn’t happen in annual audits or quarterly meetings - it’s built into every contractor interaction.

Here’s how leading EHS and Operations teams are bridging the gap:

Standardize your contractor onboarding

Use consistent prequalification templates across every site to align with OSHA and company-specific requirements. This ensures equal scrutiny for high-risk and low-risk contractors alike.

Audit beyond paperwork

Combine document-based remote audits with selective onsite evaluations. This hybrid approach provides both scalability and depth, improving overall workplace incident prevention.

Track performance trends

Use automated scoring and analytics to identify high-performing contractors and flag emerging risks early.

Reinforce accountability

Require corrective action plans when deficiencies are found, and document every step for your next safety compliance audit. This not only reduces liability but also demonstrates continuous improvement during regulatory inspections.

The Business Case: Why Contractor Verification Drives ROI

Safety isn’t just compliance - it’s good business.

Organizations that implement a structured contractor verification and prequalification program report:

Up to 40% fewer safety incidents through early risk detection and proactive remediation.

Faster contractor onboarding with standardized templates and automated status tracking.

Reduced administrative costs by eliminating redundant data entry and manual COI management.

Improved operational continuity through consistent verification and fewer project delays.

By shifting from a manual, reactive process to an integrated contractor management system, EHS and Risk leaders not only strengthen EHS compliance but also enhance efficiency across Procurement and Operations.

Bridging the Final Gap

Every company wants a “strong safety culture.” But culture isn’t built by slogans - it’s built by systems that make safety non-negotiable.

Contractor verification is that system . It bridges the gap between intention and execution, between policy and practice. When every contractor onsite is verified, qualified, and accountable, safety becomes part of your company’s DNA - not just a compliance checkbox.

Ready to Close the Gap?

Join the high-hazard organizations that have transformed their contractor programs with FIRST , VERIFY.

See how a unified, verified contractor management system can strengthen your safety culture, streamline compliance, and protect your operations from prequalification to day-to-day performance.

�� Request a demo

From Lagging to Leading Indicators: Why Data-Driven Safety Programs Save Lives

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 10:20:43 GMT

What if the next safety incident at your site could have been predicted and prevented?

Every EHS and Risk leader knows the sinking feeling of reviewing an incident report that starts with “We didn’t see it coming.” But in today’s world, where safety data is abundant yet underutilized, those surprises shouldn’t exist.

Across all high-hazard industries, thousands of organizations still measure safety by what went wrong yesterday instead of what can go right tomorrow. That’s the difference between lagging indicators in safety and leading indicators of safety performance and it’s where the next generation of data-driven safety programs is transforming how companies save lives, protect projects, and prove compliance.

From Reactive to Predictive: The Safety Mindset Shift

For decades, safety programs relied on hindsight. OSHA logs, incident rates, and Experience Modification Rates (EMR) became the default safety performance metrics useful for compliance but limited for prevention.

These lagging indicators in safety measure what has already happened injuries, lost time, and recordables. They reveal trends but not the root causes. By the time those numbers rise, the damage is already done.

In contrast, leading indicators of safety performance look forward. They identify at-risk behavior, environmental conditions, or process gaps before they cause harm. They move safety management from reactive to proactive from counting injuries to preventing them.

The transition isn’t just about metrics it’s a fundamental shift in mindset.

The Real-World Challenge: Data Without Direction

In conversations with Safety Directors and Operations Executives, one pattern is clear: most organizations are collecting data, but few are using it effectively.

Why? Because their systems weren’t built for today’s complexity.

Manual tracking still dominates. Critical safety documentation training records, certificates of insurance (COIs), audit results, all live in disconnected spreadsheets and email threads.

Inconsistent prequalification leaves gaps in contractor oversight. One department verifies COIs; another assumes training is current; no one confirms field implementation.

Limited verification of safety data undermines trust. Lagging indicators are reported quarterly, but leading metrics like the percentage of contractor employees with current site-specific orientations are rarely validated or centralized.

For Safety Directors , this creates blind spots that allow small issues to compound.
For Risk Officers , it drives up EMR scores and insurance premiums.
For Procurement Leaders, it threatens compliance and project timelines when contractors fall short of client standards.

Without a unified, data-driven safety program , the organization remains trapped in a reactive loop waiting for incidents to justify action.

Building a Data-Driven Safety Framework

The strongest safety programs don’t just track numbers - they translate them into insight. That’s the foundation of data-driven safety programs , where every training record, COI, and audit result feeds into a single, verifiable source of truth.

Here’s how EHS leaders can make that shift:

Start by Defining What to Measure

Identify both lagging indicators (injuries, lost-time incidents, OSHA recordables) and leading indicators (training completion, audit scores). Together, they provide a balanced view of your EHS performance indicators: a full picture of outcomes and behaviors.

Automate Data Collection and Verification

Replace manual spreadsheets with centralized digital systems. Tools like FIRST, VERIFY automate the collec-tion and verification of contractor safety data from insurance coverage to training documentation, ensuring accuracy and real-time visibility.

Analyze and Visualize Safety Data

Use safety data analytics and dashboards to uncover trends across locations, job types, or contractors.

Which contractors have expired COIs?
Which contractor employees have expired training?
How do safety audit scores compare across your supply chain?

These insights fuel predictive safety analytics, turning isolated data points into early warnings before incidents occur.

Align Safety Metrics with Business Goals

Integrate safety insights into operational and financial decisions. When leading indicators improve, so does performance: fewer shutdowns, lower insurance costs, and faster contractor onboarding.

Turning Insight into Action: A Checklist for EHS Leaders

To move from lagging to leading, EHS teams must transform how they measure and manage risk.
Here’s a practical checklist to get started:

Audit your current metrics — Are you tracking outcomes or behavior?
Centralize contractor data — Bring COIs, EMR, training records, and audits into one system.
Define 3–5 safety KPI examples — Focus on leading indicators tied to your risk profile.
Automate reminders and renewals — Ensure no document or training slips through the cracks.
Review workplace safety trends monthly — Don’t wait for quarterly summaries; act in real time.

The New Standard for Safety Excellence

In today’s environment, data-driven safety programs are more than a best practice - they’re an operational imperative.

By connecting leading indicators, predictive analytics , and verified contractor data, EHS leaders gain control over what truly matters: visibility, accountability, and prevention.

Every audit completed, every COI verified, and every training record tracked adds another layer of protection - not just for compliance, but for the people who make your operations possible.

Because in the end, safety isn’t a statistic. It’s a promise. And the more data you can trust, the stronger that promise becomes.

Take Action: Bring Data to the Front Line of Safety

If your organization is still managing contractor compliance manually or relying on outdated, reactive metrics, now is the time to evolve.

FIRST, VERIFY helps EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders turn fragmented safety data into proactive insight through verified contractor prequalification, customized audits, and automated compliance tracking.

Centralize safety performance metrics
Verify contractor documentation
Identify risks through predictive safety analytics
Build a culture of prevention and accountability

Turn your data into foresight - not hindsight.
Request a demo to learn how FIRST, VERIFY helps organizations transform safety data into safer outcomes.

The Broken Windows of Workplace Safety: Why Small Lapses Lead to Major Incidents

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 11:07:32 GMT

In every high-risk industry, many safety leaders can recall the moment a small, overlooked detail turned into something catastrophic.

- A missing guardrail.
- A skipped inspection.
- A forgotten safety meeting.

Each seemed minor at the time. But when combined, they became the weak link that broke the chain of prevention.

This is the essence of the Broken Windows Theory in workplace safety - the idea that if small issues go unchecked, they create an environment where major incidents are more likely to occur. And for today’s EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders, this principle is more relevant than ever.

The Real Cost of “Small Safety Lapses”

Workplace safety isn’t usually undone by a single event. It’s the slow erosion of standards - the paperwork not filed, the worn PPE not replaced, or the toolbox talk that gets postponed “just this once.”

These small safety lapses may seem insignificant, but they quietly signal that corners can be cut. Over time, that mindset takes root in a company’s culture.

When supervisors overlook unsafe behavior, or when contractors are allowed onsite without complete prequalification, a silent message spreads: “We talk about safety, but we don’t always mean it.”

This erosion of accountability impacts:

Safety Managers , who must explain preventable incidents to executives.
Risk Officers , who see EMRS, and consequently insurance premiums, rise.
Operations Leaders , who face project delays, citations, or worse - injuries that change lives.

According to OSHA, more than 5,000 workers die each year in the U.S. due to workplace incidents. A majority of these stems from human error and procedural gaps - not the absence of safety programs, but the failure to consistently follow or enforce them.

Human Error in Safety: A Symptom, Not the Cause

When an accident happens, investigations often point to human error. But experienced safety professionals know that “error” is rarely random; it’s usually the result of deeper systemic issues - a chain of small failures .

Latent conditions: poor supervision, inadequate training, inadequate maintenance, vague procedures, production pressure, or fatigue.
Active failures: a momentary lapse - someone skips a step, misjudges a distance, disables a guard, or takes a “shortcut.”
Event: the physical mechanism (fall, collision, electrocution).

Without a strong framework for safety management and risk management, even the most seasoned teams can miss the latent conditions.

Broken Windows in Contractor Safety

Nowhere is this more visible than in contractor management. Many organizations invest heavily in safety programs for their employees, yet overlook the same standards for their extended workforce: their contractors.

That’s where the cracks form.

- A single expired COI.
- A training record that was “pending.”
- A contractor’s outdated safety manual.

These are the broken windows of contractor compliance. Left unaddressed, they undermine not just safety compliance, but the trust between your organization, your workforce, and your partners.

Building a Resilient Workplace Safety Culture

The foundation of any strong workplace safety culture is accountability - the expectation that every worker, at every level, takes ownership of safety.

To repair broken windows before they shatter, organizations must:

1. Implement proactive verification.

Move beyond self-reported safety claims. Require documentation for every insurance policy, OSHA log, and training record.

2. Standardize contractor prequalification.

Ensure every contractor meets your organization’s safety, financial, and regulatory requirements before they arrive onsite.

3. Audit for implementation, not intention.

A written fall protection plan means little if it’s not practiced. Remote or onsite audits confirm not just if safety programs exist, but if they're actively implemented.

4. Use data to drive continuous improvement.

Track trends in safety observations, expired COIs, and training gaps. Early detection prevents escalation.

5. Lead with safety visibly.

Safety leadership starts at the top. When executives prioritize safety meetings and enforce stop-work authority, accountability becomes cultural.

How Technology Strengthens Safety Leadership

In today’s fast-moving industrial environment, manual tracking of contractor compliance simply can’t keep up. Spreadsheets can’t send reminders. Paper files can’t flag expired insurance. And email chains don’t verify authenticity.

That’s why more organizations are turning to digital safety management platforms like FIRST, VERIFY: Tools that centralize contractor data, automate the verification process, and create the transparency needed for compliance confidence.

Contractor prequalification ensures only compliant contractors are approved.
Integrated audit programs (remote and onsite) verify that safety programs aren’t just written - they’re implemented.
Real-time reporting helps Safety Managers and Risk Officers spot gaps before they turn into liabilities.

As one client put it:

“ FIRST, VERIFY has helped us create a sustainably safe environment for our employees and every contractor who steps onsite.”

That’s the measurable difference between checking boxes and building a culture.

Preventing Workplace Accidents Starts with the Small Things

Every major incident begins as a small oversight. The missing documentation. The unchecked hazard. The unverified contractor.

Preventing workplace accidents isn’t just about compliance - it’s about vigilance. It’s about creating systems that make small lapses impossible to ignore.

When you close those windows early, you don’t just reduce risk, you strengthen the entire foundation of your organization’s environmental, health and safety culture.

Take Action: Strengthen Your Safety Culture with FIRST, VERIFY

Your safety culture is only as strong as its weakest link, and in a multi-contractor environment, that link is often the process you can’t see.

FIRST, VERIFY helps EHS, Risk, and Operations leaders eliminate those blind spots.

Streamline contractor prequalification
Verify certificates of insurance (COIs) and safety programs
Audit compliance remotely or onsite
Build a transparent, proactive safety ecosystem

Don’t wait for a small lapse to become a major incident.

Request a demo and see how FIRST, VERIFY transforms contractor risk management into your strongest line of defense.

The Field Audit or the Remote Audit? Solutions in Contractor Risk Management

Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:32:38 GMT

For safety directors, compliance officers, and operations executives, effectively managing your extended workforce — your contractors — is a high-stakes responsibility. While the concept of contractor prequalifi-cation is now standard, the debate remains: what is the most robust and scalable method for continuous oversight?

The answer is not a single approach. The most successful contractor risk management programs integrate both onsite audits and offsite inspections (or remote audits ) into a strategic, data-driven hybrid model. The key is knowing which tool to deploy, and when.

The Case for Field Audits: Direct Observation and Depth

An onsite, or field audit is the gold standard for verifying the practical application of safety policies. It moves beyond checking a box on a form and provides direct, physical evidence of compliance.

Key Benefits of Being Onsite

Verify Physical Conditions: An auditor can directly assess machine guarding, housekeeping standards, safe work practices, and the actual use of required PPE.
Assess Safety Culture: An onsite inspection offers a tangible measure of a contractor’s commitment to safety, from management buy-in to employee engagement.
High-Risk Assurance: When the work involves extreme hazards (e.g., confined spaces, complex LOTO procedures, or high-volume traffic), direct oversight is non-negotiable.

The Onsite Challenge

While crucial, a purely onsite audit strategy is resource-intensive. It creates significant logistical hurdles, is expensive to scale across a large base of contractors , and can lead to audit fatigue—which is why it must be reserved for targeted, high-value scenarios.

The Necessity of Remote Audits: Scalability and Programmatic Review

The bulk of modern contractor compliance must be managed remotely. Offsite—or remote audits—provide the speed, consistency, and affordability required to vet a large number of contractors effectively.

The FIRST, VERIFY Advantage: Focusing on Implementation

Unlike platforms that audit whether contractors’ safety manuals have approved wording, FIRST, VERIFY’s remote audits evaluate whether your contractors' safety programs are actually being implemented.

Documentation Verification: Our remote auditors determine if a contractor can document employee training in the hazards associated with each job function, does it perform jobsite inspections, incident investigations, and have a written disciplinary policy. We don't just ask if they have a fall protection program; we verify the application of the program itself.
Unmatched Affordability: Because our remote approach focuses heavily on the documentation portion of the audit, we can keep the process extremely affordable compared to the travel and staff costs associated with traditional field audits.
Consistency and Customization: FIRST, VERIFY provides a uniform method for collecting and updating critical information, ensuring every contractor is scored against your specific, customized risk tolerance and compliance requirements.

Ideal Use Cases for Remote Audits

Prequalification: After establishing a baseline of compliance by verifying a satisfactory safety history, required insurance coverage, and other prequalification requirements, remote audits provide assurance that your contractors meet your standards for competent safety management.
Annual/Rotating Compliance: If not with every prequalification, remote audits can also be cost-effective when they’re performed on a rotating, multi-year basis.

Building the Hybrid Audit Strategy

Successful contractor risk management is a blend of efficiency and control. The hybrid audit strategy uses the affordability of the remote audit program to triage risk, reserving the high cost of an onsite audit for the greatest areas of concern.

In practice, this means that the remote audit becomes the program’s first line of defense providing broad, continuous visibility across the contractor base while flagging trends and anomalies that warrant deeper investigation. When red flags arise such as inconsistent documentation, abnormal incident rates, or gaps in required training these contractors can then be prioritized for targeted onsite audits. This approach ensures resources are spent where they deliver the greatest return: confirming that high-risk or high-impact contractors are not only compliant on paper but in the field.

Over time, data from both audit types reinforce each other. Remote audits feed measurable indicators of program health and consistency, while field audits validate those indicators through firsthand observation. The result is a living feedback loop that strengthens both predictive insight and compliance confidence.

A robust, customized hybrid audit strategy is a vital investment in your operational efficiency and legal protection. Contact FIRST, VERIFY today to schedule a consultation and see how our remote audit services and customizable prequalification program can transform your contractor risk management from a manual burden into a standardized, scalable asset.

Learn more about our services or request a demo .

The Cost of Blind Trust: Why FIRST, VERIFY’s Financial Analytics is Essential for Subcontractor Prequalification

Mon, 13 Oct 2025 14:24:04 GMT

Beyond the COI: Protecting Your Projects from Financial Failure

In the capital-intensive world of commercial construction, safety compliance is paramount. However, organ-izations that focus solely on subcontractor safety records and certificates of insurance are overlooking a hidden risk that can derail major projects and hit the balance sheet directly: financial instability.

What happens when a critical subcontractor runs out of working capital, defaults on a loan, or files for bankruptcy mid-project? The consequence is immediate: costly delays, project overruns, and the expense of emergency re-scoping and re-bidding. A financially unstable subcontractor is, by definition, an unaccept-able operational risk. This is why satisfactory financial health must be a mandatory component of your third-party risk management program.

FIRST, VERIFY’s Financial Analytics module transforms this complex due diligence into a streamlined, data-driven decision, moving beyond simple checks to provide deep fiscal intelligence.

Component Feature Focus: Financial Analytics

The Financial Analytics module within FIRST, VERIFY provides authorized users—from Procurement to CFOs—with a clear, three-dimensional view of a subcontractor’s fiscal viability.

1. Data Collection and Verification for Accuracy

FIRST, VERIFY mandates that the subcontractor submits detailed Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet data cover-ing the past three-year period (plus current YTD if more than six months after the last fiscal year end).

Transparency: Authorized users can view the submitted data alongside the financial statements uploaded by the subcontractor to verify accuracy.
Completeness: This historical data ensures that evaluation is based on a trend established by actual performance, not just a single snapshot in time.

2. Automated Ratio Analysis for Liquidity and Leverage

The platform instantly calculates and presents key financial ratios, eliminating manual spreadsheet work for

your finance team. These metrics provide powerful early warnings of financial distress:

A. Risk Category: Liquidity & Working Capital

Key Ratios: Current Ratio, Quick Ratio, Backlog
Risk Mitigated: Short-term cash flow failure leading to invoice holds or project stoppage.

B. Risk Category: Leverage

Key Ratios: Debt-to-Equity, Debt-to-Asset Ratios
Risk Mitigated: High dependency on debt that could make the subcontractor vulnerable to interest rate changes or credit market shifts.

C. Risk Category: Profitability

Key Ratios: Net Profit Margin, Return on Assets
Risk Mitigated: Unsustainable business models that threaten the long-term viability of the partnership.

3. The Ultimate Differentiator: Z-Score and Benchmarking

To provide actionable context, FIRST, VERIFY highlights its most valuable analytical features:

Bankruptcy Predictor (Z-Score): Our system provides Z-Scores, a globally recognized weighted score used to predict the probability of corporate bankruptcy within a two-year period. This metric moves the conversation from if a subcontractor is financially strained to how likely they are to fail.
Contextual Benchmarking: Our analytics are dynamic. FIRST, VERIFY displays three-year trends for each financial ratio, automatically comparing the sub against the average trend of all your other prequalified subs in that same trade category (e.g., Electrical, Pipefitting, HVAC, etc.).

This unparalleled feature allows Finance, Procurement, and Safety managers to instantly identify a sub-contractor that is significantly underperforming its peers, enabling truly proactive risk mitigation.

From Risk to Operational Efficiency

By integrating financial stability checks alongside safety documentation, FIRST, VERIFY ensures that you only onboard the most trustworthy partners, protecting your organization from financial loss and ensuring project continuity.

Stop relying on blind trust. Verify financial stability before the contract is signed. Request Your FIRST, VERIFY Financial Analytics Demo Today

The Strategic Advantage: How Remote Audits Move Your Safety Program Beyond Paperwork

Mon, 06 Oct 2025 11:53:19 GMT

For safety managers, risk officers, and operations executives, the sheer volume of contractor management can be overwhelming. The process often feels like a constant battle against a tide of paperwork - certificates of insurance, safety questionnaires, and training logs - all while the underlying anxiety of potential risk looms. You need to ensure every contractor working on your site is qualified and committed to safety, but the manual process of prequalification and document tracking is time-intensive, inconsistent, and often leaves you with more questions than answers.

How do you gain the confidence that your contractors’ safety programs are truly robust?

This is where FIRST, VERIFY transforms the conversation. Our remote audit program is the strategic solution designed to move beyond self-reported data, providing a deeper layer of verification that empowers you to mitigate risk, ensure compliance, and achieve a new standard of operational efficiency.

What is a Remote Audit, and Why is It a Game-Changer?

A remote audit is a detailed, systematic evaluation of a contractor’s safety documentation, including its training records, written programs, jobsite inspections, and disciplinary actions. The result is a quantifiable score that provides a clear measure of a contractor's commitment to safety.

The power of a remote audit lies in its efficiency. It provides critical insights into whether a contractor actually implements its safety program, without the cost of a traditional, full-scale, in-person audit.

By focusing on the documentation itself, FIRST, VERIFY makes a comprehensive, ongoing audit program both highly effective and incredibly affordable. This approach allows you to implement a continuous verification process that supports your risk mitigation goals without burdening your budget or internal resources - saving you time and money.

Component Features That Drive Results

Our remote audit program is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It is built on a foundation of flexibility and strategic focus, giving you full control over how you manage risk.

1. A Targeted, Risk-Based Approach:

Just like a financial audit, our program doesn't review every single detail or every single contractor. We help you identify and focus on the high-risk contractors who represent the greatest potential for liability. This targeted approach ensures that every audit is a valuable investment, allowing you to spot inconsistencies and potential problems where they matter most. You can stop chasing paperwork for every single contractor and start focusing on where the real risk truly lies.

2. Unmatched Customization and Flexibility:

We understand that every company has a unique risk tolerance and operational philosophy. That’s why we partner with you to fully customize the audit to your specific needs and budget. You can choose to audit all selected contractors at once or implement a multi-year rotating format that aligns with your long-term objectives. Whether you are a safety manager needing to meet specific regulatory standards or a procurement leader focused on cost-effectiveness, our program can be tailored to fit your needs perfectly.

3. Affordable and Efficient Verification:

The cost-effectiveness of our remote audit program is a major differentiator. By focusing on documentation rather than a time-consuming on-site visit, we deliver an excellent and thorough result at a fraction of the cost. The cost per audit is typically between $400 and $800, which is far less than what it would cost to manage a program in-house. This makes it feasible to audit a larger portion of your contractor base, providing a more comprehensive overview of your supply chain’s safety landscape.

4. Actionable Assurance:

The ultimate benefit of our program is the peace of mind it provides. It gives you the assurance that your contractors' safety programs are exactly what they report in their prequalification questionnaires. This is invaluable, especially when facing potential OSHA compliance issues, third-party liability, and the need to protect your company from reputational and financial harm.

5. A Partnership for Improvement:

Our audits aren't just about finding faults; they are about fostering a culture of continuous improvement. We consistently hear from contractors who say, "Thanks for pointing out where we needed improvement." This collaborative feedback loop highlights a key differentiator:

FIRST, VERIFY is a partner in making your entire contractor base safer and more reliable. The system also allows for a seamless transition from your current system, with a user-friendly online interface and live customer support to help you get started quickly.

By leveraging FIRST, VERIFY’s remote audit program, you are not just checking a box - you are proactively mitigating risk, enhancing your operational efficiency, and building a more resilient and safer work environment for everyone. It’s about moving from a reactive position to a strategic one, turning a manual burden into a core business advantage.

Ready to see how a targeted audit can transform your safety program? Request a demo to learn how FIRST, VERIFY ’s remote audit services can be customized for your business.

How to Streamline Contractor Safety Training

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:13:26 GMT

In high-risk industries, ensuring that every contractor is properly trained before they set foot on your site isn't just a best practice - it's a critical component of risk mitigation and regulatory compliance. But for many EHS and Operations leaders, managing this process is a manual, time-intensive headache that drains resources and creates unnecessary exposure.

At FIRST, VERIFY, we understand these challenges. Our platform is designed to transform this burden into a seamless, efficient, and auditable process. Today, we're taking a closer look at a powerful component of our service: the online safety orientation module.

The Pain of In-Person Safety Orientations

Think about your current process. Are you coordinating in-person training sessions for every new contractor? Are you struggling to track which contractor employee has completed the required training and which hasn't? Inconsistent standards, lost paperwork, and a lack of centralized documentation are major pain points. These inefficiencies not only waste valuable time for your safety professionals- they also put your company at risk of non-compliance and potential liability.

How FIRST, VERIFY’s Safety Orientation Module Solves Your Challenges

Our online safety orientation feature is a game-changer, providing a customized and user-friendly solution that ensures every contractor is prepared and documented. Here's how it works:

1. Customizable Training, Your Way:

We can host your existing safety orientation videos or even produce a video directly from your company's PowerPoint slides. This ensures that your specific site safety protocols are communicated clearly and consistently to every contractor, every time.

2. Verified Comprehension:

Our module goes beyond simple video viewing. We can integrate quizzes to test a contractor's comprehension, and the system can display which questions were answered incorrectly. For corporate policies, the system can enable an electronic acknowledgment form, giving you auditable proof that policies have been reviewed and accepted.

3. Automated & Accessible:

The system automatically emails reminders for renewal, ensuring that no contractor's training lapses. For your contractors, the process is simple: they can take the orientation online at their convenience. Once completed, a completion certificate is automatically generated for download and printing.

4. Centralized Records & Reporting:

All training records, including pass/fail results, are stored securely within each contractor's account. Your team can run aggregate reports by contractor, employee, or training course, giving you an immediate, high-level view of your compliance status.

5. Language Adaptability:

To ensure comprehension across a diverse workforce, the system offers professional voiceovers with Spanish and other language translations.

By implementing FIRST, VERIFY’s safety orientation module, you can eliminate the hassle of in-person classes and the time spent chasing paperwork. The result is a streamlined, cost-effective program that saves valuable time, reduces risk, and fosters a sustainably safe work environment for everyone.

Ready to simplify your contractor safety training?

Contact FIRST, VERIFY today to schedule a demo and learn how our solution can be tailored to your business needs.

The Hidden Costs of Manual Prequalification: Why Your Safety Program is a Paper Tiger

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:42:24 GMT

In today's competitive landscape, safety and efficiency are no longer optional; they're a competitive advantage. Yet for many organizations, the critical first step of any project - contractor prequalification - remains a manual, time-consuming burden.

Your team, from safety managers to procurement leads, likely spends 15–20 hours per week on manual contractor reviews, shuffling paper documents, correcting inadequate insurance coverage, and chasing down expired paperwork. This isn't just an administrative chore; it's a compliance time bomb.

The Problem: When Paperwork Leads to Project Delays

The real cost of this manual process goes far beyond wasted administrative hours. In the construction industry alone, over 65% of projects face delays, many of which can be traced directly back to compliance and paperwork bottlenecks. These delays create a domino effect of financial loss, safety risks, and reputational damage.

The current, manual approach is a cycle of reactive work. An administrator receives a contractor’s prequalification documents, which typically include insurance forms and other mandatory details. They then have to manually verify the information and validate it for accuracy. If it isn't correct or is incomplete, the admin has to go back to the contractor for corrections. The process can be a continuous one, as contractors may need to contact their providers to obtain the corrected or updated documents. This reactive, back-and-forth system is prone to error and omissions, creating friction at every turn.

The Solution: Automation, Standardization, and Confidence in Contractor Management

FIRST, VERIFY was built to eliminate these exact problems. As a contractor prequalification portal, our platform standardizes contractor onboarding and automates compliance tracking, giving you a single point of administration for all your contractor information.

Our solution operates across three key modules:

Contractor Portal: Where contractors register, upload documents, and complete all required questionnaires, providing a single, intuitive interface for compliance submission.
Client Portal: Gives clients a clear, real-time view of their contractors' compliance status, so leadership can track prequalification from a single dashboard.
Admin Portal: Allows administrators to manage all aspects of the process, including user access, invitations, and the all-important review process.

A key differentiator is the ability to create customizable questionnaires based on client needs. You can design your own unique questionnaire or modify existing detailed templates for high-risk or low-risk contractors. This ensures that you collect exactly the information you need - nothing more, nothing less. Once submitted, the system provides a clear tracking status to keep you up to date in real time.

By streamlining prequalification and eliminating the manual work, FIRST, VERIFY helps your team:

Reduce Delays: Prevent project and invoice holds by ensuring all required documents are collected and verified before work begins.
Save Time: Free up hundreds of hours a year currently spent on manual data entry and follow-up.
Ensure Compliance: Maintain an audit-ready trail of all contractor documents and interactions, providing confidence in your compliance program.

Take the First Step Towards a Safer, More Efficient Future

The cost of manual prequalification is too high to ignore. Don't let paperwork and inefficient processes put your next project, or your entire organization, at risk.

Contact Us to see how FIRST, VERIFY can transform your contractor management, save your team countless hours, and build a foundation of compliance confidence.

More Than a Fine: How the Top 3 OSHA Violations Point to Deeper Contractor Risk

Fri, 08 Aug 2025 20:02:03 GMT

A single OSHA citation can feel like a painful, unexpected cost. But what if that fine is actually just the tip of the iceberg?

The reality is that the most common OSHA violations are often symptoms of a much deeper, more expensive problem: a critical gap in how you manage your contractors. These citations don’t happen in a vacuum. They are frequently the result of an outdated, manual approach to contractor management that leaves you blind to the real risks on your job sites. When you lack centralized oversight of your contractors' safety training and compliance, you’re not just risking a fine; you're risking project delays, legal battles, and catastrophic failures.

Let’s dive into the top violations and uncover how they connect directly to contractor oversight.

1. Fall Protection (29 CFR 1926.501)

It’s no surprise that fall protection is consistently at the top of OSHA’s list. Falls are a leading cause of workplace fatalities, especially in high-risk industries like construction. The standard is clear: any employee working at an elevated height must be protected.

The Contractor Gap: You hire a roofing company or a specialized maintenance crew to work on elevated equipment. You assume they are following protocol. But do you have documented proof that every single one of their workers has up-to-date fall protection training? When an incident occurs, "we assumed they were trained" is not a defense. Without a centralized system to verify individual worker training records, you are exposed.

2. Hazard Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200)

The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) ensures that workers have access to information about the chemicals they handle through Safety Data Sheets (SDS), proper labeling, and training. It’s about the fundamental "right to know."

The Contractor Gap: A subcontractor brings a new chemical onto your site. Your own employees might be working nearby, but your team has no visibility into that chemical's SDS or whether the contractor’s employees are trained to handle it safely. This failure to properly label chemicals and train workers is a frequent violation that increases the risk of spills and injuries. This is a classic example of risk being managed in decentralized silos, while liability remains consolidated with you, the hiring organization.

3. Ladders (29 CFR 1926.1053)

Violations involving ladders are consistently one of the most cited by OSHA. The standard covers everything from the structural integrity of the ladder itself to how it is used on the job.

The Contractor Gap: Your contractor’s team may have been "trained" on ladder safety, but are they using the right type of ladder for the job? Is it free from damage? Is it positioned at the correct angle and secured? A simple check-the-box training certificate from months ago doesn't guarantee safe practices today. Without a system to ensure and document site-specific training and ongoing competency, you are accepting a huge liability every time a contractor sets up a ladder on your property.

The Real Root Cause: A Disconnected Approach to Contractor Compliance

The common thread running through these violations is a lack of unified oversight. Many organizations still rely on a patchwork of emails, phone calls, and spreadsheets to manage contractor compliance. These manual systems are not just inefficient; they are a primary source of organizational risk. Key documents are misfiled, renewal dates for certificates of insurance (COIs) are missed, and there is no single source to confirm a contractor’s status. This forces companies into a reactive compliance cycle: an incident occurs, a new policy is hastily implemented to "check the box," and the issue fades until the next failure.

The True Cost: Beyond the OSHA Fine

An OSHA penalty is only the beginning. The indirect costs of a contractor-related incident are often far greater and include:

Crippling Project Delays: A single stop-work order or the discovery of an uninsured contractor mid-project can derail timelines and budgets.
Soaring Insurance Premiums: A poor safety record and a history of claims lead directly to higher insurance costs.
Severe Legal Liability: In the event of a serious incident, companies can face "nuclear" jury verdicts reaching tens of millions of dollars, especially if they are found liable for negligent hiring.
Lasting Reputational Damage: A catastrophic failure can make it significantly harder to win future projects and maintain client trust.

The Solution: From Reactive Chaos to Proactive Control with FIRST, VERIFY

Transforming compliance from a costly burden into a strategic advantage requires a fundamental shift in mindset and technology. The first and most critical step is to centralize and digitize your contractor management process.

This is where FIRST, VERIFY provides the solution.

Instead of drowning in spreadsheets and email chains, FIRST, VERIFY gives you a single point of administration for all contractor data, safety records, insurance documents, and training certifications. Our platform automates the administrative busywork of chasing paperwork and tracking expirations, freeing up your team to focus on high-value risk mitigation.

Most important, FIRST, VERIFY bridges the dangerous gap between a contractor’s paper promises and their real-world performance. We help you implement a formal contractor prequalification process, ensuring every worker on your site is properly trained, fully insured, and ready to perform their job safely—before they ever step foot on the property.

Don’t wait for an OSHA inspection to reveal your blind spots. Take control of your contractor risk today.

Contractor Takeover Leads to Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Claims

Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:54:57 GMT

When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor.

That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits.

Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants.

Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits.

The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise.

Author: Neil S.Lowenstein

New Sex Harassment Law: Making for Strange Bedfellows in Construction Industry

Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:10:04 GMT

In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur.

Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities.

Texas and California Similarities

In Texas, as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager.

In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors.

In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later.

In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial.

In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.

Implications

What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees.

To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law.

Author: Victor N. Corpuz

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry

During an OSHA inspection: Know your rights

Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:22:34 GMT

During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on. However, an OSHA official cannot require equipment to be positioned a certain way or an accident scene be reenacted for photographs of an allegedly violative condition.

Knowing this, a company can save time and money. In Secretary of Labor v. North American Crane & Rigging LLC (NACR), OSHRC No. 20-1089 (Aug. 6, 2021), the employer successfully contested an OSHA citation based on two instances of failing to adequately mark hazardous area boundaries in violation of the crane standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii). The judge agreed that no employees were exposed to the swing radius of two cranes.

Background

In this case, an OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) was driving by a construction site and saw a crane in use. He pulls over to start an inspection. One crane (yellow crane) was in the process of being used to disassemble another (red crane). While onsite, the CSHO observed the red crane’s superstructure rotating while two employees stand within feet of it. There were no barriers or warning signs because the red crane’s counterweights had been removed and its swing radius did not extend beyond the vehicle’s body. During the walk-around inspection, the CSHO was not observed to have taken any measurements of the red crane. The CSHO observed the yellow crane’s superstructure rotate with its attached counterweights extending several feet past the extended outriggers. Through pre-planning, all lifting and landing of the red crane’s boom sections would take place on the left side of the yellow crane. As a result, the counterweights would always be on the right side of the yellow crane, where no employees would be working. Therefore, it was determined that ropes only needed to be hung between the outriggers of the yellow crane on the left side that stated “DANGER—SWING AREA – RESTRICTED.” In fact, the CSHO only sees employees working on the left side of the yellow crane. However, the CSHO asked an employee to position the yellow crane so the counterweights are on the left side of the crane. Thinking nothing of it, the employee complied and allowed the CSHO to take pictures of the crane in that position.

OSHA cited the company with two instances of failing to adequately mark the hazardous area boundaries created by the swing radii of the yellow and red cranes’ rotating superstructures in violation of the crane standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii).

The company contested the citations, claiming, in part, there were no employees exposed to the swing radius of either crane. The judge agreed. As a direct result of the CSHO not taking quantitative measurements, the judge held the OSHA Secretary was unable to prove the red crane’s rotating superstructure, without counterweights, posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of striking the two employees standing at one end of the crawler. The judge also found the employees’ matter-of-fact recounting of the CSHO’s instruction to rotate the yellow crane more credible than the CSHO’s vague recollection. The judge stated that the only time the left side of the yellow crane became a zone of danger was when the employee rotated the counterweights to that side after the CSHO instructed him to do so. Based on the work plan, the judge further stated it was not reasonably foreseeable (or predictable) that an OSHA CSHO would instruct the operator of the yellow crane to swing the counterweights to the left side of the crane so he could document the counterweights extended past the boundary marker on that side. Due to the lack of evidence, the judge found the Secretary also failed to show the rotating superstructure of the yellow crane posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of striking, pinching, or crushing an employee in an accessible area on the left side. Therefore, the judge ultimately vacated the citation.

Protecting Rights

OSHA may have the legal authority to inspect the workplace, but a company and its employees also have rights. It is important to balance both rights throughout the inspection process.

If OSHA does not witness a violation or otherwise has evidence of employee exposure to a violation, it cannot create or recreate exposure in photographs by asking an employer to stage the scene. If OSHA insists, contact an experienced OSHA attorney or upper management official for advice.

In NACR , the Secretary largely rested the case on the photographs and evidence obtained by the CSHO. Time and money may have been saved if the employees declined to move the equipment into the requested position. Even trained CSHOs do not always have the required expertise to understand some of the more complex OSHA standards, such as the crane and derrick standard, or how the equipment operates at the worksite, especially during different types of activities. As was the case in NACR, employers might be more knowledgeable than the CSHO in these areas and should stand behind their expertise and attempt to educate the CSHO about the operations.

Proposed Clarification of Crane and Derricks Standard

OSHA has proposed amendments to the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard. The suggested changes include revising wording relating to voltages (AC and DC), broadening exclusions for forklifts, correcting an error permitting body belts to be used as a personal fall arrest system (as opposed to a personal fall restrain system), removing ambiguity regarding crane verbiage, and correcting other errors found in the current standard. These amendments likely will not change the application of the standard significantly, but they would help clarify and correct mistakes.

Author: Melanie L. Paul & Kristina T. Brooks

OSHA’s new initiative to protect workers from hazards of extreme heat | FIRST, VERIFY

Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:05:19 GMT

As part of the Biden-Harris administration's interagency effort and commitment to workplace safety, climate resilience, and environmental justice, the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration is initiating enhanced measures to protect workers better in hot environments and reduce the dangers of exposure to ambient heat.

To combat the hazards associated with extreme heat exposure – both indoors and outdoors – the White House, on September 22 ^nd announced an enhanced and expanded efforts the U.S. Department of Labor is taking to address heat-related illnesses.

While heat illness is largely preventable and commonly under-reported, thousands of workers are sickened each year by workplace heat exposure. Despite widespread under-reporting, 43 workers died from heat illness in 2019, and at least 2,410 others suffered serious injuries and illnesses. The Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center estimates the economic loss from heat to be at least $100 billion annually – a number that could double by 2030 and quintuple by 2050 under a higher emissions scenario.

What is the initiative?

To highlight its concern and take necessary steps, OSHA is implementing an enforcement initiative on heat-related hazards, developing a National Emphasis Program on heat inspections, and launching a rulemaking process to develop a workplace heat standard. In addition, the agency is forming a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Work Group to provide a better understanding of challenges and to identify and share best practices to protect workers.

OSHA implemented an intervention and enforcement initiative recently to prevent and protect workers from heat-related illnesses and deaths while they are working in hazardous hot environments. The newly established initiative prioritizes heat-related interventions and inspections of work activities on days when the heat index exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

Scope of the initiative:

The initiative applies to both indoor and outdoor worksites. Indoor worksites that may be impacted by extreme heat include foundries, brick-firing, and ceramic plants, glass production facilities, rubber products factories, electrical utilities (particularly boiler rooms), bakeries, confectioneries, commercial kitchens, laundries, food canneries, warehouses without adequate climate control, chemical plants, and smelters.

Outdoor work activities that may cause exposure to extreme heat include agriculture, landscaping, construction operations, refining gas/oil and well operations, asbestos and lead removal, waste collection activities, package and mail delivery, and any other activities that require moderate to high physical exertions or the wearing of heavy or bulky clothing or equipment on a hot day.

According to Jim Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, usually agricultural and construction workers often come to mind first when thinking about workers most exposed to heat hazards. However, without proper safety actions, sun protection, and climate control, intense heat can be injurious to various workers indoors or outdoors and during any season.

Heat-related directives:

OSHA Area Directors across the nation will institute the following:

Prioritize inspections of heat-related complaints, referrals, and employer-reported illnesses and initiate an onsite investigation where possible.
Instruct compliance safety and health officers, during their travels to job sites, to conduct an intervention (providing the agency's heat poster/wallet card, discuss the importance of easy access to cool water, cooling areas, and acclimatization) or opening an inspection when they observe employees performing strenuous work in hot conditions.
Expand the scope of other inspections to address heat-related hazards where worksite conditions or other evidence indicates these hazards may be present.

In October 2021, OSHA will take an important step toward a federal heat standard to safeguard protections in workplaces across the country by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on heat injury and illness prevention in outdoor and indoor work settings. The advance notice will initiate a comment period allowing OSHA to gather diverse perspectives and technical expertise on topics including heat stress thresholds, heat acclimatization planning, exposure monitoring, and strategies to protect workers.

How should employers prepare?

Employers should be aware of potential citations relating to heat illness and should prepare for inspections by reviewing their procedures and developing a manner to monitor outdoor (and, in certain industries, indoor) temperatures, ensuring employees have access to shade and water. They also need to educate employees on signs of heat illness and provide access to ventilation or cooling areas in their workplace. Once OSHA’s ANPRM is released, employers need to be ready with data and information to identify complexities with compliance.

Source : https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/national/09202021

President’s Path Out of the Pandemic Adds Hurdles for Employers | FIRST, VERIFY

Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:49:23 GMT

By: Catherine A. Cano, Patricia Anderson Pryor, Tara K. Burke, Courtney M. Malveaux, Cressinda D. Schlag, Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman, and Katharine C. Weber

On September 9, 2021, the White House issued Path Out of the Pandemic: President Biden’s COVID-19 Action Plan. The Plan outlines a six-pronged approach, portions of which will impose new obligations on employers across the country.

Most notably for employers, the first prong of the Plan, “Vaccinating the Unvaccinated,” includes:

Direction to the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure that all employees are fully vaccinated or able to produce a negative COVID-19 test result on at least a weekly basis;

A new Executive Order that requires certain government contractors to comply with guidance, to be published later this month by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance or Guidance), which presumably will require that employees who work on or in connection with certain government contracts be vaccinated, regardless of whether they work on a federal site;

A statement that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will be taking action to require COVID-19 vaccination for workers in most health care settings that receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement as a condition of Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement (similar to what was previously announced by the President in August 2021 for nursing homes); and

Direction to OSHA to require covered employers to provide paid time off for employees to get vaccinated or recover from vaccination.

The Plan also calls on states to adopt vaccination requirements for all school employees as part of the effort to “keep schools safely open.”

The Plan indicates that the administration will increase the amount of COVID-19 testing by ramping up production of testing products, offering at-home rapid COVID-19 tests at cost through certain retailers, and expanding free testing at retail pharmacy sites, among other things.

While the Plan is far-reaching, there are still many unknowns. Employer obligations arising from OSHA’s ETS will be dictated by the timing and the specific ETS provisions and corresponding requirements. The only thing we know for certain about the forthcoming ETS is that employers will need to continue to adapt and be prepared to pivot if necessary. It is also unclear how the new ETS will fit in with OSHA’s current COVID-19 Healthcare ETS, in 29 C.F.R. 1910 Subpart U, or impact OSHA’s current guidance for non-healthcare employers. Further, the 27 states with OSHA-approved State Plans, such as California, Washington, Oregon, and Virginia, will need to determine how to respond to the ETS, once it is issued, and if certain provisions require implementation alongside the state’s standards and regulations.

CMS also issued a press release urging Medicare and Medicaid-certified facilities to “make efforts now to get health care staff vaccinated.” However, the agency noted that it is still developing an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period that will be issued in October.

Employers who are impacted by the Plan, and who may be impacted by an ETS once issued, are advised to start thinking through how they will navigate many legal issues and operational challenges related to required vaccination and testing. These issues include policy requirements, workplace testing strategies, vaccination tracking and management, medical record collection and retention, and accommodations for religion, disability, and pregnancy, as well as wage and hour implications, bargaining obligations for unionized workplaces, employee confidentiality, and privacy issues.

Further, employers should consider the logistical impact on federal contracts and how these obligations will interplay with other state or local mandates or restrictions on vaccinations.

OSHA Updates Non-Healthcare Employer Guidance on COVID-19 | FIRST, VERIFY

Thu, 19 Aug 2021 10:05:29 GMT

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its COVID-19 guidance for non-healthcare employers, Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace, on August 13, 2021.

While embracing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) updated recommendations for fully vaccinated people in areas of substantial or high transmission of COVID-19, OSHA also echoes the protocol President Joe Biden adopted for many federal employees and on-site employees of federal contractors and suggests that employers may want to “consider” adopting a policy requiring employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination or submit to regular COVID-19 testing.

In July 2021, the CDC issued new recommendations that everyone, including fully vaccinated individuals, wear masks in indoor public settings in all areas experiencing substantial or high transmission of COVID-19. That CDC guidance also recommended that fully vaccinated individuals test for COVID-19 and mask after having close contact with an individual suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. With respect to schools, the CDC recommended universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students and visitors to K-12 schools.

The CDC recommendations were precipitated by new evidence regarding the more transmissible Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. As explained by OSHA, “preliminary evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Delta variant can be infectious and can spread the virus to others.”

OSHA’s guidance now includes the following recommendations:

All workers, including fully vaccinated people, wear a face covering, as appropriate, in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission (unless their work requires a respirator or other personal protective equipment [PPE]);

Employers suggest or require all customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings in public, indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission of COVID-19;

Employers consider adopting policies that require workers to get vaccinated or undergo regular COVID-19 testing — in addition to masking wearing and physical distancing — if they remain unvaccinated; and

Fully vaccinated workers who have a known exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 be tested three days to five days after exposure and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days or until they receive a negative test result.

What This Means for Employers

The latest guidance expressly states that it is not a standard or regulation, and that it creates no new legal obligations. The recommendations are advisory in nature and intended to help employers recognize and eliminate hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm as part of their obligation to provide a safe and healthful workplace. The guidance makes clear that many healthcare settings are still covered by OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard. Employers should also remain cognizant of different requirements under state OSHA plans.

However, as employers reassess their COVID-19 workplace practices, they should keep in mind that during the Biden Administration, OSHA has more than tripled its use of the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to cite employers for COVID-19 hazards not covered by an existing standard. Under the General Duty Clause, OSHA can cite an employer in the absence of a specific OSHA standard, such as those that govern respiratory protection, PPE, and sanitation. It will become even more important to keep abreast of industry best practices, especially related to industries at higher risk of spreading COVID-19, such as construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and meat and poultry processing. Considering OSHA’s new guidance, employers may need to review policies and procedures regarding any potential COVID-19 exposure to employees and consider developing an infectious disease plan.

OSHA continues to recommend that employers adopt a layered approach to minimizing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace and summarizes the many protective measures employers may choose to use. Regardless of the measures employers choose to implement, their obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for religious, pregnancy-related, and medical reasons, absent undue hardship, continues. OSHA’s guidance notes that accommodation issues may arise with respect to face coverings (including respirators or other PPE) or vaccination requirements. Further, it states that certain medical conditions may put employees at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, by virtue of the condition itself or the inability to use face coverings or be vaccinated due to the condition. Such individuals may be entitled to other reasonable accommodations to protect them from contracting COVID-19.

Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/osha-updates-non-healthcare-employer-guidance-covid-19

How to Spot a Fake Insurance Certificate | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:02:09 GMT

Collecting and making sure that Certificates of Insurance (COIs) are accurate and up-to-date is an enormous task, especially when you do not have tools to streamline this process. On top of this, checking to make sure you are not receiving fake insurance certificates is difficult.

Here are a few best practices to follow when checking the authenticity of a COI.

1. Look for “Acord 25”

The most common insurance certificate used by trustworthy insurance agencies is Acord 25.

A real Acord form will have the Acord logo in the upper right-hand corner and the text “Acord 25” in the bottom left-hand corner.

If the words “Acord 25” cannot be found in these places on the form, that is a red flag that this is not a legitimate insurance certificate.

2. Look for Consistent Handwriting & Font

Looking at the expiration dates on insurance certificates you receive is a good place to check for fraud. If the dates are not in the center of the box or if they are in a different font than the policy number, there is a good chance the COI is a fake.

Keep a lookout for anything handwritten or in a font that does not match the rest of your form. This is a good indicator of a fake insurance certificate.

3. Call the Insurance Company & Make Sure They are Legitimate

If you have a bad feeling about a COI, you receive, call the insurance company that issued it. If the company does not answer or if the agent you get in contact with does not want to talk to you or seems hesitant, this is a red flag.

If you do not recognize the insurance company listed in the upper right of the certificate, call your insurance agent to make sure they are a legitimate company.

AMBest.com is also a good place to check the status of an insurance company. Use their “ratings and analysis” section to look up the insurance company in question and see if they are legitimate.

4. Understand the Layout

The layout of COIs is complex, and somebody creating a fake likely will not know how to fill out the form.

Look for these sections in Acord 25 forms:

General liability
Worker’s compensation
Automobile liability

These are common types of coverage you can expect to see on most forms.

If you see coverage like Cyber Liability, make sure this coverage is part of the insurance policy. If there is coverage listed in the COI that you cannot find in the insurance policy, the COI is probably a fake.

It is also important to look out for things like zeroes, N/A, or None listed when there is coverage not included in the policy that is present on the COI.

On an actual proof of insurance certificate, these boxes will be left blank to state the limit.

5. Make Sure the Insured Box is Filled Out Correctly

The name in the insured box on an insurance certificate should be the name of the business, not a person’s name. The business address should also be in the box.

It is important to check this section when looking for a fake COI because if an inexperienced person filled out the form, they will probably put their name in this section.

Another important reason to check this box is to make sure coverage is afforded in the case of a real insurance certificate. If the name in the box is not correct, coverage may not apply when a claim is made.

6. Look for the Right Contact Information

The contact information on an insurance certificate should be the information of the insurance agent or broker who issued the form. If this information is instead for the person who is covered by the certificate, they probably filled out the form on their own.

The signature at the bottom of the certificate should also match the name in the contact information box. Lastly, the email domain in the contact information should match the name of the Producer of the certificate, that is the name of the insurance company.

If any of this information seems off, do a quick search online to make sure the person who created the COI works for the Producer or call them to confirm.

If you are unsure of how to identify a fake COI and keep track of your contractor’s insurance policies, check out FIRST , VERIFY’s COI Management web application . Find out how we can help you reduce the risk associated with fake policies and increase compliance at all times.

Using Technology to Mitigate Risk | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:18:37 GMT

Every entrepreneur and business leader are looking to grab any technology-driven advantage they can as they adapt to new ways of working, managing employees, and serving customers. At the same time, they are trying to manage risk — and the same digital initiatives that create new opportunities can also lead to risks such as security breaches, regulatory compliance failures, and other setbacks. The result is an ongoing conflict between the need to innovate and the need to mitigate risk.

Mitigating risks is one of the most important jobs that management has to deal with on daily basis. With efficient and smart use of the technology of today, the everyday risks of the business can be greatly reduced.

Here are a few ways that technology can help mitigate risks:

Security:

Security is an extremely important aspect of a business this is because almost all businesses have sensitive information and failure to keep them secure could result in disastrous events if the wrong people get their hands on it. Losing a file from the cabinet, or a floppy disc, or even a stolen laptop containing crucial information can make the owners go berserk.

But now, thanks to technology, it is ensured that only relevant and right people can access the information they need. Now there are unique passwords and codes to keep sensitive information safe. Even facial recognition can prevent the theft of data leading to operational risks. Technology has made it tough for wrongdoers to indulge in malicious behavior. The fear of being tracked and getting caught is pervading.

Access:

Access is another facet that is often misused and is easily hacked. Some people need to have instant access to important information so that crucial decisions can be made right away. These decisions affect the well-being of the company. This access needs to be limited to certain members of the management team only as they are responsible for carrying out the smooth operations of the business.

Numerous software and cloud-based technology allow the management to access real-time information right away from anywhere. The technology ensures that all the information is monitored tightly.

Profit Loss:

Generating sales and making profits is the main goal of a business that holds the entire process together. With the usage of robust technology systems, the areas of concern can be properly focused on.

Using the right technological solutions in office management software as well as other activities allows businesses to know where the resources and finance are being utilized and a proper picture of profit and loss can be attained. Irregularities in record-keeping indicate fraudulent activities by vendors, employees, or both.

Efficient Use of Time:

Time is an important element in every walk of life. And when important business decisions have to be made, time becomes paramount. That's why a business demands that all of the employees use their time productively for organizational growth. A profitable business asks its employees to direct their talents and energies into tasks that bring something to the business.

The right kind of technological solution will act as a watchdog to monitor transparency within the business operations, process streamlining, and efficient use of employee energy.

Expense Management:

Businesses have to follow a budget closely so to maximize their profits. They cannot be callous about cost and follow the saying- 'a penny saved, is a penny earned'. When there is no communication between departments or lack of proper filing, paperwork, or recordkeeping mistakes can occur resulting in false numbers; with the help of technology like using an asset management system, the process goes out without a hitch giving clarity on how much expenses are occurring and where.

All organizations face uncertainty. The effect this uncertainty has on an organization's objectives is referred to as "risk." The challenge for management is to determine how much uncertainty or risk to accept and how to manage it to an acceptable level. Technology has been a blessing for all. It monitors, reviews, guards any loss of data, unnecessary expenses, false information, and a myriad of other aspects.

Technology not only finds the culprits in case of wrongdoing harming a business, but it also allows any issues to be identified early and address them immediately.

FIRST, VERIFY is a one stop solution for companies across industries to mitigate risk be helping develop and execute a strong risk mitigation strategy and a robust technological solution. Read more about our risk mitigation services here .

For Manufacturers Struggling with Labor Shortage, Time to Review Background Check Processes

Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:01:54 GMT

As COVID-19 restrictions continue to relax, manufacturers are facing an ever-tightening labor market. Amidst supply-chain disruptions and computer chip shortages, human capital is proving to be increasingly scarce. Many manufacturers are struggling to fill open positions.

While some manufacturers are turning to automation as a solution to the labor shortage, other companies are grappling with the decision of whether to hire workers they may have traditionally excluded from manufacturing positions, such as workers with a history of criminal convictions or who test positive for medical or recreational marijuana use in states where it might still be permissible to do so.

“Ban the Box”

Some jurisdictions have enacted “ban the box” legislation, designed to remove criminal history as a barrier to employment. Such laws require employers to consider qualifications first when considering a person’s eligibility for employment. Practically, a “ban the box” legislation requires employers to assess when in the application process they can ask job applicants about prior criminal records. Some statutes permit the inquiry after the first in-person interview, for example, while other jurisdictions require waiting until after an employer makes a conditional job offer. The Fair Chance Act, which takes effect December 20, 2021, prohibits federal contractors from asking job applicants about criminal records before extending a conditional job offer.

Still, employers have to be mindful of equal employment opportunity concerns when conducting background checks, especially for criminal history. In the past, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been concerned that even if an employer has a job-related reason for a background check, such a practice may tend to have a disparate impact on certain minority groups. Employers are always cautioned to review existing “neutral” policies to ensure they do not have a disproportional negative impact on a particular group, to minimize risk of discrimination claims.

An additional best practice for employers making decisions based upon a criminal history record is to conduct an individualized assessment (and certain jurisdictions have mandated this step). The EEOC, in its 2012 guidance, introduced the “Green factors” by stating that employers can support a practice that potentially otherwise has a disparate impact by showing they considered:

The nature and gravity of the criminal offense(s);

The time that has passed since the conviction or completion of the sentence; and

The nature of the job held or sought.

See Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 549 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1977).

An employer also must consider the many federal, state, and local laws impacting the decision-making process, some of which mandate individual assessments or notices.

Businesses conducting background checks using third-party consumer reporting agencies also must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires companies to follow certain technical “consent and standalone disclosure” requirements prior to obtaining a background check report for an applicant. FCRA also addresses the steps manufacturers must take in the event of an “adverse action” based upon a background check report.

Marijuana

Manufacturers may shy away from hiring employees who test positive for marijuana use out of safety concerns. While employers may still prohibit impairment and use during work hours, some states prohibit basing employment decisions on marijuana use during non-work hours, and others prohibit pre-employment marijuana tests.

Medical marijuana presents another challenge, as some states may bar employers from utilizing positive tests based on medical marijuana usage for adverse job actions.

Author: Shannon L. Miller and Patrick O. Peters

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/manufacturers-struggling-labor-shortage-time-review-background-check-processes

OSHA’s Heat Standard Likely to Affect Indoor Manufacturing Facilities | FIRST, VERIFY

Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:50:00 GMT

This past spring, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced its intention to implement a new heat illness standard that will apply to indoor environments. The agency said it has manufacturing facilities in mind, as the rule targets “indoor workers without climate-controlled environments.”

A new heat illness standard is a top priority for OSHA under President Joe Biden, who is seeking to make good on his pledge to be “the most pro-union president you have ever seen.” Public Citizen and Senate Democrats petitioned Biden to encourage the new standard. House Democrats introduced legislation giving the agency two years to promulgate a heat standard. That proposal failed.

Noting that 18 of the last 19 years were the hottest on record and the intensity of recent heat waves have put many employees at an increased risk of heat illness or injury, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick announced in June that he intends to launch the rulemaking process by publishing a request for information. Frederick remarked that he hopes the agency will have “some very, very good, very thorough stakeholder engagement and involvement” while it develops the rule. “We hope that our request for information is very thoroughly responded to by as many stakeholders as possible.”

The proposed standard is in its preliminary stages and its contents are not yet clear. Requirements in several state standards offer clues. The OSHA standard may mandate break times and require employers to monitor employee acclimatization, as well as temperatures and humidity levels. Such provisions could effectively require costly changes in manufacturing worksites that do not have air conditioning and have a local source of heat, such as a furnace or an oven. Heat levels also can be affected by the presence of many workers at a site, especially if they are engaged in physically exerting tasks.

For example, a factory with employees melting substances like metal or glass would use machinery that can become extremely hot and affect the surrounding environment, regardless of outdoor temperatures. A factory with a furnace operating over 500 degrees causing nearby employees, who may be in heavy personal protective equipment, to perspire heavily, the standard may require cooler temperatures. Minnesota’s indoor heat standard requires employers to measure heat using “wet-bulb globe temperature” (WGBT) index, which is calculated by air temperature, air speed, humidity, and radiation. Permissible heat levels vary by levels of exertion as follows:

“Heavy work” is defined as exerting 350 or more kcal/hr. (kilocalories per hour), which can include heavy lifting and pushing, shovel work. The permissible heat level cannot exceed 77 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Moderate work” is defined as exerting 200 to 350 kcal/hr., which can include moderate lifting and pushing. Its permissible heat level is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Light work” is defined as exerting 200 kcal/hr., which can include sitting or standing performing light hand or arm work. The permissible heat level is 86 degrees Fahrenheit.

In this example, a facility must calculate WGBT and constantly monitor and adjust conditions according to the highest level of exertion by any workers in the working environment. Some manufacturers might find this level of calculation unworkable because of varying or changing production schedules and varying outdoor heat conditions, particularly during heat waves.

There are a few things manufacturing employers can do to help prevent heat-related issues from creeping up, including making sure that employees have:

Access to water and stay hydrated;
Adequate rest time and take regular breaks; and
Access to the shade whenever possible.
Employers also can make sure that employees are properly acclimatized before engaging in strenuous activities.

States Considering Standards

On July 8, Oregon adopted a 180-day emergency rule protecting workers from indoor and outdoor heat. The requirements expand access to shade and cool water and include regular cool-down breaks, training, communication, emergency planning, and other measures. It also uses a tiered system with requirements starting up once the heat index is at 80 degrees and increasing when the heat index reaches 90. This temporary standard likely will be the basis of a permanent one to be adopted in the fall.

Virginia is drafting a standard with an intent to “reduce/eliminate employee injuries, illnesses, and fatalities due to exposure to excessive heat at indoor and outdoor places of work.”

General Duty Clause

Historically, OSHA has protected workers against extreme heat by using the General Duty Clause, a “catch-all” provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act that requires employers to provide employment and places of employment that are free of recognized hazards, which, in the past, has included heat exposure. OSHA noted that in a 2019 case, A.H. Sturgill Roofing Co. v. Secretary of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) set a high bar for use of the General Duty Clause in cases involving heat exposure and other potentially dangerous environmental conditions. In 2020, an OSHRC judge followed Sturgill and overturned five heat hazard citations against the U.S. Postal Service, holding that OSHA could not rely on a National Weather Service guide to determine heat severity.

OSHA Recommendations

Currently, OSHA recommends that employers set thermostats between 68 degrees and 78 degrees Fahrenheit. OSHA also provides guidance on “Working In Outdoor and Indoor Heat Environments,” and it suggests that employers:

Provide workers with water and rest.
Allow new or returning workers to gradually increase workloads and take more frequent breaks as they acclimatize or build a tolerance for working in the heat.
Plan for emergencies and train workers on prevention.
Monitor workers for signs of illness.

Author: By Courtney M. Malveaux

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/osha-s-heat-standard-likely-affect-indoor-manufacturing-facilities

Lack of hazardous energy control safeguards results in Tragedy | FIRST, VERIFY

Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:20:43 GMT

Two workers at a federal healthcare facility suffered fatal injuries caused by hot steam after a metal fixture on a main steam line blew off. The workers had just finished making repairs to the steam pipe within the facility.

A U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection determined that the said facility had failed to protect employees from struck-by and burn hazards and the agency identified numerous deficiencies in the facility’s lockout/tagout program. One of the workers was an employee of the federal healthcare facility and the other was an employee of a third-party contractor.

“These fatalities could have been prevented if the employer had complied with safety standards that are designed to prevent the uncontrolled release of steam,” said OSHA’s local Area Director “Tragically, these well-known protective measures were not in place and two workers needlessly lost their lives.”

OSHA also found that the healthcare facility had failed to:

Properly shutdown to avoid additional or increased hazard(s) to employees.
Relieve or render safe all potentially hazardous residual energy such as condensate water.
Maintain adequate procedures for isolating each steam main branch supplying campus buildings.
Conduct a periodic inspection of all lockout-tagout procedures to correct any deviations or inadequacies.
Provide adequate training to supervisory employees.
Retrain employees when there was a change in their job assignments, or a change in machines, equipment or processes that presented a new hazard.
Notify affected employees of the application and removal of lockout or tagout devices.
Inform the third-party contractor of its lockout/tagout procedures.
Ensure each authorized employee affix a personal lockout or tagout device to the group lockout device before working on the machine or equipment.

OSHA issued nine notices of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions to the federal facility for one willful, three repeat and five serious violations. Under Executive Order 12196, federal agencies must comply with the same safety and health standards as private sector employers covered under the OSH Act. The federal agency equivalent to a private sector citation is the Notice of Unsafe and Unhealthful Working Conditions.

The federal facility has 15 business days from receipt of the notices to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or appeal the notices by submitting a summary of the agency’s position on the unresolved issues to OSHA’s regional administrator. OSHA cannot propose monetary penalties against another federal agency for failure to comply with OSHA standards. If the federal facility had been a private sector employer, the total penalty amount would be $621,218.

OSHA cited the third-party contractor for four serious violations with $38,228 in proposed penalties for failing to:

Develop, document and use lockout/tagout procedures for the control of potentially hazardous energy.
Adequately train employees on the methods necessary to isolate and control energy.
Inform the federal facility of the contractor’s lockout/tagout procedures.
Ensure that each authorized employee affixed a personal lockout or tagout device to the group lockout device.

The said contractor had 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s workers by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

There are a few essential to-dos that any organization can follow to avoid citations and penalties like the one stated above. One is conducting basic safety checks once a week at their workplace. A good tool to use could be a safety checklist like the Construction Safety Inspection Checklist that you can tick as you go around inspecting your workplace.

Numerous organizations throughout North America rely on FIRST , VERIFY’s Online Safety Orientation to deliver safety preparedness to their workforce and help avoid OSHA violations and citations. You could be one of them too.

Learn how we can help.

OSHA Standard Changes That Will Impact Construction | FIRST, VERIFY

Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:56:59 GMT

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) regulatory agenda for spring 2021 lists regulations the agency will focus on for the next six months, including 26 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, six of which are in the final rule stage and the rest are in the proposed or pre-rule stage. Many of them will directly affect the construction industry.

Heat Illness Prevention

Perhaps the most consequential for the construction industry will be the standard for Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.

Heat is the number one weather-related killer and the problem has become more dangerous in recent years as global temperatures have continued to rise. Construction workers especially are at high risk, often working outside and performing exerting tasks.

Historically, OSHA has used the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause, a “catch-all” for recognized hazards not addressed by a specific standard, to cite employers. That will change. If OSHA follows state standards already in place, it could mandate break times and require employers to monitor employee acclimatization, as well as outdoor temperatures and humidity levels.

Communication Tower Safety

A proposed Communication Tower Safety standard is under consideration. As technology evolves, the need for communication towers continues to grow, which likely will cause an increase in tower construction and maintenance projects in the next few years. However, these projects have had a fatality rate that has greatly exceeded that of the rest of the construction industry over the past 20 years. This standard will aim to dramatically decrease that rate as more workers enter the industry.

Enhanced Workplace Injury and Illness Tracking

Enhanced Workplace Injury and Illness Tracking is on the way. As expected under the Biden Administration, OSHA has proposed to revert to the 2016 version of the rule following a change under the previous administration in 2018. That proposed regulation includes anti-retaliation provisions that may discourage workplace safety and health incentive programs and post-incident drug testing.

If this reversion occurs, it likely signals that OSHA will view drug testing and incentive programs as a form of employer retaliation. Proposed changes would require establishments with at least 250 employees to provide electronic submissions of injury and illness data with Forms 300 and 301, in addition to the less detailed summary data currently required in Form 300A.

This could have a particular impact on larger construction sites that report more injuries and illnesses because of the sheer number of employees working at a site. It also may have an outsized impact as construction employers grapple with marijuana legalization laws and worker intoxication. Those employed in construction are almost twice as likely to have a substance abuse disorder than the general population. Construction workers also are the most likely to use opioids and cocaine of any profession and 12 percent of them have an alcohol use disorder. Reasons for these statistics may include long workdays, physical pain from labor, and stress. Regardless of the cause, substance and alcohol abuse lead to more workplace accidents and injuries. Dehydration from alcoholism also can lead to several different heat illnesses. If substance abuse trends do not change, the new regulations may end up having employers defending more citations, in addition to other legal headaches.

Hazardous Material

Hazardous Material standards addressing blood lead levels and crystalline silica is in the works. Construction workers encounter these hazards with great frequency, especially those who work with concrete, stone, and metals.

Personal Protective Equipment

OSHA is addressing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in Construction, although it is unclear how it will do so. A PPE standard could have an outsized impact for construction sites, especially if it addresses COVID-19 exposures for construction workers in close quarters. It also could affect the distribution of PPE normally used in the industry.

Cranes and Derricks

Amendments to the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard are on the table. Amendments likely will not change the application of the standard significantly, but they should help clarify and correct mistakes.

Welding and Cutting

OSHA plans to amend Welding and Cutting standards to remove ambiguity about the “confined space” definition. The original rule uses the term but failed to define it. A new definition could have an impact on many construction sites depending on the phrasing.

Other Regulations

Other regulations on the agenda that may have an impact include Shipyard Fall Protection—Scaffolds, Ladders and Other Working Surfaces, a Mechanical Power Presses update, and Walking-Working Surfaces.

Author: Courtney M. Malveaux

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/osha-standard-changes-will-impact-construction

What OSHA’s Proposed Changes to Hazard Communication Standard Means for Construction Employers

Tue, 06 Jul 2021 10:30:11 GMT

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed amendments to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), in 29 CFR 1910.1200, to conform to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) Revision 7 (GHS, Rev. 7) are substantial and would have broad implications. Specific to the construction industry, construction employers may have new compliance obligations from some materials now being classified as “hazardous” or managed in a different hazard class, resulting in new program, training, and communication obligations.

In its current form, the HCS aims at ensuring effective communication to employees on chemical hazards and employee comprehension of hazards associated with products that they use for work. The proposed amendments, among other things, seek to modify certain hazard classes, conditions for labeling, and language used on safety data sheets (SDS). In addition, OSHA’s amendments propose updates to the HCS classification and labelling framework to be consistent with more recent versions of GHS (the GHS is on Revision 8, but OSHA’s proposal would only align the HCS to with Revision 7 of the GHS and select provisions of Revision 8). OSHA’s proposed HCS amendments have the potential to affect many products used on construction sites, including aerosolized products and products in small containers, as well as alter some chemical product labels and SDSs.

Construction workers often encounter and use materials that are or will be defined as “hazardous” under the HCS. These materials include, but certainly are not limited to, all cleaning products used for sanitation, paint, and concrete. One major amendment proposed is to revise criteria for the classification of certain health and physical hazards, including unstable gases, non-flammable aerosols, skin corrosion, or irritation, eye irritation, and aerosols, generally. The proposed amendments also would create a new hazard class for desensitized explosives.

If the proposed amendments pass, covered employers in the construction industry will need to ensure proper product classification, update their written programs, SDSs, and training materials to comply. Employers also may need to modify their labeling procedures and methods of communicating chemical hazards to workers and other employers on site. Once these changes are complete, employers will have to train affected managers, supervisors, and employees.

Although OSHA intended the amendments to enhance worker health and safety, some stakeholders have opposed the amendments. California’s Division of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), for example, has expressed a fear the proposed amendments will limit protections for workers. Cal/OSHA submitted comments contending that the amendments will reduce the amount and quality of chemical hazard information available to workers, because it discounts chemical evaluations from the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies. The proposed amendments may also conflict with some state adopted hazard communication and regulatory frameworks, which are already in place in California and Washington.

Author: By Cressinda D. Schlag and Kelli Morgan Dreger

Why new employees are vulnerable to injury | Safety Training | FIRST, VERIFY

Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:45:31 GMT

Safety training is important to every industry. Whether employees work in a traditional office, a manufacturing facility, or at construction site, each employee should be properly trained for the job they perform and be completely prepared for the potential risks they might encounter. Most often safety training is provided to new employees during their initial orientation when they first start the job.

This is because new employees may be vulnerable to injury for the following reasons:

Employers may assume that new hires already know how to perform their jobs safely.
New employees may not be familiar with the required protective equipment, and rules regarding protective equipment usage may not be consistently enforced.
New employees may lack the clarity about the safety aspects of the new job and the new surroundings.
New employees may not know whom to talk to during an emergency situation and the reporting structure to follow in such circumstances.
New employee training may be focused primarily on completing the tasks and ignoring the hazards associated with those tasks.

Injuries are also common among new employees and temporary workers not only because they are new or lack experience but more so because they may be less willing to ask for assistance.

New employees may face any combination of these barriers to safety training when they begin a job. Therefore, it’s important for employers to work with a knowledgeable and experienced safety professional to develop a comprehensive training program that includes safety discussions during onboarding and on a regular basis.

Developing a New Employee Safety Training Program

Ideally, new employee safety training programs should address topics such as:

Building and supporting a culture of safety and a commitment to preventing injuries.
OSHA requirements related to the job and the organization, including each employee’s right to refuse to do any work they deem unsafe until safety protocols have been implemented.
Procedures for responding to and reporting safety hazards and emergencies.
Reminders that employees have a right to report safety hazards, injuries and incidents without the threat of any repercussions.
Risks associated with common daily tasks.
Workplace safety training rules during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ideally, safety training should take place before an employee starts work, during their new employee orientation. However, because of the amount of material typically presented during orientation sessions, it’s a good idea to follow up with refresher trainings and updates throughout the year.

Regularly reiterating safety guidelines also helps to create a culture of safety within the organization. When you put a priority on avoiding accidents, remind employees of best practices, and – most importantly – enforce your rules and regulations, your employees will be more likely to take their training seriously and remain safe.

FIRST, VERIFY’s Online Safety Orientation is a cost effective and efficient option for every organization to ensure safety preparedness of their new and existing workforce and help avoid OSHA violations and citations. Learn how we can help.

Safeguarding your Workplace | FIRST, VERIFY

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:53:36 GMT

OSHA cited a New York City contractor after a 21-year-old laborer erecting scaffolding suffered a deadly fall at a Brooklyn building project. Investigation found that the worker's fall arrest harness was not tethered as required.

Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in construction, a fact sadly illustrated by the death of the 21-year-old laborer, who fell nearly 50 feet as he installed a supported tubular welded frame scaffold during construction of a seven-story Brooklyn building.

A U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation of the incident determined that the Construction Company failed to ensure the laborer's fall arrest harness was attached, as required.

“This tragedy could have been prevented if the Construction Company had provided appropriate training on fall hazards and ensured workers were using fall protection correctly,” said OSHA Area Director.

OSHA proposed $300,370 in penalties for two willful and two serious safety violations. The agency found that the company:

Failed to evaluate the feasibility of using fall protection and failed to use feasible fall protection during the erection of a supported scaffold.
Did not properly train employees on fall hazards associated with scaffold work.
Failed to inspect fall arrest systems before use.
Did not determine if the anchorage for employees' personal fall arrest systems could support at least 5,000 pounds.
The company has contested OSHA's findings to the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.

Numerous organizations throughout North America rely on FIRST, VERIFY’s Online Safety Orientation to deliver safety preparedness to their workforce and help avoid OSHA violations and citations. You could be one of them too.

Learn how we can help.

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2021 | FIRST, VERIFY

Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:49:33 GMT

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2021

1.President Joe Biden has nominated union-side attorney Gwynne Wilcox to fill a vacant seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Wilcox is a partner at the union-side labor and employment firm Levy Ratner P.C. Among other clients, Wilcox has represented Fight for $15, the union-affiliated group that has advocated for increases in the minimum wage. As with prior NLRB nominees, Wilcox’s client list is likely to be an issue during her confirmation hearings and, if confirmed, in cases involving her former clients. If the Senate confirms Wilcox, the three Republican members of the NLRB will remain in the majority, with Wilcox and Chairperson Lauren McFerran constituting the Democrat-appointed minority. Republican Member William Emanuel’s term expires on August 27, 2021. Upon nomination and Senate approval of another Biden nominee, the NLRB majority will flip from Republican to Democrat.

2. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has moved to rescind a Trump-era rule that would have increased oversight of union finances. The DOL issued a proposal on May 26 that would reverse the rule, which required unions with $250,000 in annual revenue to disclose more information about their stakes in credit unions, their trusts, strike funds, and other assets and investments. The Trump Administration promulgated the rule, but enforcement was halted in March 2021, before the deadline for unions to file paperwork with the DOL demonstrating compliance with the rule. Biden Administration officials have stated that the reporting requirement was partly duplicative of existing reporting rules. Trump Administration officials and some business leaders cited a number of financial scandals involving union officials as evidence of the need for more transparency in union finances.

3. According to a Bloomberg Law report, it takes an average of 409 days for the parties to negotiate a first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) at a newly organized workplace. The report examined 330 contracts spanning 2004 to the present to determine the average amount of time that elapses between a union’s election win being certified by the NLRB and the date a contract is signed. It examined the results by industry, with healthcare and social assistance contracts taking the longest to negotiate (528 days on average), while professional and business service contracts took the least time, roughly nine months on average (269 days). While the average for all contracts was 409 days, the median length of time between certification and a contract was 356 days.

4. A U.S. District Court ruled that a “broadly written” CBA provision compelled arbitration over the elimination of retiree health benefits, rejecting the employer’s argument that retirees are not employees and therefore are not covered by the labor agreement. Verso Corp. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, No. 3:19-cv-0006 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2021). The employer and the administrators of the union health and welfare plan announced the elimination of certain retiree health plan benefits. The union filed grievances alleging the move violated the CBA. The union moved in district court to compel arbitration, but the court dismissed the motion. Following the dismissal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in USW v. LLFlex, 19-5464 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021), determined a CBA’s “narrowly written clause” on healthcare benefits meant arbitration over such benefits was limited to a small category of healthcare disputes. The union moved the district court to reconsider its decision in light of LLFlex. Granting reconsideration and reversing its earlier decision, the district court found the provision in the employer’s CBA was written far more broadly than the provision at issue in LLFlex. That breadth meant the provision could be read to cover disputes over retirees’ benefits, meaning the parties could be required to arbitrate their dispute.

5. The NLRB held an employer violated the NLRA by enforcing a prohibition against recording conversations at work, but the agency did not require the employer to rescind the rule in question. AT&T Mobility, 05-CA-178637 (May 3, 2021). Applying the framework for evaluating the lawfulness of workplace rules set in Boeing Company, 365 NLRB 154 (2017), the NLRB found the employer unlawfully warned a union steward against recording a disciplinary meeting and future such recordings, activity the NLRA generally protects because it involves action taken by one employee on behalf of others. Despite finding the employer’s application of the rule was unlawful, the NLRA found the employer’s no-recording policy was lawful on its face and need not be rescinded, as the rule could be applied lawfully in the future. In so ruling, the Board overruled part of its 2004 decision in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which would have required the Board to automatically find the employer’s rule unlawful on its face to the extent it could be “reasonably construed” as limiting employees’ rights under the NLRA.

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/top-five-labor-law-developments-may-2021

Hidden Costs of an OSHA Citation - Vendor Management | FIRST, VERIFY

Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:33:05 GMT

Congress surprised employers when it increased Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalties nearly 80 percent in 2016. Today, a “serious” violation can cost up to $13,260, and a “willful” or “repeat” violation can cost up to $132,598. Those amounts will increase with inflation in January 2020. Citations often include multiple items, which can multiply these amounts.

When OSHA sends serious citations to construction companies or other industrial employers, it often offers an informal conference during which it may suggest a large monetary penalty reduction in settlement. It may sound like a good deal, but saving several thousand dollars and moving on quickly may cost the employer much more over the long term.

For many employers — especially in the construction industry — the greatest hidden cost is the loss of business opportunity. Many construction companies bid to prequalify or perform work for federal or state Departments of Transportation or other agencies. Agencies commonly require prospective contractors to report serious citations they have received. When a prospective contractor exceeds a preset threshold of serious citations, the agency awards the work to another, sometimes costing the contractor hundreds of millions of dollars of work.

In addition, large energy, chemical, and manufacturing companies can have demands much like those of federal and state agencies and will not do business with contractors with too many serious violations on their records. They also judge applicants on their Experience Modification Ratios, which can be based on illnesses and injuries recorded on OSHA 300 forms.

Taking a cut on the monetary penalty while allowing OSHA to enter a Final Order with a violation on record also can set an employer up for a potential “repeat” violation, which can lead to potential tenfold increases if OSHA finds a repeat violation of the same standard or same activity, usually within a three- to five-year period. Large employers with complex operations and multiple worksites are particularly vulnerable to “repeat” violations. Generally, they are the employers that receive penalties exceeding $1 million.

A “serious” violation may prove more costly than the few thousand dollars saved by early settlement. Taking a critical look at the legal merits of the citation — and considering a contest if a viable defense is available — is often worth the effort.

Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/hidden-costs-osha-citation

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy and Construction Sites: Who Is An Employer?

Thu, 20 May 2021 11:02:29 GMT

Since OSHA’s mission statement is “to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women,” it’s no surprise that its enforcement authority generally rests with citing employers. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act requires “each employer” to comply with OSHA standards. Construction is no different—29 CFR 1910.12 obligates each “employer” to protect “employees engaged in construction work” and to comply “with the appropriate standards.” OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy (MECP), however, dictates that up to four separate entities all may be cited—and recognized as an employer—in connection with any one incident.

Four Employers for the Price of One

On multi-employer worksites, OSHA recognizes four types of employers: creating, controlling, exposing, and correcting. A creating employer causes a hazardous condition that violates an OSHA standard. An exposing employer is one whose own employees are exposed to the hazard. In certain cases, one employer may be deemed both a creating and exposing employer. A correcting employer is responsible for correcting a worksite hazard—and usually installs and/or maintains safety equipment or devices.

The last category, a controlling employer, is the employer who has general supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct safety and health violations or require others to correct them. Control can be established by contract or, in the absence of explicit contractual provisions, exercising control at the worksite. A controlling employer is required to exercise reasonable care to prevent and detect violations onsite. Oftentimes, it’s this last category that causes the most surprise and catches general contractors, or even owners.

Potential Exposure as a Controlling Employer

A two-step process must be followed to determine whether an employer is subject to liability under the MECP. The first is to determine whether the entity is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer under the facts and circumstances of the matter. If met, the second step is to determine if the entity’s actions were sufficient to meet its obligations under OSHA.

An owner, general contractor, or other entity may be deemed a controlling employer provided it retained a sufficient level of general supervisory authority over the worksite, including supervising site safety and health issues. Once determined to be a controlling employer, the entity must exercise reasonable care to prevent and detect violations onsite, including conduct inspections. So, what is the standard of care?

According to a 1999 OSHA directive, factors impacting how frequently and closely a controlling employer must conduct inspections to meet this standard include the scale of the project; the nature and pace of the work—including how often the number or types of hazards change; and how much the controlling employer knows about the safety history and practices of the employer it controls, including its level of expertise.

More frequent inspections may be required if the controlling employer knows the other employer has a history of non-compliance. Less frequent inspections are likely to be warranted where the controlling employer has strong indications the other employer has implemented effective safety and health efforts—for example, a high level of safety compliance, regular jobsite meetings, and safety training.

Best Practices

Owners and general contractors should carefully consider the subcontractors with whom they contract. This requires looking at more than just rate-based data such as TRIR, DART, and EMR, but also additional safety metrics tied to leading indicators (e.g., number of near misses, safety observations, inspections/audits, and/or corrective actions taken). Additional best practices include conducting pre-bid and pre-construction meetings to discuss safety issues and policies; emphasizing the importance of safety at job meetings; and requiring contractors to conduct inspections and safety meetings.

Source: https://osharegulationsblog.com/oshas-multi-employer-citation-policy-and-construction-sites-who-is-an-employer/

OSHA Releases Information on Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for FY 2020

Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:55:03 GMT

Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for FY 2020

OSHA has revealed its annual list of Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards.

After months of delay, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration has revealed the Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal Year 2020.

Although all of the standards that were previously found on the list in 2019 stayed on the list in 2020, there were some that moved positions in the list. Ladders climbed from spot number six to number five and Respiratory Protection rose to the third-place spot from number five.

Notable, however, is that Fall Protection is OSHA’s most frequently cited standard for the 10th straight fiscal year.

The Top 10 were revealed during a webinar with Safety + Health magazine , where Patrick Kapust, deputy director of OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs, presented the preliminary data.

The Top 10 for FY 2020 are:

Fall Protection – General Requirements (1926.501): 5,424 violations
Hazard Communication (1910.1200): 3,199
Respiratory Protection (1910.134): 2,649
Scaffolding (1926.451): 2,538
Ladders (1926.1053): 2,129
Lockout/Tagout (1910.147): 2,065
Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178): 1,932
Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503): 1,621
Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment – Eye and Face Protection (1926.102): 1,369
Machine Guarding (1910.212): 1,313

Source: https://ohsonline.com/articles/2021/03/04/osha-releases-information-on-top-10-most-frequently-cited-standards-for-fy-2020.aspx

OSHA’S 18001 vs. ISO 45001 | FIRST, VERIFY

Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:48:04 GMT

In a bid to control and prevent onsite work incidents, organizations within the USA can receive certification for occupational health and safety management. Two well-known standards are ISO 45001 and OHSAS 18001.

Disregarding the difference between these two accreditations - along with the significance that one has with the other - can potentially have a negative impact on your organization. If your organization has the OHSAS 18001 accreditation, then you have until 30th September 2021 to make the OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001 transition. Businesses that have not made the ISO 45001 change by that date will find themselves without an accredited occupational health and safety management system and the benefits that come with it.

But before that, it is important to understand these two accreditations better:

What is ISO 45001?

ISO 45001 is the new ISO standard for occupational health and safety. It is set to dramatically improve levels of workplace safety and productivity. With an emphasis on commitment of management, worker involvement, and mitigating risk, ISO 45001 aims to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities by specifying requirements for an occupational health and safety management system.

This new standard which is set to replace OHSAS 18001, follows the approach of other popular management systems such as ISO 90001. While ISO 45001 is similar in certain aspects of OHSAS 18001, it is a new and distinct standard, not a revision or update, and is due to be phased out to organizations gradually over the next three years.

What is OHSAS 18001?

OHSAS 18001 focuses on controlling hazards and helps create a framework for the effective management of occupational health and safety including all aspects of risk management and legal compliance.

What are the crucial differences between OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001?

The key difference between the two is that ISO 45001 takes a more preventive, proactive approach that helps evaluate and fix risks before they cause accidents and injuries, while OHSAS 18001 takes a reactive approach that focuses solely on risks and not solutions.

The standards are also very different in many ways:

Intent& Performance: ISO 45001is mainly focused on the intent or objectives as drivers for improvements and performance evaluation. These drivers can be points like worker participation, corporate communication, and procurement.

Structure: ISO 45001’s structure is based on Annex SL, which is the framework for other ISO management system standards—making implementation easier and more efficient. It is more dynamic and it also provides the much-required confidence in safety management for efficient productivity and improved working conditions for all the workers.

Top Leaderships Commitment: ISO 45001 requires a stronger emphasis on top management to actively incorporate health and safety into the overall management system of the organization. The shift is towards the management owning this initiative.

Risk & Opportunity Management: With ISO 45001, companies determine, consider, and take action to address both risks and opportunities that may disrupt production. Although ISO 45001 considers both, OHSAS 18001 deals exclusively with hazards.

Worker & Third-Party Involvement: ISO 45001 introduces an enhanced focus on the needs and expectations for all workers and interested parties and requires employee training and education to identify risks. OHSAS 18001 does not allow for broader employee participation.

These differences represent a significant shift in the way health and safety are managed.

With the upgrade from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001, the global industry has witnessed a significant shift in the way any organization perceived health and safety management and other issues related to it. And now, occupational hazard and safety are not a standalone issue for the organization; it has become an integral part of the whole operational procedure to maintain a sustainable organization.

OSHA Nomination Signals Greater Enforcement, New Standards | FIRST, VERIFY

Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:29:32 GMT

Signaling significant regulatory and enforcement changes from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), President Joseph Biden has named a California official to lead the agency.

Biden nominated Douglas Parker, the chief of California’s Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) on April 9, 2021, to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Workplace Safety and Health to lead OSHA. Parker had represented labor representatives and private and public sector unions as an attorney, and he was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as Senior Policy Advisor and Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Parker left MSHA in 2019 to serve as Executive Director for Cal/OSHA, which advocates health and safety measures for workers.

While it is too early to predict Parker’s likely priorities, Biden will expect Parker to quickly promulgate and enforce a federal COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), as Parker did at Cal/OSHA. The Cal/OSHA ETS has come under industry criticism and litigation over concerns related to feasibility of imposed preventive measures, paid leave requirements in connection with mandatory exclusions, COVID-19 case management procedures, COVID-19 testing, and failure to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Parker would step into an agency that has prioritized greater enforcement efforts, including:

Issuing a National Emphasis Program that focuses enforcement resources on industries at greatest hazard for spread of COVID-19;

Releasing an Updated Interim Enforcement Plan for COVID-19 , which includes reviews of employers’ safety programs and documents prior to on-site inspections, with particular emphasis on healthcare employers; and

Doubling the number of compliance officers in the field, as Biden proposed before taking office. Biden proposed a budget that includes funding increases for the U.S. Department of Labor, which may be used to refill OSHA compliance officer positions left vacant under President Donald Trump.

Parker also may bring other Cal/OSHA initiatives to OSHA, such as Injury and Illness Prevention Plans, and he may revive an Infectious Disease Standard proposed under Obama.

Before leading Cal/OSHA, Parker advocated for tougher standards for workplace exposure to airborne chemical contaminants, and he has been a critic of post-accident drug testing programs that might tend to discourage injury reporting. He also has been a vocal critic of monetary employee incentives for low injury and illness rates.

If the Senate confirms his nomination, Parker would become the first to fill the post since David Michaels left it in January 2017. Trump nominated Scott Mugno for the position in October 17, 2017, but Mugno withdrew from consideration in May 2019 after the Senate failed to act on his nomination.

Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/osha-nomination-signals-greater-enforcement-new-standards

5 reasons why your organization's behavior-based safety process could soon collapse | FIRST, VERIFY

Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:36:51 GMT

According to EHS Today typically 70 percent of safety-based initiatives undertaken by companies fail, resulting in the loss of money and productive man-hours. But what is a lot worse than the financial loss is the increased lack of confidence of both management and employees that follows – most frustratingly expressed as, "Our company is incapable of change."

Fortunately, today's companies, both national and international, have realized that antecedent and results-only safety programs cannot maximize safe performance. Safety processes that target the root cause of most accidents and incidents- human behavior, once ignored or rarely heard of, have now claimed the spotlight.

The new acceptance and implementation of behavior-based safety methods is a step in the right direction, but a few common missteps can prematurely cripple your organization's process.

The five biggest mistakes your company might make while implementing behavior-based safety are more on the lines of how and what they are trying to get people to do.

1. Believing that employee participation and observation are the core of behavior-based safety

The biggest risk a company's management can take is to assume that the organization has correctly implemented behavioral safety because the right observations are being performed by employees.

Behavior-based safety is about integrating behavioral technology into the management of safety in your company. Behavioral technology is the system and process for applying the laws and principles that govern human behavior. The objective of applying them is to achieve behavior change. Performing observations and allowing hourly employees to conduct those observations does not necessarily lead to changes in the way people behave at work. In most instances, it only changes the way they behave when they are being observed.

The primary objective of an effective behavior-based safety process is to make safe behavior a habit. Unsafe or risky behavior is usually habit-based. Most people aren’t conscious of their behavior having done things the same way much of their lives. The primary goal of behavior-based safety is to replace all the unconscious unsafe behavior with the unconscious, or automatic, safe behavior -- or safe habits.

To accomplish this objective, hourly employees, supervisors, and managers must understand and apply behavior change technology effectively.

2. Systematic positive reinforcement is key

As mentioned above changing organizational culture is not possible without a sufficient grounding in the basic principles of behavior. This deficiency is crucial when it comes to the culture of positive reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement is the key to substituting unsafe work habits with safe ones. If provisions have not been made in your safety initiative for training in the principles and application of positive reinforcement, then the natural reinforcement that is currently supporting unsafe work habits will continue to elicit that behavior.

In most cases, unsafe behavior or risk-taking happens because it has some natural positive reinforcers. For instance, a prankster gets away with his ‘funny’ pranks risking the safety of his fellow workers in most cases. Like hiding the ladder when his teammate is about to get down, or ‘accidentally spilling water so that someone can fall, etc. His whole life he must have received constant adulation and garnered the title of the ‘funny’ guy. And as such, this unsafe, risky behavior continues, out of a bad habit.

Risk-taking saves time, effort and sometimes can be seen as a shorter and quicker route to success. Unsafe behavior then is self-perpetuating because of the natural consequences that favor it.

With that concept in mind, it then follows that delivering regular positive reinforcement for safe behaviors is the key to replacing unsafe habits with safe habits. Managers, supervisors, and coworkers must deliver this reinforcement immediately, consistently, and appropriately or the safe behavior we are encouraging will never reach habit strength.

3. Expecting a change in only Temp employees

It needs to be understood that for a long-lasting change, every employee must make a behavioral change -- not just the temps. Management is integral to change, yet most initiatives target employee behavior alone.

Any behavior-based process should include mandatory support behaviors from both management and supervisors. This constitutes a measured self-inventory in the form of a checklist with points. A quantitative measurement feedback system helps form the basis of positively reinforcing managers and supervisors for specific behaviors related to supporting the behavior-based safety process.

This in turn helps temp employees increase the rate of safe behavior, while managers and supervisors are reinforced for their supportive behaviors.

4. Making behavior-based safety the responsibility of only the employees

Much too often, behavior-based processes are positioned and implemented as only employee-focused programs. This brings about the short-term, temporary changes visible in the form of specific bureaucratic activities which only focus on implementing change. Long term, however, these kinds of rules result in resentment in the employees related to the perception that are the only ones putting in all the effort to make the process work.

The side effect of such implementation of processes is that they die a slow death because employees get fed up with the additional work and responsibility without receiving the required positive recognition and reinforcement for their efforts.

5. Force fitting an itemized action plan to your organization

This mistake is accelerated by the belief that behavior-based safety is a sequence of actions, meetings, observations, and reviews, rather than a process that helps to change core safety behavior.

Most organizations assume that training, thorough paperwork, continued employee observations, and safety-related review meetings can ensure behavior-based safety. This cannot be guaranteed as monitoring or guiding a group of overworked, tired individuals can only lead to a loss in production, overtime, and time-off surge, and an absolute lack of motivation.

In contrast, implementing the basic principles and concepts of behavior-based safety processes provides you with an understanding of the rationales behind the activities and allows you to use your knowledge of behavioral technology to tailor and design a process that fits your requirements.

For example, an ideal behavior-based training should include the following elements:

Employee action should not be observed for more than five minutes.
Observe only two or three behaviors at a time.
Integrate observations into the work process so that there is no time off the job.
Design self-observations for employees who operate vehicles or work alone.

Many of the programs now implemented do not use the practices listed above. Those familiar with behavior technology know that the shorter list is not only more desirable but is impactful and quicker.

The five reasons or risks in successfully implementing a behavior-based process are centered around a core misunderstanding of what a behavior-based safety process is. The correct approach begins with an in-depth knowledge of how to change human behavior.

A well-designed and properly implemented program can be effective and is a great workplace safety solution . It not only positively impacts a company’s profits and reputation, but it also has a profound impact on the lives of employees as poor decisions or unsafe behaviors can lead to loss of livelihood or even fatalities.

Why Worker Ownership of Safety is the best Investment | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:47:52 GMT

A wise man once said that spending a small amount of time and effort early on is a good investment. It can save you from additional trouble in the end.

This thought is applicable to many situations, but especially so when it comes to workplace safety. Safety professionals have long recognized the value of prevention, and statistics had proven that for every serious injury event, there will have been 29 injury accidents and 300 near-misses.

Keeping a track of near-misses is definitely a powerful tool for safety professionals. Planning for what comes next and focusing on what are known as “good catches” is even more effective.

A “good catch” is recognition by an employee of a condition or situation that had the potential to cause an incident but did not cause one due to corrective action and/or timely intervention by the employee. For example, as one worker prepares to climb a ladder on his way to perform a task at an elevated level, a second worker notices that his fall protection harness is not correctly secured, so he stops the first and helps him adjust it.

Good catches develop when workers truly believe they’re responsible for their own safety, have the right training and the confidence to speak up when they spot something concerning, and know they won’t be punished or penalized for pointing out problems. While near-miss reporting can be very valuable, good catch programs are even more powerful, because they address situations before a near-miss can occur.

When a worksite has an effective program that encourages and celebrates good catches, it creates a proactive safety environment and can even boost worker morale. Just like near-miss reporting, a formal good catch program promotes reporting and learning while providing important metrics that can be tracked and improved over time. It turns a company’s safety philosophy into a clear reality. And, as workers see safety advisors and supervisors call attention to good catches, they’re more likely to make them, enhancing overall safety.

Conventionally, companies have followed very old school means of promoting safety behavior in the workplace, such as notice boards that announce the number of no incident or “safety” days.

Statistic prove that such efforts may actually discourage workers from reporting incidents because they’re afraid of being punished or blamed for “ruining” a good record. In other cases, companies may say they encourage reporting, but the complicated paperwork or process involved with making a report effectively discourages workers from doing so. As a result, such efforts result in underreporting.

A carefully designed good catch program accomplishes the same objective of a safer workplace without discouraging reports. No matter what kind of program is developed, company leadership has to embrace the idea of reporting good catches and issue (and stand behind) a clear message there will be no reprisals for making reports. Programs should work to make the reporting process easier.

It’s important to publicize and celebrate those good catches, and the celebration doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive. Recognition can be as simple as an email or a short note recognizing both the employee who has done the right thing and the person who submitted the card.

An important consideration of any good catch program is giving workers the opportunity to stop work anytime a corrective action is needed without having to worry that they’ll be punished. The slight delay caused by a good catch is minimal compared to the lost time a contractor will incur when a serious incident occurs.

Setting up your own good catch program is less complicated and time-consuming than you might expect, and it will begin to provide immediate benefits. Best of all, it creates a safety mentality your workers will take with them long after the current project ends. That will continue to pay them — and you — back for a long time to come.

The Cost of Contractor Verification, and How FIRST, VERIFY Can Help

Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:46:00 GMT

Many organizations overlook the need for a contractor verification system. Financial cost is one of the factors for ignoring the verification process until a mishap occurs.

Rationalizing the expense of a contractor verification system is like justifying the cost of a personal insurance policy. While it may be difficult at times to identify an immediate return on investment, it only takes the one safety incident to instantly see the benefit of verifying and screening third-party contractors before starting a project.

The cost of operating without a contractor verification system could have far reaching consequences for organizations making that decision. The costs of a contractor-related fatality could far exceed the cost of implementing and continuing a contractor prequalification service.

Although significant payouts could apply to any workplace-related incident, many organizations believe the likelihood increases when employing third parties. This argument holds up to debate as the employing company has no way to ensure that adequate safety training and protocols are in place unless a contractor has been appropriately screened.

Management services require contractors to submit documentation that verifies they meet the hiring companies’ requirements. As this information is recorded, it should be processed and evaluated for compliance.

The cost of the internal administrative resources needed to support these objectives is the reason why many companies now outsource contractor verification.

There are multiple instances of unverified contractors that do not comply with government regulations, safety guidelines, and corporate social responsibility practices. These violations not only threaten the contractor’s employees’ but also the physical safety of other contractors on site as well as the hiring company’s employees and property. OSHA views the companies that hired the service providers as ultimately responsible for the safety of those on their property. A serious injury can result in massive fines, operational disruptions, and reputational damage.

Is your company wondering whether contractor prequalification makes more sense to keep in-house or to outsource? FIRST, VERIFY has provided contractor prequalification and contractor management solutions for leading organizations for the last two decades.

With FIRST , VERIFY’s contractor verification solutions , companies can customize the information they need to make informed decisions and easily share information with other departments, which is essential when it comes to managing risk. The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

How to evaluate an online safety learning system | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:01:04 GMT

An online safety learning system can range from ones that are very simple and have very few features—perhaps little more than the ability to allow employees to view and complete training—to systems that are much more robust and offer many more features, including possibly some you may never use.

As a result, you’ll want to find a system that matches your company’s needs. From the ease of use to how comprehensive a program is, here are a few key capabilities that a robust online safety learning program should offer:

User Experience

There’s probably nothing more important for a safety learning management system than for it to have an intuitive and simple user experience. This is true for employees and for those who will perform administrative roles when using the system.

Workforce organization tools

Being able to organize the employees in your workforce to make safety training assignments and reporting easier and more specific can be very helpful.

Training content tools

It’s important to know what a learning management system will let you do with training content. Can you import your content, and if so, what types? Does it include tools you can use to make your online training activities? And how does it handle updating activities to create new versions? Does it provide you the option of translating your content to other languages for global consumption?

Inbuilt capabilities

Safety training is often compliance-based, and because those compliance requirements differ from worker to worker and include things like due dates and recurring training needs, you’ll want to consider the training capabilities of any safety learning management system.

Online training delivery

Online training delivery includes some variables such as mobile compatibility for the online training or offline viewing of the training content.

Credit for completed training

When it comes to providing credit to workers for completing training, you’ll want to investigate how the safety training platform automatically provides credit for completed training, what your options are for manually granting credit for completing training, what you can do with mobile devices, whether or not the system can capture signatures and integrate with your workplace’s card key system, and more.

Reporting

Reporting is one of the most important aspects of a learning management system. Also, studies show that dissatisfaction with reporting capabilities is one of the most common reasons why companies quit using one learning management system and begin using another.

A cohesive, site-specific, well-run contractor online safety orientation program is the foundation for risk mitigation. Unfortunately, very few safety teams have the time or resources to fashion and facilitate a program that makes sense for each site and every type of contractor. FIRST , VERIFY’s online safety orientation program provides a user-friendly, customizable, feature for hosting your safety orientation modules.

Also, many organizations have found that when they invested in comprehensive online safety orientations like the one FIRST , VERIFY provides, their employees noticed that investment, appreciated it, and began to take a more active role in the safety culture at work. And that’s definitely something!

Why NOT having a Waiver of Subrogation could end your business.

Tue, 16 Mar 2021 09:43:59 GMT

Do you understand the waiver of subrogation provision contained in agreements used in the insurance industry, why it is there, and how it helps you manage the risk of your business?

The first question we need to tackle before going forward with why a waiver of subrogation is so important is to understand what waiver of subrogation even means.

In very simple terms - A waiver of subrogation is the waiver of the right to subrogate. In more elaborate terms it refers to one party stepping into the shoes of a second party and assuming the latter’s rights and responsibilities. It essentially allows one party to take the place of another and act on its behalf and is extremely common in the insurance industry.

The easiest and most common example to explain subrogation is that of car insurance. Let’s say you get into an accident where you are rear-ended, and it’s not your fault. Typically, in such an instance, you will claim against your insurance carrier, and the whole thing will be handled by them…for you.

As a part of the relationship between you and the insurance company, your insurance company will have the right to go after the other party in the accident to recover the cost of the claim they paid out to you. So, when your insurance company goes after the other party that caused the accident, they are assuming your rights and responsibilities to do so.

Using the car insurance example above. If there was a valid waiver of subrogation in place, then the insurance company could NOT have stepped into the shoes of their policyholder to recover the claim they payout (by going after the other party).

In other words, if a waiver of subrogation was in place, then your insurer would be forced to simply pay your claim. They would not be able to go after the other party that caused the accident.

Why do I need a waiver of subrogation, especially in my construction business?

If you are working on a construction site and God forbid an accident occurs, then a waiver of subrogation could be your saving grace. The best way to explain this is through the following example:

Let’s say Jim is a subcontractor working on a construction site. One of Jim’s employees accidentally causes some property damage during the project. Here, the general contractor’s general liability insurance will cover the damage caused by Jim. So, the owner makes a claim against the general contractor’s policy. The general contractor’s insurance company pays the claim, and all things are good again.

If subrogation were allowed, the general contractor’s insurance company could go after the subcontractor (and/or their insurance company) to attempt to recover the money they had to pay out in the owner’s claim. However, if a waiver of subrogation is present, the general contractor’s insurance company will pay the claim and won’t be able to act as if they were the general contractor (and go after the subcontractor).

Think about that for a second. If an insurance company comes after a subcontractor for damaging the property, that could be huge! A simple accident could put the subcontractor’s entire business in danger! However, if a simple waiver of subrogation clause is present in the construction contract, that nightmare could be avoided and the subcontractor could safeguard his business from collapsing.

Today, waiver of subrogation clauses are pretty common. That is because, unlike a lot of other risk-shifting provisions, the parties who sign the contract aren't directly affected by a waiver of subrogation clause. The rights being waived are not the individual company's rights — they're the rights of the insurance companies. Because of this, there typically aren't too many negotiations over waiver of subrogation clauses during the contract negotiations.

On the flip side, some insurers won’t allow for a waiver of subrogation to be present for their construction industry clients. If the clause is present but disallowed by the policy, it won’t be effective to waive subrogation rights.

The bottom line is that generally, insurance policies do not restrict coverage if the insured has signed a waiver of subrogation. It increases the insurer’s risk by prohibiting the recovery of money paid to or on behalf of the insured. Therefore, the insurance companies frequently charge an additional fee on top of the premium.

But at the end of the day, the extra fee is worth not dealing with the aggravation that could result in you becoming engaged in the complexities of lawsuits and insurance claims.

Difference Between First Party & Third-Party Insurance? | FIRST, VERIFY

Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:36:11 GMT

The importance of insurance in the construction industry cannot be ignored. The end product may be the construction of a new building, restoration of a current structure, or working on a smaller part of a much larger project. At any given time during a project, there is the potential for something to go wrong. When it does, that’s where insurance comes into play.

In most cases, when you look at insurance, there are numerous types of policies and coverages available. But generally, we can categorize them two ways – first-party and third-party insurance.

As is frequently the case with insurance, knowing exactly what the difference is between the two and how they affect you is half the battle.

First-party insurance is a type of coverage where you, the first-party, claim against your policy. This means you are paying for your coverage, and when an accident occurs you ask your insurer to pay you based on the terms of your insurance policy.

For example, if there is a fire at the construction site and the property is damaged or destroyed, you may wish to file a claim under your insurance policy for property damage. This is an example of a first-party claim as you, the insured have directly suffered a loss and the insurance company is required to pay you directly for the sum of the damages if covered under the policy.

Now that we have talked about first-party insurance, let’s understand what third-party insurance is and look at an example.

Third-party insurance is a type of liability insurance where you are making a claim against another party’s insurance policy. There are three components to third-party insurance:

First-party: The person who purchased and is named on the insurance policy.
Second-party: The insurer the policy was purchased from.
Third-party: The person making the claim against another’s insurance policy. This could be you if you are making a claim on somebody else’s policy.

Now that we understand what first, second, and third-parties are, let us continue with our example.

For example, you are a general contractor and an employee has fallen on a wet and slippery surface within your premises leading to injury – you have been found negligent for the incident.

Under your insurance policy, you may have ‘third party coverage’ which protects you as the insured from liability exposure. In this instance, your insurance company will pay the claim amount directly to the claimant (the employee) rather than to the insured (you, the general contractor) to cover the losses.

How is first-party insurance different from third-party insurance?

The most fundamental difference is the parties involved in filing the claim. While in the first-party claim, the primary claimant is the policyholder, in the case of third-party claims, the primary claimant is a third-party. Thus, the responsibility of filing a claim changes in both coverages.

Uninsured motorists are individuals who do not have an automobile policy. If they cause you property damage or personal injury you cannot make a claim against their insurance because they don’t have a policy. In order to protect yourself you must have your own coverage. Having your own coverage ensures that if you get into an accident with someone who is uninsured (or if you are at fault), there is still coverage for you to fall back on.

How can I keep track of my contractor’s insurance policies?

If you are unsure of how to keep track of your contractor’s insurance policies, check out FIRST , VERIFY’s COI Management web application . Find out how we can help you keep track of policies and increase compliance at all times.

Setting safety goals in the new year | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:22:53 GMT

While we may not be able to classify them as New Year’s resolutions, setting yearly safety goals is something that every company should be doing, especially considering how workplace rules have changed in the last year.

Setting safety goals is very important for the success of every organization’s safety program. But, much like our personal resolutions, it’s hard to know where to begin and what our goals should look like. Here are a list of three things that every goal you set should do:

Address a need

Don’t just fabricate safety goals based on what you think your company should be doing or what everyone else is doing, base them on the issues and needs that are present in your organization. Study and analyze the safety concerns that you’ve had over the past year. What can you do to address these concerns? Maybe there’s a goal there. If you had three slip and fall injuries, a realistic safety goal could be to reduce slip and fall-related injuries in the new year.

Be attainable

If your goal addresses a safety need in your organization, it’s relevant and likely specific, but it also needs to be attainable, measurable, and timely. If your goal is to reduce all workplace injuries to zero, that’s not easily attainable–incidents will always have a chance of happening.

The scenario from the previous example, reducing slip and fall-related injuries from three to zero in the upcoming year, is a more realistic, specific and attainable goal than having no workplace injuries. This goal is also quantifiable and measurable. The goal is also time-bound and establishes a time frame for measurement–one year.

Everyone’s responsibility

It cannot be said enough, that safety is everyone’s responsibility. The directors, managers, and safety officers shouldn’t be the only people involved in working toward safety goals. Employees should be made aware of and involved in setting organizational safety goals, and the steps that they can take individually and as a whole to help achieve them. If one of the company’s goals is to have zero slip and fall-related injuries in the next year, let employees know that. Make sure that you’re taking action to meet the goal, like training all employees who work around hazardous floors and spills in safe work practices.

Without any goals, your safety program will be directionless, and with good safety goals, measurably more effective. Good goals are designed to address company needs, be attainable, and involve everyone in the organization, from top to bottom. Contact us to find out how our Online Safety Orientations can help your organization reach its safety goals, remotely.

Contactless Visitor Screening with FIRST, VERIFY’s Visitor Management Software

Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:32:53 GMT

There has never been a more important time to screen and monitor the people who come onto your worksite. Whether you have a construction site, a food processing plant, a manufacturing plant, or any workplace — screening incoming employees, visitors, and contractors is now a critical compliance measure.

Here at FIRST , VERIFY, we have responded to this sudden need by teaming up with a third-party visitor management application that helps to simplify the visitor check-in process, supporting a safe return to the workplace.

The visitor management app is a lightweight solution that allows your site visitors to sign in without touching anything. The check-in process can be completed using their smartphones, so they don’t need to touch the screen of an access terminal or fill out paperwork (and then touch ball pens, clipboards, papers, and countertops).

Here are some of its key features:

Safe and secure visitor management

Create a positive impression from the moment visitors arrive. As your guests sign in, their details are stored in a secure online portal, providing you with a real-time evacuation list and reports.

Staff and contractor management

Transform the staff and contractor sign-in experience, measuring staff attendance and hours across physical sites and remote working.

Customize the sign-in process for each visitor group

Add custom data fields and tailor them to each visitor group and site, giving you total control over the sign-in experience and the data gathered.

Be notified when guests arrive or when site capacity is reached

We've introduced new tools to help our community protect guests and visitors, all at no extra cost. Get notified throughout the visitor’s journey — from arrival to departure, or when the site’s capacity exceeds.

Ensure the safety of everyone on site

Evacuation lists can save lives. Nothing is more important than the safety of everyone on site. With the visitor management app, no one is left behind.

Manage sites centrally via a secure online portal

The visitor management app's easy to use online portal gives you access to your visitor history, evacuation list, and site settings from a desktop or laptop.

Our app connects to your existing system

Keep your staff and host list in sync with Azure Ad, G-Suite, or Salesforce. Extend the sign-in process through our open API or connect to MS Teams or Slack for notifications.

A free companion app for smartphones

Available on iPhone and Android. Sign in from your phone, run evacuation reports, and pre-register guests.

Enhance the visitor check-in experience and ensure a safe and healthy workplace environment for your employees, visitors, and contractors.

Like to learn more about adding the FIRST , VERIFY contactless visitor screening at your front gate? Get in touch with our sales team now or download the visitor management app brochure to get more details. The body content of your post goes here.

The Hidden Cost of Ignoring Safety at the Workplace - FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:37:32 GMT

It is common knowledge that job-related injuries are expensive, due to medical expenses, lost workdays and insurance costs. But did you know that as much as 90% of the total cost of a workplace injury or illness is a hidden cost?

Those hidden costs could include replacing damaged tools and equipment, overhead costs incurred when work was disrupted, lost orders or billing opportunities, failure to meet production deadlines, and the cost of bad publicity.

The scope of the total cost is eye-opening. According to NIOSH, “A recent economic analysis suggested that traumatic occupational deaths and injuries cost the nation $192 billion annually, including direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost wages and productivity.”

Such statistics force us to delve deeper into the direct and indirect costs and see why preventing workplace injuries and illness makes sound fiscal sense.

Health and Safety: Direct Costs

OSHA cites the astounding figure of nearly a billion dollars per week for direct workers’ compensation costs.

OSHA’s list of direct costs includes workers' compensation payments, medical expenses, and costs for legal services.

According to the 2016 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index report, the top five most disabling injuries and related direct costs were:

Overexertion, such as “lifting, pushing, pulling, holding, carrying, or throwing” ($15.08 billion)
Falls on the same level ($10.17 billion)
Falls to a lower level ($5.40 billion)
Struck by object or equipment ($5.31 billion)
Other exertions or bodily reactions ($4.15 billion)

Health and Safety: Indirect Costs

OSHA’s list of indirect costs includes training replacement employees, accident investigation and implementation of corrective measures, lost productivity, repairs of damaged equipment and property, and costs associated with lower employee morale and absenteeism.

Add to that list the cost of buying replacement equipment if the damages cannot be repaired. Other hidden costs are hiring replacement workers, providing benefits for replacement workers, and the fact that the company is now paying twice the benefit costs for one position. These costs are not typically factored in when calculating the costs of workplace injuries or illness.

There are even more potential hidden costs: the effect on the bottom line if the injured worker is in sales and has built up a strong rapport with a sizable number of customers; a potential surcharge on insurance fees if the company now is a higher risk; and non-compliance fees or even civil or criminal penalties.

Taking an injured worker off the job following an accident often means losing some critical expertise. There is, of course, the cost of training a replacement employee. But it goes beyond that.

Costs to Society and the Company’s Reputation

Besides just the direct and indirect costs, the costs both to society and to a company’s reputation are also important. While these are difficult to delineate, they ultimately play a role in the total cost of workplace injuries and illnesses.

When one worker is injured or becomes ill on the job, the entire family is affected as wellꟷin multiple ways. That situation generates new, unfunded costs, and other strains for the family.

Now, consider a scenario in which multiple workers from the same company are injured or become ill within a similar time frame. What are the potential ramifications? Here are just three:

A strain on local resources for example, caretakers, medical specialists, neighbors lending a hand.
Potential new hires shying away from accepting positions at that company.
Consumers hearing about workplace injuries and deciding to avoid that company’s products or services.

Eventually, multiple workplace injuries or illnesses at the same company will hit the company’s bottom line in ways that may not have been anticipated. For example, morale is bound to dip when an incident takes place, but the costs associated with this are difficult to measure.

Prevention to Boost Your Bottom Line

The business case for boosting workplace safety is clear. To help you calculate your company’s potential cost savings, you can access OSHA’s interactive "Safety Pays" program.

Additional assistance calculating the health and safety-specific cost savings for your company when you boost worker safety is available through the National Safety Council.

In conclusion, it is very clear that with arobust workplace safety program it will be possible to prevent the majority of workplace accidents. However, no matter what systems are in place, unexpected occurrences and human error can compromise the safety of your work ers. But investing in a cohesive, site-specific, well-run safety orientation program , like the one FIRST , VERIFY offers, is very critical for maintaining safety at the workplace.

Do I Need a Contractor Prequalification System? | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 22 Dec 2020 08:00:54 GMT

Unfortunately, many organizations overlook the need for contractor prequalification systems until it’s too late. When sourcing third-party vendors, procurement and safety managers need to consider more than price and availability they must also consider vetting through a formal prequalification process. Factors such as relying on just a single contractor, as well as the financial stability, insurance coverage, OSHA safety records and documented safety practices of third-party service providers should also be considered.

Contractor prequalification systems provide purchasing managers with the information they need to manage third-party risk, and therefore make informed procurement decisions. The most common contractor prequalification data that is collected for verification is:

Business Attributes
Financial
Insurance
References
Bidding interests
Safety statistics
Safety programs and procedures
OSHA reporting forms, NCCI Worksheets, safety policies, citations, contractor agreements, certificates, licenses, etc.

“According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), more than 2 million people die around the world due to work-related accidents or diseases, every year,” The European Pact for Sustainable Industry, points out. “This hampers not only the economic viability of companies concerned, but it climbs up, impacting along the chain up to the core clients, their ethics and reputation.”

When no contractor prequalification systems exist:

Organizations that operate without a contractor prequalification system but continue to outsource, put their companies at risk. The inherent risks of entrusting certain functions with contractors or working with suppliers for business-critical materials become more apparent when looking at recent news.

Headlines regularly detail the failure of un-vetted contractors to comply with government regulations, safety guidelines, branding standards, and corporate social responsibility practices.

These violations not only threaten employees’ physical safety. For the companies that hired the contractors or suppliers, the events can also cause massive fines, operational disruptions, and reputational damage.

For this reason alone, every organization that manages contractors would benefit from implementing a contractor prequalification system.

It is often difficult to know where to start when creating a prequalification program. Download this Prequalification Checklist to determine the type of information you may want to collect and review prior to committing to a contractor prequalification program.

4 Ways Outsourcing Contractor Prequalification Saves You Money | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:53:07 GMT

Contractor prequalification is a complex and time-consuming process that needs a lot of commitment. You need to hire contractors that are licensed, qualified and insured; but on top of that, you need to collect all the documentation supporting their credentials. That means understanding how regulatory requirements affect your workplace while making sure that your contractors don’t introduce risk into your operations.

It can be tempting to keep the prequalification function in-house so you have control over the process and oversight of your approved contractors, with the goal of ensuring that everything is managed in line with your business requirements. However, building up internal expertise and committing to the prequalification function as your business grows can be a lot to take on. What’s more, by tackling contractor management in-house, you may not be using your staff resources effectively or to their full potential.

When to Consider Outsourcing Contractor Prequalification

If you already handle contractor management successfully in-house, you know how complex and time-consuming it is. You may not have thought of it this way, but this work probably comes at the expense of core business tasks. And if you’re struggling to manage your contractor services, then compliance issues can lead to project delays, increasing costs, and even the risk of financial penalties.

If you find that contractor management is taking too much time and pulling you away from your business priorities, or you are struggling to get your head around the rules and regulations, then it may well be time to consider outsourcing.

How Outsourcing Contractor Prequalification Can Save You Money

The cost of contractor prequalification is an important consideration. It’s the classic cost versus risk scenario. Fortunately, there are several ways that outsourcing can save you money:

1. It Saves You Time

Instead of staff spending time requesting and collecting documentation, reviewing ever-changing regulations, and verifying contractor compliance status, you can focus their attention on your core business priorities.

2. It Reduces the Risk of Working with Contractors

If your approved contractors aren’t compliant with your engagement requirements (safe work history, appropriate insurance coverage, no OSHA citations, required licenses, and other up-to-date documentation), then your business could be at considerable risk. By handing over the responsibility to a contractor management provider whosesole focus is to verify compliance, you can have confidence in the results they deliver while reducing your risk exposure and avoiding potential brand damage.

3. It Helps You to Maximize Your Resources

Even if you have an employee who knows their stuff regarding contractor management, what do you do when they are on vacation, out sick, or leave the company? By outsourcing, you don’t have to worry about gaps in compliance due to lack of resources and you don’t have to lose time retraining your workers.

4. It Supports Your Growing Business

If you decide to add a new location or have a new project that you need to get off the ground quickly, the last thing you want to do is encounter delays. By having a scalable solution in place for managing your contractors, you can quickly get new workers on board and safely grow your business at a moment’s notice.

A Cost-Effective, Customized Solution to Contractor Prequalification

If you take into account how outsourcing contractor management can save you money, especially in the long term, it makes sound business sense. To justify the spending, all you need to do is work out what your in-house process costs (staff time, software and platform costs). You are likely to spend a significant part of someone’s salary on managing supplier documents and liaising with your contractors. It’s important to make sure that the contractor management solution you choose meets your business requirements. By doing your research, you can find a contractor management company with the expertise and flexibility to deliver a cost-efficient solution that can grow with your business.

FIRST , VERIFY has helped organizations of different sizes across various industries overcome contractor prequalification challenges. We can help you develop a fully customized contractor management service that will not only be effective to suit your individual needs but will make your organization safer, while minimizing your overall risk. Request a demo now or visit the FIRST , VERIFY page to find out more.

5 Reasons Why Prioritizing Your Certificate of Insurance Management Process is Important | FIRST, VERIFY

Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:02:26 GMT

Certificate of insurance (COI) management is a crucial part of your risk management strategy and an important process that your business cannot afford to ignore. Without proper insurance coverage from your contractors and suppliers you are by default taking on the risk that they should be bearing.

According to research reports conducted by Insure, "75% of U.S. businesses are underinsured, and 40% of small business owners have no insurance at all." So, the chances of you working with a third party that does not have the required coverage in place are high.

These numbers are alarming. Let’s discuss five reasons you should prioritize your certificate of insurance management system.

1. No project can be completed independently

Every business, irrespective of the industry, will at some point depend on a third-party contractor for help with completing a project. It’s incredibly important for businesses to get COIs for every contractor or third party they bring onto a project. Even if you have worked with them in the past and trust them, managing COIs prevents organizations from accidentally taking on the risks associated with the work of their vendors.

2. You Need an effective tracking system

The collection and tracking of compliant certificates of insurance is typically an administrative challenge. This means that you need an effective system in place to contact, collect, manage and track the expirations of your contractors’ and suppliers’ COIs.

3. COIs ensure compensation if there is a loss because of the actions of others.

Collecting COIs from third parties and ensuring that they are up-to-date is the only way to feel comfortable that coverage is available in case there is a loss due to the negligence of the contractor.

Missing the expiration of a vendor’s certificate and not getting a new certificate can leave your company vulnerable to serious financial harm should the contractor or supplier cause property damage, personal injury, or worse.

4. Just Collecting Certificates is not Enough

Your COI management program needs to have a consistent system in place to ensure that the certificate is current, the coverage amounts meet your requirements, and other terms like additional insured are in place.

5. Your manual process is tedious & budget-draining

The less time your team is spending on certificate collection and management, the greater the number of hours they will have to work on other important company tasks. With an efficient third-party COI tracking system your risk level drops and your team can focus on income-producing activities.

If you would like to learn how we can help you manage your vendor certificates of insurance , contact us today.

Measuring the effectiveness of safety training -Safety Orientation | FIRST, VERIFY

Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:13:18 GMT

Most organizations have solid training programs in place, with class room and refresher courses conducted throughout the year for new and existing employees. However, despite the presence of comprehensive safety training, there is a risk that it becomes a “check the box” exercise.

OSHA recently announced that it will no longer rely on past employer safety data, or lagging indicators, it will now focus its efforts on leading indicators.

Leading indicators are defined as proactive, preventive, and predictive measures that provide information about the effective performance of your safety and health activities. They measure events leading up to injuries, illnesses and other incidents and reveal potential problems with your safety and health program. By comparison, lagging indicators measure the occurrence and frequency of events that occurred in the past, such as the number or rate of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.

Leading Indicators

Participation in safety training is a popular leading indicator. In a National Safety Survey conducted in 2019, participation was tracked by 80% of the respondents, coming in third behind “Near-misses” (84%) and “Employee audits/observations” (81%). Typical metrics include:

Total number of training hours provided
Number of training hours provided per employee
Percentage of training courses completed
Percentage of new hires who completed safety orientation

In addition to tracking the above, you should also track leading indicators that measure the effectiveness of the training, to get a more accurate evaluation. Here are two examples of metrics:

Percentage of improvement on post-training assessment scores over pre-training assessment scores (from OSHA’s document “Using Leading Indicators to Improve Safety and Health Outcomes” )
Number and percentage of positive post-training evaluations for safety training (from the Campbell Institute’s Implementation Guide to Leading Indicators )

An easier way to implement measures would be to quiz participants to test their comprehension. The quizzes could be given immediately after a training session, but also later to see if they retained the knowledge (a month or two later).

Also, conduct post-training surveys to determine if workers had a positive or negative impression of the training. Include open-ended questions where employees can offer feedback and ideas for improvement.

Finally, as with all leading indicators set goals (and periodically reassess them) for the leading indicators used to measure the effectiveness of safety training . Don’t just track something for the sake of tracking it. Constantly monitor to determine if your goals are being achieved and take action if you’re not meeting them.

OSHA reinforces the fact that applying leading indicators can improve organizational performance in a variety of ways. By doing so, the agency says employers may find they can prevent workplace injuries and illnesses, reduce costs associated with incidents, improve productivity and overall organizational performance, optimize safety and health performance, and increase worker participation.

The benefits? The cost of injury prevention is less than one serious injury, and a safe and healthy workplace attracts and retains quality employees.

The Importance of Tracking COIs for Every Contractor - COI Management

Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:31:31 GMT

The task of manually tracking certificates of insurance (COIs) isn’t easy or glamorous. In fact, it’s rather tedious and frustrating. Due to the nature of the process, some companies may end up skipping this process altogether.

Beth lost her job because she failed to check the expiration date on the COI for a new contractor that was hired for a critical and hazardous project. They had worked together in the past and she assumed that they had an up-to-date COI. Unfortunately, the contractor had a reportable incident while onsite, and accidents don’t care about acquaintances. The mishap cost Beth's company huge financial damage. This incident ricocheted in job loss, financial dismay, and damage to the company’s business.

Although taking the word of your contractors and believing they have proper coverage maybe the easier option, ensuring that they actually have the required coverage in place is necessary. Irrespective of its lack of appeal, it is a critical part of any organization’s effort to reduce the risks of claims and lawsuits that can be damaging to the business. Overall, having up-to-date COIs saves both time and money.

The FIRST , VERIFY web application automatically notifies the contractor or supplier well in advance of a certificate's expiration date, allowing time for the submission of a renewed certificate. Our customer support personnel maintain continuous oversight until the policies are renewed and an updated certificate is issued. This service also tracks missing policies, insufficient limits, missing additional terms, and provides reports that allow you to monitor contractors whose COIs are near expiration.

By using FIRST, VERIFY’s COI management service, hiring clients can request and track COIs, save time, and increase compliance for all projects.

Why is Tracking COIs Important?

Since a COI has all the essential details of a company’s insurance coverage, and policies and insurance companies often change, it’s important to keep track of COIs with a service provider like FIRST, VERIFY.

Any time a hiring client deals with a contractor, it’s exposed to risk. But by collecting COIs from your contractors, you can transfer risk back to them.

Just asking a contractor if they have insurance isn’t enough; it’s mandatory to get COIs from every contractor to ensure that all parties working on a project have the required coverage. Doing so can prevent a scenario where you unintentionally take on the risks associated with the work your contractors perform.

Most often coverage is required for at least these two types of coverage: general liability insurance or workers’ compensation insurance.

What Does General Liability Insurance Cover?

General liability insurance can help cover medical expenses and attorney fees resulting from bodily injuries and property damage for which your company may be legally responsible.

Companies need to be clear about what coverage contractors are required to carry for the work performed and make sure they communicate these requirements.

Occasionally, a contractor doesn’t carry the coverage a client needs. If a contractor doesn’t have the required coverage, mandating submission of a COI will expose this inadequacy and ensure that it’s corrected.

What Does Workers’ Compensation Insurance Cover?

Workers’ compensation insurance provides benefits to employees who get injured or sick from a work-related cause. It also includes disability benefits, missed wage replacement and death benefits.

The big questions are whose workers are they and who pays in the case of injury?

Workers brought to a job site by a contractor are the contractor's responsibility. If the contractor doesn't have workers' compensation insurance and an accident occurs on the job site, the client’s workers' compensation insurance kicks in. This becomes a problem for clients because this can result in increasing their workers' compensation premium.

What are the Benefits of Tracking COIs?

The FIRST, VERIFY COI management service and tracking software ensures that COIs are reliably collected. This helps keep hiring clients from being responsible for a contractor’s workers when there is an accident on a job site.

As the saying goes, “ You cannot discover new oceans unless you leave your shore. ” But that doesn’t mean that you under-prepare. To stay afloat, companies need to actively manage their risks and protect themselves from potential liabilities.

Mitigate your risk and increase compliance at the same time by signing up for a free FIRST, VERIFY COI management demo today.

Experience Modification Rate (EMR) Demystified

Tue, 13 Oct 2020 14:23:03 GMT

In all likelihood your Experience Modification Rate(EMR) is being calculated by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) , which is currently the accepted standard in 39 out of the 50 states. It is also important to note that if your company meets the eligibility criteria for your state, the EMR calculated by NCCI will be mandatory for you to apply to your business.

What is NCCI?

The NCCI is the governing body responsible for the regulation of the EMR. Founded in 1923 , the mission of the NCCI is to foster a healthy workers compensation system. In support of this mission, NCCI gathers data, analyzes industry trends, and provides an objective percentage modifier for insurance premiums based on loss payment history.

However, NCCI does not operate in every state. Click here to view the list of states where NCCI does not operate.

The NCCI has published a booklet entitled “ ABCs of Experience Rating, ” which is available on their website at www.ncci.com . This brochure explains the experience rating plan in great detail, and any employer new to the world of EMR would benefit from reading it.

Another useful resource for understanding your company’s EMR is to use an online EMR calculator. These online calculators will ask you to enter your 36-month history of losses, (payments for accident claims)in order to compute estimated rates. Since each state has its own EMR-related rules, your rates will vary depending on which state you work in. Claims history data takes into account the number of incidents, the type of incident (such as medical or time lost), and the amount paid out for each incident.

Since EMRs are calculated based on three years of company history, lowering your EMR requires a longer-term focus; and since the EMR is calculated by and for the insurance industry, it has a direct and measurable impact on the insurance premiums you pay.

Status of Experience Rating

The status of an EMR is important because it is used to determine what state-approved rating values are being used in the calculation. There are three statuses:

Preliminary
Contingent
Final

If the status is preliminary, it means the NCCI does not have final approved rating values for the state(s). An EMR will be calculated using the previously approved rating values.

A contingent EMR is issued when the NCCI is expecting an audited payroll and/or loss information, but has not received the information from the insurer by the time the EMR is produced. Once the NCCI receives the audited payroll and/or loss information, the EMR will be revised with the newly received experience data.

Lastly, when the NCCI has received the state’s final approved rating values, the EMR will be revised to indicate a status of final.

Is Behavior-Based Safety Training Right for Your Organization?

Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:23:14 GMT

In today’s world where there are rules and regulations that monitor and standardize pretty much everything, advocates for behavior-based safety (BBS) claim that just enforcing safety rules isn’t enough to improve safety.

These advocates believe that focusing only on creating awareness and low accident rates is not the most effective way to improve safety.

They cite research suggesting that rather than enforcing rules or motivating with rewards, inculcating a BBS approach could be the ideal long-term solution.

Behavior-based safety is a process that informs management and employees of the overall safety of the workplace through safety observations. It is intended to focus workers' attention on their own and their peers' daily safety behavior. The goal of a BBS program is to measurably improve the employee safety of the organization.

Organizations that implement a behavior program determine the appropriate list of behaviors to observe based on the unique behaviors and risks of their organization. Safety professionals usually develop a checklist format that is easy and quick for observers to complete in the field and lists the target behaviors.

For example, for organizations that operate in construction, you might develop a BBS checklist focused on common contractor and worker issues, such as use of heavy equipment, or as simple as hammering a nail. Checklists often include the basics of the observation (time, date, location, behaviors observed, observer) and the number of safe and unsafe observations of the reviewer. The checklist also includes fields for any feedback and comments provided to the employee.

Critics of BBS say that it imposes unrealistic requirements for gathering data, which can result in what’s commonly known as “garbage in… garbage out.” And with suspect data, organizations could end up blaming and punishing workers if idealistic expectations fail. With that said, a counterargument is that proper design and management area given for the success of any program.

How to Develop a BBS Program

When you look at the at-risk data and are deciding what types of solutions or interventions to make, always consider each of these three components.

Safety management system - how does the current system that is being used to manage safety in the workplace need to be changed to increase the amount of “safe behavior”?

Once you have defined in observable terms - remember we can “see” behavior - you next need to look at the design of a process for collecting data on how frequently “at-risk” or “safe” behavior is occurring.

Design of the process should be done in a team approach - Involve selected representatives of the hourly work force, union, management and safety staff. Everyone needs to feel comfortable with the process that is designed and what their various roles and responsibilities will be.

Some amount of redesign of the work zones or engineering controls could be put in place to reduce or eliminate some of the safety risk behaviors that get observed.

The intent is to increase safe behavior awareness. What sort of self-monitoring techniques can be employed? How can the necessary behavior changes be shaped and reinforced?

An effective solution may often require a combination of all three approaches, which is then used to design the safety orientation training that will work best in conjunction with the findings of the BBS components.

5 Things to Consider When Choosing a Prequalification Program

Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:16:09 GMT

Prequalification Program for Contractors and Suppliers

Today, it is critical to ensure that suppliers and contractors meet corporate compliance requirements, minimize your company’s exposure to risk and maintain required safety protocols at all times. To address all these requirements is not an easy ask.

In such situations having access to prequalified contractors and suppliers can drastically reduce the risks of injury and provide assurance that the vendors onsite take safety seriously.

FIRST, VERIFY provides a fully customized, efficient prequalification service with built-in document management, optimized for day-to-day operations which can be the solution for minimizing site risks.

But prior to choosing the right prequalification platform there are a few questions you should ask:

1. Does the prequalification platform have customization capabilities for your specific needs?

2. How reliable is the software used? Does it keep your critical information safe?

3. What kind of information can be tracked?

4. Does the service offer audit capabilities?

5. Is the platform easy to use and does it provide support?

FIRST, VERIFY is a one-stop shop for easy implementation of a contractor prequalification program . It provides a fully customizable, efficient prequalification tool with built-in document management, optimized for use by the day-to-day operations team. It is a simple-to-implement solution for minimizing the risk introduced by your vendors.

To learn more about how FIRST, VERIFY can help you with your Contractor Prequalification visit our website or call us at (800) 651-7180

How Are You Storing Critical Contractor Information?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:39:00 GMT

Is critical information about your contractors stored in multiple departments, creating disconnected silos of information?

Most companies collect lots of information on the contractors that work for them, including:

The challenge most companies face is that each department becomes a “silo” of information that isn’t effectively shared with other departments within your organization, making it more difficult to manage risk. Having several locations can compound this problem by multiplying the number of silos.

Imagine the poor contractor who has to deal with multiple departments or locations asking them for information just so they can bid on your work.

The bottom line is disconnected silos of information cause a lot of wasted time, energy, and money. Not to mention, your ability to manage the risk introduced by these contractors is significantly compromised.

What are the possible solutions?

Some companies try to build their own information system while others try to tweak their ERP system to get it to perform this function.

The reality is that in-house systems require a lot of planning, programming, and resources that could be better utilized producing profits. ERP systems are really designed to run your business - not to manage the contractors who service it. In either case, your employees are needed to manage the system and keep the information current. This is an expensive and time-consuming solution; and if a part-time assignment, prone to errors and omissions.

We have built our business to service this need.

FIRST, VERIFY reaches out to your contractors on your behalf and gathers the information into one online location where it is easily accessible by those who need it and have permission to access it. We keep your information current, provide live customer support and determine if the contractors meet your standards — all for a very low cost to you and your contactors.

Our program offers one place to:

The Case for Prequalifying Contractors and Suppliers

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:37:00 GMT

Prequalification is most commonly used for contractors, but there is an increasing demand to prequalify supply vendors as well. This article will focus primarily on the need to prequalify contractors.

Accidents happen every day and current statistics say that human error is the cause of over 85% of those accidents. For ever 300 near-miss incidents, there are an average of 29 minor injuries and one serious injury or fatality.

Many companies have implemented a strong internal safety program and some have even created a culture of safety. Their losses are lower than the average stated above which, of course, brings the averages down — a good thing.

The problem comes with the introduction of outside contractors. Since they are not part of your organization, the question becomes what additional risk, if any, do they introduce into your company’s work environment?

One company we are aware of delegated all the responsibility for safety on the construction site to their general contractor. Unfortunately, there was a fatality and, when OSHA investigated, they fined not only the general contractor but also the owners who had hired him. They stated that is was the company’s project on company property and, as such, the company had a duty to ensure that everyone on the project followed proper safety protocols.

The second group feels that they “know” their contractors because they have worked with them before and there is no need to look any further. One ethanol producer we know felt the same way. Unfortunately, a contractor who worked for them sent a new employee to their facility with no safety training. He fell through a grate onto the conveyer that led to the hammer mill. Fortunately for him, he was overweight and got jammed in the system. During the rescue, the ethanol company’s employees pulled on both his arms, dislocating both shoulders and doing permanent damage. As the ambulance drove away, they called the contractor to suggest he get in touch with his insurance agent. That was when they discovered he had let his insurance lapse. As you might guess, the employee’s attorney sued everyone and it took three and a half years in court to resolve the case. The ethanol company’s insurance covered all but their deductible. However, the lost time, damage to their reputation, and increased insurance costs were significant.

Losses caused by outside contractors or suppliers are bound to happen. The real question is how can you minimize the impact to your organization?

Companies often set up standards that any contractor who is going to work at their facilities must meet. Those standards almost always include a given level of insurance coverage and some documentation of safety programs, policies and, most importantly, safety history. The problem is that the task of gathering that information is often disseminated among different departments and even different facilities. To compound the problem, the various tasks are typically a part-time job function of the individuals charged with gathering the information. Unfortunately, this is where the process breaks down. As a part-time task, gathering the appropriate information receives all the efficiency and accuracy of a part-time effort. Even worse, if the tasks are distributed among various departments and facilities, the usual result is disconnected siols of data with no central location for people to access the needed information.

The common belief is that the system is in place and that any contractor performing work has been vetted and meets all the standards. The reality is usually quite different. Audits of these systems typically find that a large percentage (sometimes as high as 70%) are out of compliance with one or more of the standards. Frequently, critical documents like certificates of insurance have expired or the minimum coverage and required endorsements aren’t in place.

If you want an internal system, it should be housed in one location and have a minimum of two employees trained to gather, update, and determine a status for each contractor. Ideally, the system will be online and available to employees when they need it.

Using a third-party company to prequalify contractors can solve many of the challenges associated with an internal system. Some examples are:

A third-party solution is often preferable sinc eprequalifying is typically not a core competency of most companies. Employees usually want relief from the nightmare of trying to obtain, update, and review all the information required.

Ready to simplify your safety program? Contact us today to learn more about smarter contractor/supplier management and how to close risk management gaps.

What Is Waiver of Subrogation?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:35:00 GMT

By: Jake Knight J.D. CRIS, IMA Financial & Pete Wiggins, MBA, FIRST, VERIFY.

Today, it’s not uncommon for companies to require that any contractor working at their facilities or job sites provide them with proof of a defined level of insurance coverage that includes a waiver of subrogation.

But what is a waiver of subrogation? Before explaining this, one must first understand what subrogation is. From a legal standpoint, subrogation means the right of one person (the subrogor) to step into the shoes of another person (the subrogee) to pursue claims and remedies available to the subrogree. In the insurance context, subrogation occurs when an insurance company pays its insured and then sues the entity or person responsible for the loss to recover the amounts paid to or on behalf of the insured. The insurance company steps into the shoes of the insured and exercises any rights the insured might have against the responsible party.

Suppose you were involved in an accident where your car was hit by a car that ran a red light. In this case, the other party was totally at fault. In most states, if your insurance company paid to have the damages to your car repaired, they could then step into your shoes and make a claim (usually in your name) against the other driver and their insurance company. This prevents the party actually responsible for the damages to your car, the other driver, from escaping liability for its actions. It also allows you to have your car repaired without waiting for the other driver or its insurance company to pay for the damages.

A waiver of subrogation is a contractual agreement between two parties where one or both parties agree to waive or give up their (and in turn their insurer’s) respective rights to recover from the other party in the event of a loss that the other party may be responsible for. Insurance carriers will typically include provisions in or endorsements to their policies where they agree to waive rights of subrogation against parties when their insured has agreed, prior to a loss, to waive its rights of recovery against those parties. The insurance company is not really waiving any rights, though, because they only have the rights that their insured has. Rather, the insurance company is agreeing to honor the insureds contractual agreement to waive its rights of subrogation and not void the coverage it provides to the insured.

So why agree to a waiver of subrogation? The intent is to minimize the number of lawsuits among the parties and to shift certain risks onto the parties’ respective insurance companies. They can also a very cost-effective method of risk allocation, particularly in the context of construction projects and property or builder’s risk insurance. If there was damage to property under construction and the parties involved (and/or their insurance carriers) were left sorting out responsibility for the damage, the project could be ground to a halt and the costs of construction could skyrocket. By instead agreeing to waive rights of subrogation, the parties can look solely to the property or builder’s risk insurer and avoid or at least reduce delays and cost overruns.

It is important when required to provide a waiver of subrogation that you understand what you are waiving and that your insurance policies contain provisions or endorsements which support your agreement to waive rights of subrogation. When providing a certificate of insurance , you will want to make sure that the waiver of subrogation wording on your certificate matches the requirements of the client or contractor requesting the waiver without violating the terms of your insurance policies.

In sum, a waiver of subrogation does not restrict or enhance a party’s coverage terms; it simply removes the insurance company’s ability to recover what they paid on a claim from a negligent third party.

Why Don’t In-House Contractor Prequalification Systems Work?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:33:00 GMT

In all fairness, some in-house contractors prequalification systems work very well. Smaller companies that only deal with a limited number of contractors at one location are often successful. Large companies that are willing to invest the resources needed can also have successful systems. The challenge comes once a company has grown beyond the small in-house system and it’s no longer easy to verify the needed information.

Many companies view the cost of maintaining a prequalification department as too expensive for the benefit gained. They usually fall back to setting standards that contractors should meet and charging their project management, Safety and Purchasing teams with enforcing them.

If the company has more than one location, these standards may have been the work of an interdepartmental team of people. Hopefully, each department listed below had some input.

Risk Management is involved in determining which types of insurance coverage will be required and the minimum levels that are acceptable.
The safety department wants to see a track record of safe work, which is usually defined by the EMR (Experience Modification Rate), RIR (Recordable Incident Rate)and DART rate (days away / restrictions or transfers). They may also want:
To know if OSHA has cited the company and why.
A deeper understanding of how seriously a contractor views safety by taking a deeper look at its safety programs, policies, procedures and training.
Project management wants to know what the contractor’s capabilities are and its ability to deliver on a specific project.
Finance wants to make sure the contractor has the financial capability to deliver.
Legal wants to be sure that the contractor has agreed to a general conditions agreement or contract that protects and indemnifies the company.
Purchasing is often stuck with the task of trying to coordinate all these standards and find a contractor who can deliver at an acceptable price.

So why do these systems fail?

The challenge usually comes in the way the information is collected. Because each department is asking for information that is relevant to their department, the tasks are typically assigned as a part-time task to someone in that department. Because of the complexity of managing larger operations, different company locations may operate almost autonomously, and therefore delegate these tasks to individuals in each department at each location. It isn’t difficult to see how systems would differ from location to location, resulting in disconnected silos of information and work processes.

If there isn’t a centralized database where all this information is collected, it becomes dependent upon the project managers and purchasing team to determine if a company “meets the standard.” Given that each group has their own challenges, without a well-defined and coordinated system in place, verifying compliance with corporate requirements can be hit or miss. Throw in employee turnover, lack of experience and the fact that these are part-time tasks with all the efficiency and accuracy of a part-time effort… and you have a recipe for failure. It’s not that the standards are wrong or that the individuals don’t care. The breakdown is in a system that is too dependent on all the pieces falling in place at the right time. Murphy’s Law kicks in, increasing the probability of failure.

However, when the prequalification process is centralized in one department with an in-house database, there is a higher probability of success. The challenge with this type of system is with the individuals who work there, or the workflow process. Once again, because of the diverse nature of the information collected, the team either must be very well trained or rely on people who have specialized knowledge. A good example of this would be the review of a certificate of insurance or evaluating the reasons a contractor’s EMR is unacceptably high.

Also, if the in-house system doesn’t use technology to automatically remind contractors to update expiring documentation, human errors and omissions are inevitable.

The ability to store documents electronically for quick access is also essential. We know of one risk manager who spent 60 days searching for a signed master purchase agreement because it had been improperly filed. The agreement’s indemnity clause was critical to his company’s defense in pending litigation.

On the surface, it would seem that developing a solid internal Contractor prequalification system wouldn’t be that difficult. But audits of those systems generally reveal that ─ because of the above challenges ─ compliance is less than 50%. Given today’s litigious world, you must ask “Can we afford that risk?”

How to Read a Certificate of Insurance

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:30:00 GMT

The numbers listed below correspond to blocks of information on the sample ACORD Certificate . Download the certificate by filling up the contact form at the bottom of the page.

Fill out Contact Form to Download Sample Accord Certificate

Can a good safety program actually reduce costs?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:28:00 GMT

Can a good safety program actually reduce costs?

Can implementing a rigorous safety culture at your workplace actually save you money? Insurance by itself accounts for a significant portion of your cost of doing business, and the premium expense is usually directly proportional to your prior losses. Knowing how to keep your insurance premium rates low and in turn, reduce overall costs is something you can learn from this video. Watch it here.

How well do you know your contractors?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:27:00 GMT

How well do you know your contractors and how much could it cost you and your organization by assuming that your contractors follow the required safety protocols?

Industrial sites are a minefield of hazards. Contractors who do not adhere to your safety standards can directly impact your liability and can create risk for your workers and other contractors too. Watch the video to learn more.

New OSHA Whistleblower ‘Shaming’ Program Draws Fire

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:26:00 GMT

…should a government agency use the tactic of harming a private company’s reputation before an allegation is proved? What about due process?

For more information read this article by Tressi L. Cordaro of Jackson|Lewis…

When Things Go Right - Insurance restoration company

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:24:00 GMT

The fire spread so quickly that the men stopped their suppression efforts and called 911. It started when an employee for this medium-sized sawmill was welding on equipment inside the mill’s main processing building. He had followed normal procedures, including wetting down the area, but piles of sawdust and debris from the log debarking process— soaked with oil and grease leaked from equipment overhead—had caught fire nonetheless. Fires in mills happen all the time, but in this situation employees inadvertently dispersed the burning debris—sending the fire up a cable chase, rapidly spreading it throughout the building.

The first fire engine arrived within six minutes of the 911 call. By then, the fire was so intense, with smoke billowing into the sky, that the firefighters called for air support and focused on keeping the flames from spreading to nearby log decks and stacks of finished lumber. Two air tankers bombed the main processing building with retardant, and a helicopter scooped water out of an adjacent lagoon to make water drops.The building was a total loss, a charred ruin of twisted metal that had collapsed into itself. Fortunately, the rest of the facility was spared.

The site required extensive demolition and cleanup, but large wood processing machinery also needed to be removed. Much of it was salvageable, so removal had to be accomplished without further damage in an environment where heavy debris had collapsed on and around it.

After weeks of negotiations with the insurer, the restoration contractor was finally able to start work. First, environmental hazards had to be assessed and mitigated before the demo work could start. Asbestos was found in one small room, which was quarantined and quickly cleaned by an abatement team. The nearby lagoon had to be protected from runoff generated when years of accumulated industrial sludge were powerwashed off the floors.

The greatest safety concerns were electrical hazards, fall hazards and line of fire hazards.While some elevated work could be performed from aerial lifts, much of the work required climbing on debris and equipment, and on upper-level decking.

Planning for Safe Work

First, the safety manager required written verification from the sawmill’s management that all equipment and building electrical had been de-energized. Lockout/tagout procedures were documented and reviewed with employees prior to beginning demolition. Hard hats, safety glasses, and gloves were a 100 percent personal protective equipment (PPE) requirement; and dust mask and hearing protection were recommended. Only trained employees were allowed to operate aerial equipment or work at elevations above six feet; and fall protection was 100 percent required at elevations above six feet. Also, all work above six feet had to be pre-planned and approved by company supervisors. Daily pre-work meetings were held, where all hazards were identified and recommended safe work procedures were reviewed with affected employees. Site-specific job orientation was required for all new employees, who were required to sign written documentation. Hot work permits were filled out and approved by company safety personnel prior to performing any spark-producing activity.

Most of the fall protection issues were caused by leading edge conditions and holes created after machinery had been craned out. In many of the cases, the equipment was large (25 ft. x 15 ft., for example), projecting up through the second level of the building. Removing this equipment left holes in upper-level platforms; and no work could be performed within six feet of an edge or hole without a barrier or fall protection (and a good plan). When a company creates a hazard , it has a special responsibility to protect workers, as well as extra liability in the event of an injury.

Obviously, fall protection PPE was in place while removing machinery that penetrated any elevated surfaces. There were plenty of large H-beams to tie off from, so the company used wire rope retractable fall protection. Afterwards, barriers were installed around every opening with railing sections fabricated by welding a 11/2-inch in diameter pipe onto flat steel plates six feet on center; and threaded with 3/8-inch wire rope at 21 and 42 inches. Caution flags were hung every two feet.

Line of fire hazards existed wherever gravity or the sudden release of tension could cause injury or death. Piles of interwoven steel had to be removed, and any time one piece is moved it can generate energy by falling or causing other pieces to fall. Total situational awareness is mandatory. Obviously, powered equipment was used wherever possible, but in the effort to minimize damage to salvageable machinery, hand work was necessary to cut the equipment free.

On more than one occasion, the safety manager stopped work to require a written job hazard analysis before continuing. The priority given to safety on this project meant that every task was assessed and planned before action was taken, changing the protocol from thoughtless routine to thoughtful caution. Every day was the first day, an acknowledgement that hazards evolve; that unknowns exist.

This could only have happened in a restoration company with a strong commitment to safety rules and procedures. Management had an absolute commitment to a safe workplace. The crew was engaged during safety training, toolbox talks and daily hazard identification; and they were proactive whenever they saw unsafe activity.

There were only two near-misses and a cut requiring a Band-Aid…a complicated, high-risk demo job with zero OSHA recordable incidents. That didn’t happen by accident.

Silos of information– Is critical information trapped?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:23:00 GMT

Is your critical vendor information trapped? Are bits and pieces of information relevant to your vendors, contractors and suppliers stored in multiple departments, creating disconnected silos of information? Most companies collect lots of information on the contractors that work for them but often this information is scattered across multiple departments and may not be available when needed. Watch the video to learn more.

400% Increase for OSHA Fines

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:22:00 GMT

Potential increases in a company’s legal and regulatory liability lie ahead.

Under new guidance just published by OSHA, violations of the reporting rule now expose companies to fines 400% higher than previous requirements.

Carla J. Gunnin of Jackson Lewis explains how the new guidelines permit area directors to boost a fine to $7,000 if they decide that a company needs more “deterrent effect.”

Click Here to Read the Full Article

Connecting the Dots: Safety and Profitability

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:21:00 GMT

The most efficient weight-loss book would have only two chapters, each with one sentence: Chapter One – “Eat less.” Chapter Two – “Exercise more.” There’d be a similar book for improving your company’s health: Chapter One – “Reduce costs.” Chapter Two – “Increase revenues.” This article hopes to make a case for the financial benefits of implementing a rigorous safety culture – a commitment that can both reduce costs and increase revenues.

The first and most obvious area where cost savings can be achieved is with Workers Compensation insurance. Many business owners don’t realize how much control they have over their experience modification rate (EMR or Mod Rate), which is used to adjust the “book rate” for Workers Comp premiums. A company’s EMR is based on how its claims experience compares to industry averages in its classifications, with a 1.0 rating representing the average. “Insurance costs are controllable costs – they’re not a fixed expense,” says Mark Oldham, CSP, an executive consultant in risk management for Fireman’s Fund. Insurance is a significant percentage of the overall cost of business (just add up your Workers Comp, liability, automobile, property, inland marine, umbrella, professional liability, and employee benefits). “It’ll have a disproportionate impact when costs can be lowered,” states Oldham. “Insurance trades fixed costs for unknown costs, and premiums are directly influenced by prior experience and control over operations.”

In fact, Workers Comp operates like a line of credit, where the insurer spreads the cost of a company’s predicted future losses over time, meaning that premiums are in essence just a way of financing a company’s cost of accidents and injuries. So, obviously if a company can reduce its claims over time, it will reduce its cost of business. This can translate to a measurable effect on the bottom line. The example below illustrates the difference in premiums between a .80 EMR and a 1.20 EMR for just one of a contractor’s job classifications:

Modifiers are also applied to a company’s general liability and auto insurance, but the EMR is a key indicator of a company’s performance. Oldham says, “It’s used as a litmus test of how you run your business. If you can’t work safely, you can’t produce a quality product.” Many insurance carriers will meet with a prospective client before offering a quote, and perform a loss control survey to gather information on its operations. This will assist the underwriters in understanding what the company does and how well it does it, and can have a direct bearing on cost. Underwriters make empirical decisions based on these tangible factors to determine debits and credits against the book rate. The carriers will also advise the client on how to control losses, identify risks, and develop appropriate action plans and follow up properly.

Fireman’s Fund also provides its clients with post-loss consulting services if warranted. They will help prepare a mutual action plan with specific objectives and timelines for the risk consultant and the client – then execute the plan in concert. At the conclusion, the desired reduction in hazards and risk factors should be clear enough for the client to give an “as a result” statement. If it can’t, the plan was merely a series of activities rather than a strategic effort.

For those contractors that don’t have a full-time safety department (or even those that do), Oldham suggests taking advantage of the many services that insurance carriers offer, such as subscriber-only content on their web sites with training programs, educational resources, topics for safety meetings, and so on.

Oldham emphasizes that successful companies are engaged. There’s an awareness of the true costs of risk, an understanding of what drives risk, and mechanisms to control the cost of risk (such as diligent hiring practices, strong training programs, aggressive injury investigation and correction efforts, and claims management like bringing injured employees back to work ASAP). When Fireman’s Fund performs a loss control survey, Oldham says that they look for employers who “get it.” These are companies that don’t just focus on the cost of insurance premiums. They understand that accidents and injuries affect their other business costs (such as the state unemployment compensation billing, which increases with the turnover rate); and they understand why.

Is your site safety orientation a hazard?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:17:00 GMT

Is your site safety orientation a potential hazard for your business?

Construction work is dangerous and often involves exposure to multiple safety hazards. Although every worker is ultimately responsible for his/her own safety the onus for onsite safety (according to OSHA) lies with the property owners and the construction companies they hire. Your safety orientation is a reflection of your commitment to safe work practices. If you don’t want your safety orientation to come back and bite you, then watch this video.

5 ways construction companies can attract and retain the best employees

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:14:00 GMT

Construction is facing a severe skills shortage at all levels of the industry. According to a December survey by Building Design + Construction, the lack of experienced professionals and project managers is creating a hiring crisis that has “stymied” architecture/engineering/construction firms in the U.S.

Click Here to Read the Full Article

OSHA Enforcement Program Targets Midwest Manufacturing

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:49:00 GMT

Tressi L. Cordaro of Jackson Lewis in Washington, D.C. gives fair warning to companies in Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska that have elevated injury and illness rates: A recent OSHA initiative is looking at you for comprehensive safety and health inspections.

Click Here to Read the Full Article

Creating and keeping a safety culture

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:46:00 GMT

Some contractors look to incentive programs as a way to reduce injuries and accidents. But, according to Dianna Wiggins, an independent loss control consultant, “There’s a place for safety incentives after you’ve changed the safety culture – by developing a really good safety program.” First, stop the injuries and accidents by implementing a good program with excellent training and management. And a prerequisite to culture change is a genuine, highly visible, unwavering commitment from the very top of the organization. Because good safety practices can be perceived as slowing productivity, there is a natural tendency for line employees to view them as arbitrary and annoying rules that are imposed by “the office.” This isolates the safety personnel, who are peers, putting them in the role of “safety police” (with all the associated avoidance behaviors that accompany that mindset). A key part of the visibility shown by management is active and vocal support for the safety staff.

“After the accidents stop, employees can get complacent,” states Wiggins. “Two to three years after instituting culture change, safety incentives can help sustain the performance.” In a previous position as Safety Manager for a medium-sized manufacturing company, Wiggins implemented a highly-successful safety program that helped reduce the company’s EMR to .76. This reduced the Workers Comp premiums by almost 60%, which translated to hundreds of thousands of dollars saved per year. Once that was achieved, she maintained that level of performance with clever incentive programs (costing only around $10,000 per year), and the company won over 30 national safety awards.

Wiggins also advocates for an early return-to-work policy, which can help reduce the cost of Workers Comp. This policy allows injured employees to return to work in a light or modified work position until they’re fully recovered and can resume normal work duties. Everything that can be done to reduce the claim cost and get the employee back will have a positive impact on the employer’s cost of business. Justin Cremers, a Safety Coordinator for SMI, a safety consulting firm, counsels his clients on the benefits of an early return-to-work policy. “The type of claims experienced and what’s done to control the cost of claims has a significant effect on Mod Rates,” says Cremers. Claims for medical treatment only are usually less severe and are reduced by 70% before they’re applied to the formula. Cremers urges his clients to take advantage of this by ensuring that injured employees return to work as soon as possible. “This is where an effective claims management and return-to-work program can have a dramatic effect,” he says.

“It’s critical that a job description should include what kind of physical demands are placed on the employee,” emphasizes Wiggins. That document should be given to the doctor so (s)he’ll know what light-duty or modified work the injured employee can perform while recuperating, which will make it more likely that (s)he’ll approve a quick return rather than keeping the employee off work. (A key point to remember is that the employee must have signed the policy.) “You can even get your employees to work at a not-for-profit location, and write it off as a charitable contribution,” she suggests.

Another factor affecting costs can be the OSHA 300 log and 301 Incident Report. Wiggins says that many companies have a high incident rate because they’re recording things that they shouldn’t – they don’t realize that first aid, visits to a doctor for x-rays or blood tests, and even drilling a fingernail or toenail to relieve pressure are not recordable. “The effect of that,” she points out, “can be losing business with companies that don’t allow contractors with an incident rate higher than the national average.”

Similarly, opportunities to perform work for the government and large companies that have rigorous safety standards exist only if a company’s EMR is below 1.0; and the chances improve the lower the Mod Rate gets. But this is only part of the equation. If your firm becomes noted for safety excellence, your customer base is much more likely to increase and repeat – which is exactly what happened during Wiggins’ tenure.

Actions, when allowed to repeat, become behaviors; and behaviors develop into cultures. “A culture of safe work practices and intelligent/informed risk-taking is the strongest operational mindset any employer can ever hope to have,” says Oldham. Companies that “get it” focus on the actions of their employees to protect and nourish a safe-work culture – not just “Can we do it at a profit?” but “Can we do it at a profit, safely?”

Caring About Your Safety Culture - Safety Risks

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:46:00 GMT

The remodeling business can expose workers to safety risks not found in static environments like manufacturing: Because the work environment changes continuously, lack of familiarity with each location’s potential dangers alters how those hazards are monitored and avoided. This means that work procedures should emphasize the less tangible skill of situational awareness. This requires an attitude of caring and vigilance on the part of the employee – a genuine commitment to safety.

How do your employees get the right attitude about safety so they can anticipate and avoid hazards? Certainly, an emotionally powerful event – experiencing or witnessing a serious injury – can have a lasting impact and influence attitudes toward safety. But you can’t wait for a harrowing near-miss situation to motivate the rank and file, and you certainly don’t want to orchestrate one just to make safety training more effective!

While it would be nice if all your employees would memorize OSHA 29 CFR 1926.850(b) (Subpart T), plus the other 10,000 provisions in OSHA’s Construction Industry Regulations, the reality is that many people feel invincible and view safety training like they did math homework. This is especially so if their training is focused on dry rules and regulations rather than behavior and culture. That can result in a lack of caring – of careLESSness – that increases the likelihood of injury, and the effort needed to prevent it.

It is said that behavior influences attitude and attitude influences behavior. One of the most effective means of influencing both is through peer pressure, or validation (most youngsters probably wouldn’t try smoking otherwise). Since perceived motives can affect how a message is heard, it matters who delivers that message. Because of this, a rank and file employee can often be more successful influencing fellow employees than a manager can. As such, employees who demonstrate interest and aptitude with safety procedures should be recognized and used as models for desired behavior. Any employees who have personal experience, whether from a near-miss or actual injury to themselves or a co-worker, should be encouraged to share that with the group.

For even greater impact at your safety meetings, try to recruit individuals from outside the company who have suffered serious, even disabling, workplace injuries. If you can recruit someone like this, ask them to explain in detail how their injury has affected their lives. The more vivid and personal the story, the more likely it is that employees will remember and care about it in the future. A dramatic message can have an authentic emotional impact on your employees, increasing the potential for a breakthrough in attitude.

Many years ago, a wise karate instructor in Okinawa named Gichin Funakoshi taught his students a profound lesson that we should all heed today, for very similar reasons. His simple message was, “Carelessness… comes before accidents.”

A Safe Attitude - Construction Industry Regulations

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:45:00 GMT

Almost 40 years ago, Dennis Lawson began his working career with a giant chemical manufacturer that produced ingredients used in products from plastics to pharmaceuticals. Today he is the Health, Safety, and Fleetmanager for Royal Plus, Inc. (a member of Disaster Kleenup International), with seven locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Lawson recalled his first job as an industrial fire fighter for American Cyanamid in Louisiana. Not long after starting work, he experienced his first emergency—an employee was exposed to Class A poisons.The employee had been sampling process materials as part of a standard procedure performed every two hours, and had succumbed after inhaling a large amount of hydrocyanic acid gas that had leaked through a pump seal. It was not a pretty sight. By the time Dennis’ team arrived, the employee was unconscious; he had turned blue because the chemical compound was replacing the oxygen in his blood, and he had defecated in his pants. While Dennis hosed down the pump equipment to disperse the leaking gas, the shift supervisor administered CPR and first aid to revive the employee. He was then admitted to the hospital for observation.The man had come close to death, but fortunately did not suffer long-term damage.The trauma was so severe, though, that he threw up for a long time afterward, Dennis recalls.

While relieved that the employee had survived, Lawson found that he couldn’t sleep that night after his shift. The experience had made a profound impression on him, one that has lasted his entire career: Even in the face of the gravest situation, the proper response can save a person’s life. He had experienced first-hand the value of working in an environment with well-established procedures. In this case the SOP was to have a watcher/buddy nearby wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus to quickly call for help when the worst happened.

In the restoration business, everyday hazards may not be as dramatic as clouds of poisonous gas, but the restoration work environment can pose risks not found in a static manufacturing environment. Because the work site changes continuously, lack of familiarity with each location’s potential dangers alters how those risks are monitored and avoided. Procedures must not only include carefully defined tasks, but should also emphasize the less tangible skill of situational awareness. This requires a commitment on the part of the employee—an attitude of caring and vigilance.

What does it take to get employees to acquire the right attitude about safety so they can anticipate and avoid hazards? Certainly the experience of an emotionally powerful event—the sight and smell of a dying co-worker—imprinted an unforgettable image in Dennis Lawson’s mind and influenced his approach to every position since. But one can’t wait for a harrowing near-miss situation to motivate the rank and file, and you certainly don’t want to orchestrate one just to make safety training more effective!

While it would be nice if all of your employees would memorize OSHA 29 CFR 1926.850(b) (Subpart T), plus the other 10,000 provisions in OSHA’s Construction Industry Regulations , the reality is that many feel invincible and view safety training as enthusiastically as they did high school homework. This is especially so if their training is about rules and regulations rather than behavior and culture. The result is a lack of caring—of carelessness— that increases the likelihood of injury and therefore the effort necessary to prevent it.

It is said that behavior influences attitude and attitude influences behavior. One of the most effective means of influencing both is through peer pressure or validation. (Most youngsters probably wouldn’t try smoking otherwise.) Since perception of motives affects a person’s openness to a message, it matters who is delivering thatmessage. Because of this, a rank and file employee can often be more successful in influencing fellow employees than amanager. Those who demonstrate interest and aptitude with safety procedures should be recognized and used as models for desired behavior.

Any employees who have personal experience, whether from a near-miss or actual injury to themselves or a co-worker, should be encouraged to share that with the group. Individuals from outside the company who have suffered serious, even disabling workplace injuries can be recruited to speak at safety meetings.

As happened with Dennis Lawson, the more intense the emotions associated with any experience, the more likely one is to remember and care about it in the future.To help achieve the strongest emotional impact on employees, ask presenters to explain in detail how the injury has affected their lives.The more dramatic the message, the more potential there is for a breakthrough in attitude.

As an advocate of behavior-based safety, it is this kind of people-centered approach to management that Lawson has developed. With years of experience, a psychology degree earned over a 20-year period, and four decades of study in the art of karate-do, he feels that Royal Plus is the place where he’s finally able to use all of his talents. Lawson articulated his philosophy with a simple, but profound lesson from the revered master of Okinawan karate, Gichin Funakoshi. He said, “Carelessness comes before accidents.”

Do You Believe in Safety?

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:45:00 GMT

Elaine Taylor recalls back in the mid 1990s when one of her employees – a young carpenter – was wrapping up work at the end of the day replacing the roof on a fire-damaged home. It was winter time in Alaska, and the crew had just finished spreading plastic sheets to cover the roof openings. One feature of plastic is its low co-efficient of friction, especially when icy and laying at a 23° angle. One feature of young carpenters is an attitude of haste, another is of invincibility. Unfortunately, he lost his footing and in less than two seconds, he had fallen 21/2 stories – over 30 feet – hitting the frozen ground at around 32 mph without wearing any fall protection equipment.

Fortunately his landing was cushioned by snow, otherwise he might have died. Nonetheless, he broke his lower back and never again returned to work as a carpenter. He was off of work for a year and had to get training to work in another industry. “It changed his life forever,” Taylor said wistfully.

The companyTaylor owns with her husband Larry and their childrenTrent and Lisa –Taylored Restoration, in Anchorage – had been technically compliant with AKOSH regulations. They had their safety meetings, they had a safety program, but they didn’t follow up in a systematic fashion to ensure that employees were implementing the procedures. “We talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk,”Taylor says. “It wasn’t really key to our beliefs.”

Before the accident, AKOSH would inspect their commercial work, but after the accident they became a larger dot on AKOSH’s radar. It didn’t help when they filed the accident report late (the federal OSHA standard is less strict, requiring notification at three hospitalizations). The job site was a long way from the hospital, and they arrived so late they decided to wait until the next day to file, not realizing that their delay placed them in violation of AKOSH’s 24-hr. notice rule. That highlighted the need for better education in the
applicable OSHA regulations.

Fortunately, they didn’t incur any legal liability, but they paid a fine to AKOSH, and, of course, their EMR went up causing their worker’s compensation premiums to increase significantly. While the economic consequences were meaningful, the greater impact on the Taylors was the sobering human cost paid by their carpenter. At a subsequent meeting of the company leadership team, Taylor interrupted the discussion and declared, “We’re approaching this the wrong way. We need to look at safety as the first thing we think about. ”That initiated a fundamental change in the company’s operating procedures and culture.

Now, every employee has the authority to stop any activity they think is unsafe. If a worker has an accident, it’s addressed at the next company meeting and the employees discuss how it could have been avoided. Their safety policy is enforced rigorously in the field, resulting in actually firing some employees who had refused to comply and tie off. The company also works closely with their worker’s compensation carrier to ensure that their safety program is up to date.

Their subcontractors have to walk the line right along with them. On one project, an employee stopped other employees working for a subcontractor and kicked them off the job. On another project at an apartment complex, an employee spoke up during a job site meeting and insisted that a sub working for the apartment manager be tied off or Taylored would stop work. The apartment manager agreed and required the worker to wear his fall protection equipment. When a sub actually did fall off the roof, when he reached the limit of the line he swung back under the eave and into a tempered glass window. The impact left an imprint of his body on the glass, most likely damaging his pride but not his health.

Every new Taylored Restoration employee must now go through a formal safety orientation and is not allowed on a job until after watching a few key videos.There’s a company safety committee with oversight responsibility for the various departments—cleaning, office staff, large jobs, small jobs and so on.They are charged with continuous revisions to the safety manual and MSDSs, and with keeping employees’ safety awareness at top of mind. Safety presentations are run by different departments in rotation at the company wide monthly meetings. Creativity is encouraged, if not required—departmental employees produce skits, videos, and exercises to convey their lessons in new and memorable ways. One exercise pits workers in a relay race to help get them more familiar with tying off their fall protection equipment.

There’s no central database for residential construction, like Dodge Reports, from which OSHA can develop programmed inspection lists, leaving it to the off chance of a drive-by to initiate any scrutiny.This means that compliance in restoration isn’t driven by being closely watched, but instead by company culture. So if a contractor’s owners don’t have a genuine commitment to safety, the risk of serious injury or death can be too high.

What You See is Not What You Get

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:44:00 GMT

Joel Dagenais knows how to build businesses. He began his career in the restoration industry in 1989 by doing it all for a small insurance restoration firm in Ottawa, Ontario – marketing, estimating and project management – helping to double the company’s volume during his three-year tenure. In 1992, he and a partner purchased a First General Services franchise. Having developed plenty of contacts in the insurance industry from the prior company, he was able to secure an exclusive relationship with a large insurer within two months. Selling his ownership interest to his partner that same year, he opened a First General Services office in Hull, Quebec, and grew that to the largest restoration contractor in the area.

While developing the Hull office he exercised an option to develop the entire province of Quebec, and sold 15 franchises for a total of 16 locations; and then in 2007 he sold the entire master franchise system. Along the way he also became the exclusive distributor for Xactware in Canada and in four years increased sales eight-fold. Early this year Dagenais acquired the franchisor company for the First General Services system in the U.S., based in Orlando, Fla.; and he hopes to expand the existing network throughout the U.S. within five years.

Having such a broad base of experience in the restoration industry means there are quite a few stories to share.One recollection involved a safety-related teaching moment: In the late ‘90s his company was working on a large commercial water loss at a private school. The workers were thoroughly trained in how to handle water mitigation. Back then they wore ordinary work clothes with some personal protective equipment such as respirators when needed. Their typical water loss jobs were residential where the worst risk was that some wet drywall might fall on someone; but the school was a commercial-style building. Among other typical commercial features, it had suspended ceilings with fibrous tiles and 2′ x 4′ fluorescent light fixtures covered by acrylic lenses.

Because it was a fair-sized loss, the project manager had gone to the site to make sure they wouldn’t miss any areas that needed drying or that might create mold issues.The crew was working on the second floor where the water damage had occurred, while the project manager was on the ground floor performing his inspection. Unbeknownst to the crew or the project manager, water had accumulated on the first floor’s ceiling tiles; in fact, the tiles had absorbed a tremendous amount of water, yet they had stayed intact rather than collapsing out of the grid.

The school was an older wooden structure and the crew’s work activity caused the second-floor joists to deflect. The ceiling grid was attached to those floor joists; and this movement, along with the accumulated weight of the now-sodden tiles, caused some of the fasteners to suddenly pull loose from the joists. The abrupt, partial drop twisted the steel grid; and because the light fixtures were just sitting in the grid rather than being independently attached to the joists, they dropped with the grid – causing several of the acrylic lenses to fracture into pieces that fell on the projec tmanager. Because he wasn’t wearing a hardhat, he suffered a deep gash in his head – about three to four inches long in a half-moon shape. Bad enough, of course, but he was fortunate not to have suffered a more serious injury. Had a larger and heavier object fallen on him, the consequences could have been fatal.

Dagenais is frank in acknowledging that they didn’t handle the safety precautions correctly. They never imagined that so much water could accumulate in a dropped ceiling without causing the individual tiles to cave in, but they still should have prodded the tiles to make sure there wasn’t a potential hazard. And they didn’t anticipate that the fasteners used to attach the grid to the second-deck joists might be inadequate for the added load caused by the accumulation of water.

Current commercial code would require that both the grid and the light fixtures be attached to the joists with screws – but because this was an older building they had been nailed, and the light fixtures were simply nested in the grid instead of being independently attached. One lesson learned was to never assume how a structure has been put together, even a commercial building.They treated what was in effect a construction site (which automatically would have warranted the wearing of hardhats) as an ordinary water mitigation job. Lesson two was to never repeat that mistake.

A commercial loss environment is very different froma residential loss environment. Even if a water mitigation crew is well-trained, they don’t necessarily know what’s behind the walls unless they’ve also been trained as general contractors. Unlike a fire loss, where potential hazards are well understood, the prevailing attitude with water loss work is, “it’s water… can’t hurtcha.” But experience is the best teacher, and Dagenais believes that it takes a licensed, fullservice general contractor – one that understands how a commercial building is constructed – to safely handle commercial restoration work.

Talking About OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:44:00 GMT

One day a young man named Bill came by the offices of a cleaning and restoration contractor to apply for work. Tom, the general manager, was impressed with Bill’s carpet cleaning experience, and was glad to get his application. Bill said he didn’t have time to complete the application on the spot and asked if he could fill it out at home and bring it in later. They scheduled a full interview for the following morning. At the interview, Bill answered all the questions, demonstrating that he had sufficient knowledge to qualify for a position.

Tom assigned him to work with the lead technician for two or three weeks to get on-the-job (OTJ) training. The reports back from the lead tech were positive – enough to put Bill on his own. Customers were delighted with Bill’s performance, overlooking the fact that he may have shown up a little late; but they praised him for his “great work.” Tom had one criticism, though, which was Bill’s productivity: If he was given a work order of four jobs, he might only complete two or three in a day.

During a temporary work slowdown, Tom sent his lead tech out on his own without a helper and assigned Bill to the office so he could see how successful the OTJ training had been. Tom and Bill met in the office and went back to the stockroom. Tom asked Bill to tell him what traffic lane cleaner was used for and what the dilution rate was. Bill picked up a bottle and held it in front of him for a long moment, all the while moving his lips slightly. Bill got it half right and missed the dilution ratio. Then Tom handed Bill a bottle of browning treatment and asked him what it was used for. Before he could be stopped, Bill opened the bottle and sniffed it. With his sinuses suddenly burned from the vapors, he abruptly dropped the bottle and ran to the bathroom to flush his sinuses out. Bill came out of the bathroom with his eyes watering, nose running and in obvious discomfort.

Afterwards, Tom asked Bill the obvious question: “Can you read?” He claimed that he could, but “not too well.” Tom asked him about his high school education and Bill produced a laminated miniature of his diploma out of his wallet. Bill had been able to perform the correct steps in the spotting process based on memorizing what he had seen others do; but when presented with an unfamiliar label, his only recourse was his sense of smell. Even though Bill had graduated from a public high school, it was doubtful that he could even read at a 5th grade level. After further discussion, it was discovered that the application received weeks earlier had actually been filled out by Bill’s wife.
poison
Because Bill’s field performance was so good, Tom decided to keep him on the payroll, but only working under direct supervision. Tom went a step further and arranged for Bill to attend a remedial reading class, even allowing him to attend class while on the clock. But Bill never showed up for the first class, and never came back to work again.

This is an unfortunate story for the employee. He was a responsible person who cared about doing a good job for his customers. What employer doesn’t want people like that on his team? But it’s also unfortunate for the company, which learned that its hiring and training practices were inadequate… at least in this case.

You don’t know what you don’t know, so sometimes experience is the only teacher. Does Tom now make sure that every prospective employee can read before making a hiring decision? One would think so. But before that experience with Bill, why would he have thought about making sure that a job applicant isn’t functionally illiterate? What other possible negatives are you supposed to anticipate? This is why OSHA regulations are so dogmatic and absolute – they have to cover the unanticipated exceptions to the rule.

And that’s why OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) requires every employer to translate the information contained on the MSDS into any understandable format (which would have been the spoken word with Bill); and that employees are trained about the hazards they’re exposed to in the workplace… before they’re exposed.

In the case of browning treatment, the hazard identification for inhalation is, “May cause irritation of the upper respiratory tract,” and the risk level is low. But what if it had been a highly toxic substance that Bill had sniffed? Inhaled substances enter the blood stream by way of the lungs, and can have damaging effects on the liver, the kidneys or other organs. Acute effects are an obvious danger of course, but almost any substance is toxic at some concentration or dosage; so even lower doses of a moderately hazardous substance can be problematic if repeated exposure occurs over long periods of time. Hazardous substances aren’t just found in drums with diamond-shaped symbols – they include paints, solvents, fuels and even dust.

This is why every employer must establish a written hazard communication program (HazCom) in all workplaces where their employees are exposed to hazardous chemicals. A HazCom program must include a list of all hazardous chemicals that are present in the workplace, the person who’s responsible for the program, where written information about safe handling procedures can be found, and a description of requirements and information about labels, MSDS’s and employee training. Does your company have this?