A Safe Attitude - Construction Industry Regulations

Jun 14, 2019

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.”

Read Next - When Things Go Right

You might also like

28 Oct, 2021
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 Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/
21 Oct, 2021
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
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management
13 Oct, 2021
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.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: