Do You Believe in Safety?

Jun 14, 2019

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.

Read Next - Can a good safety program actually reduce costs?

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: