We have all heard the complaints about the evil OSHA inspectors and how much power their reign over USA businesses. We also hear statistics that there are only enough OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHO) to visit each US business every 99 years. So I had to ask the question… should OSHA just get out of the pre-accident inspection business? How many times have we heard this… “I know best how to protect my employees, much better than OSHA”. So I propose the following:
OSHA no longer inspects workplaces pre-accident. The ONLY time OSHA would arrive at a workplace would be after an accident of significant impact (amputation, more than 3 lost-times in a quarter, fatality, near-miss involving one of the focused standards such as trenching, falls, PSM, PRCS, etc.) and an employee complaint. Of course we would have to change the “reporting system” used to report fatalities; we would have to define “significant impact”, etc. The entire “pre-accident inspection” process would be handed over to insurance providers, who by law would have to inspect their insured annually. There would be a SINGLE risk profile equation that each commercial insurer had to meet (they could be more stringent if they want) and the business’s premium(s) would be based 50% on inspection results and 50% on losses.
OSHA would continue with their “consultation wing” and provide services to employers who ask for them or if they receive a referral from an insurance provider.
Making safety performance ALL ABOUT the bottom line will do more to improve workplace safety than OSHA showing up once every 99 years. This will ensure that EACH workplace, regardless of size, that is obeying US laws will be inspected by the very company that has to insure their risks. We have to make it so that the companies can not just jump from insurer to insurer and no matter where they go their premiums will be virtually the same. With the premiums based 50% on inspection results, the insurer will have an incentive to inspect the business VERY CAREFULLY to ensure they get a true risk profile for the business. Of course their will be some insurers that play the market much like the budget car insurers, but keep in mind a plant blowing up with on-site and off-site damage and injuries is a MUCH LARGER price tag than a car accident, so these insurers will quickly learn that cutting corners in order to provide cheaper rates in the hopes of gaining market share will come at a higher price to their bottom line.
I am not sure if everyone has had the privilege of working with the likes of a FM Global risk manager or some comparable insurer, but these professionals will push you well beyond OSHA compliance. It is this experience that has proven to me that using the leverage an insurance company has over their clients is much more effective than “fear of OSHA showing up”. I have been in some workplaces that were just awful in safety and their losses and inspection results matched their safety program. These types of businesses will no longer be allowed to provide “lip service” to their safety efforts. They can either improve their performance or pay higher rates for WC, Property, and General Liability.
With this change in direction I would also entertain a review of our injury litigation system. Doing away with the “sole remedy” provision in Worker Comp laws would open the doors for employees to sue their employer (al be it they are actually suing the insurer). This would again drive the insurer to do more to ensure they are reducing their exposure to employers with a poor safety effort. Things like surprise inspections, inspecting the workplaces more than the required annual inspection, providing safety services to clients to aid them in improving safety, etc. would be items the insurer would be managing with their client(s) to improve work place safety.
Right now injury management is a “way of doing business”. Too many businesses see injury claims as “just part of doing business” and they look to merely contain cost rather than reduce incidents. Coupling losses with inspection results will help drive businesses to approach safety from both sides, preventive and injury management.
This plan will also allow insurers to require higher degree of safety in those risks a particular business has, rather than merely meeting an OSHA standard. Insurers can really push machine guarding in facilities that have a high risk of HMI; they could even require the facility to meet their own internal machine guarding standards over and beyond the OSHA minmiums.
This plan would also allow for insurers to address hazards that OSHA has yet been able to address. Things like ergonomics, combustible dusts, Injury and Illness Prevention Plans are all real safety matters that need to be addressed and because of political issues OSHA has yet to address. Rather than waiting 10 years for OSHA to get a standard in place, only to have politicians bat it around like a hot potato, the insurer can be requiring an employer to put programs in place and address hazards since they are a major risk to the business. A business with many soft-tissue injuries and poor ergo inspection results will see a dramatic increase in their premiums – even if OSHA still does not have an ergo standard in place.
There is a place for OSHA in today’s society. They have made a significant impact in safety and I for one believe they have even more to contribute; however, I believe we could make OSHA much more effective AND improve workplace safety with this plan. We would continue to use OSHA standards as the “safety baseline”, but look to other codes and standards to achieve a step change in safety performance. We can not continue to play this safety game where a manager ask the safety professional “show me in the OSHA standards that I have to do X” before they take action. OSHA is NOT the answer to an injury free workplace, it/they are merely the first step in a journey that has many trails and as soon as we take true preventive safety out of their hands, the sooner we will reduce workplace injuries.
By the way, I also believe that states, nor the federal government, should have passed seatbelt laws. I am the BIGGEST proponent of seat belts; my license plate on my car has been “BUCK L UP” for the past 15 years! But I believe that we took the wrong approach once again. We should have made vehicle insurance just like life insurance. When you get life insurance they want to know about your hobbies, travels, sports, etc. All of your lifestyle choices go into your premium(s). If you are a sky-diver or rock climber then your rates will be higher than say that of a safety professional! And if you lie on your application and you die doing one of these high risks activities then the insurer does not have to pay out the claim. So why not do this with seat belts and car insurance? If you do not want to wear your seat belt you have every right as an adult to make that choice, but it comes with an increased premium as we know that those who do not buckle up incur higher injury costs when they are in an accident so therefore you must pay for their higher costs in the form of your premium. And if you lie about your seatbelt use, then your insurer does not have to pay your medical bills and if you are killed your insurer would not have to pay death benefits. I believe in people having the right to make their own choices, but those choices come with RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions. When you are in your car, you should have the right to do as you choice as long as your choice does not impact others. Wearing your seatbelt would fall into this category; kids are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story. This would also mean that driving impaired is NOT your right as this stupid decision will impact others. Although if you own a bunch of property and you wish to drive impaired on your own property then have at (but remember your insurer does not have to payout if you said you would not drive impaired).