Industrial Deaths & ISO9000

[Richard K]

Compliance with the recordkeeping cited in this story costs absolutly nothing other than a few minutes of filling in the blanks on a form. OSHA even supplies the form free of charge. This recordkeeping is one of the
easiest things required by OSHA for an employer to do.

If only it was that simple. Of course, the real problem is that once they have recorded the injuries they are now expected to do something to prevent them, and the cost of that is not minimal. The question of whether the fines are meaningful depends on the cost of correcting the problem.

Richard

 

[Randy]

Richard,

Good point, but consider this. A majority of injuries and even deaths ( the actual subject here) can easily be prevented by just following already pre-existing guidelines.

Now under OSHA Form 200 requirements a reportable injury does not necessarily mean it was horrendous in nature. If, for whatever reason, an employer modifies an employees job to compensate for a minor injury not requiring medical attention, lets say something like dirt in the eye and the employee instead of being a mechanic was given clerical duties for the rest of the day, the injury is reportable on the OSHA record.

Now going beyond that lets say the employee had to see a physician for the substance in the eye. The initial visit and a couple of follow ups can go into the thousands of dollars ( we had one hit $9000 for dirt in the eye). The cost of us complying with the law and "our own written and approved safety rules" was only $2.50 for a pair of safety glasses.

Now if the employee had lost the eye, we (the employer) would have had to report the case by phone to OSHA. The corresponding potential penalty for this 1 single violation of law and our own policy is $70000.

It seems to me conforming to requirements is cheaper regardless.

 

[Marc]

This goes back to 'Do It Right The First Time'... Cheaper in the LONG RUN...

 

[Randy]

Absolutely correct Marc.

You win the cigar!

 

[Alan Cotterell]

In Australia we have a new standard AS4581 - Management System Integration, and I believe there are new auditing standards being prepared. I suggest the major advantage to the 'management systems approach' to operational risk (quality, safety, environment, security) is the fact that auditing internally, by customers, and by certifying bodies is possible. In particular the customer can audit the management system and see whether 'his/her contract' is being handled in accordance with the agreed documentation. This means that safety is an integral part of an organisations operations and is driven by consumerism. (it never ceases to amze me that 'greenies' don't seem to know about ISO14000, similarly consumer associations don't seem to know what ISO9000 does for them). Consumers should be encouraged to 'show preference' to ISO9000 certified organisations.