Is a “safety culture” assessment right for your organization?

Safety culture is a popular term in occupational health and safety articles.  There is no one universally accepted definition but the US OSHA describes Safety cultures this way:

Safety cultures consist of shared beliefs, practices, and attitudes that exist at an establishment.  Culture is the atmosphere created by those beliefs, attitudes, etc., which shape our behavior.  An organizations safety culture is the result of a number of factors such as:§  Management and employee norms, assumptions and beliefs;
§  Management and employee attitudes;
§  Values, myths, stories;
§  Policies and procedures;
§  Supervisor priorities, responsibilities and accountability;
§  Production and bottom line pressures vs. quality issues;
§  Actions or lack of action to correct unsafe behaviors;
§  Employee training and motivation; and
§  Employee involvement or "buy-in”

Safety culture is often summarized as “The way we do things around here”.  

However you define it, a safety culture can only exist in a social context, in a community of individuals (specifically employees and management) organized around a work objective.  Safety culture in any particular organization at any given time is dependent on that context.  If the context is relatively stable then the safety culture is likely stable over time (absent interventions or events that disrupt the status quo).  

Building a strong safety culture can make workplaces safer by extinguishing behaviours that put workers at risk, increasing adherence to safe work procedures, eliminating hazards, etc. 

An “assessment” is an examination process by means of a structured (formalized) instrument such as a survey or audit (including interviews).  An assessment has a result or conclusion often expressed as a score against specific areas examined.  The formalized nature of an assessment instrument ensures the components or criteria are applied consistently.  Effective assessments measure what they purport to examine in an objective way; they are highly replicable and consistent (regardless of who administers and scores the assessment) and comparable (over time and between similar populations). 

With or without a formal safety culture assessment, your organization has a safety culture.  You likely have a good idea what your organizational safety culture is.  The question is simply this:  Is a formal safety culture or safety climate (a closely related concept) assessment useful to your organization?  The answer is not always an automatic “yes”.

It is currently fashionable to promote safety culture or climate through various assessments.  The WorkSafe New Zealand “Safety Culture Snapshot  Survey” and the Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ)  are two such examples.  At the end of the assessment, management and employees have a measure of the organizational safety culture at the point the assessment took place.  Each assessment is very specific to a particular time, organizational structure, and labour force composition.  This specificity, often to a single work location and work group at a point in time, is both an advantage and limitation of formal safety culture assessments. 

If you have a stable work organization doing similar work with a relatively constant workforce and management team in a medium to large enterprise, then the assessment may be valid and useful as a baseline and to measure improvements over time.   If your organization is smaller, has a labour force that is subject to frequent changes (layoffs, temporary hires, turnovers, changing work teams, etc.) a safety culture assessment will still get a measure of the safety culture at a point in time but the validity of comparisons over time may be difficult to prove and its utility as an instrument for improvement less valuable than more targeted or direct alternative initiatives at improving workplace safety.   

An organization that decides to undergo a safety culture assessment does so for a reason.  Sometimes that reason is sincerely based on a genuine interest in improvement of workplace safety.  If an organization already has a pretty good idea about the state of its safety culture, the formal assessment can be an expensive and time-consuming effort to tell you what you already know.  If an organization is very unsure of its safety culture, then an assessment can play an important role in identifying opportunities for improvement and defining a baseline for future measurement. 

Unfortunately, many organizations engage in safety culture assessments for political reasons or to meet some external pressure or particular criterion in a certification process.  Some see a safety culture survey as a quick fix (its not).  Worse yet, organizations that could benefit most from safety culture assessments—the ones with the least organizational self-knowledge of or commitment to fostering excellence in safety culture—are unlikely to engage in safety culture assessments. 

For the right operation and the right reasons formal safety culture assessments are valuable.  However, safety culture surveys and audits aren’t always the best way to improve workplace health and safety.  Other initiatives that focus on safety training, improving safety mindedness, or updating the safeguards, barriers, and work processes that protect workers (and others in the workplace) from harm can have a more immediate and larger impact on safety for similar costs.

There is a potential trap in using safety culture assessments as the basis for organizational change.  The assessment is narrow, applying to the management and employees of an organization in one context: the workplace.  Safety culture assessments do not typically encompass safety attitudes and beliefs beyond the workplace; nor do these audits or surveys typically reach into the community, shareholder base, customer population or supply chain to include the views of these powerful influencers of workplace safety and health. 

Each safety culture assessment tool is also very specific.  The components of safety culture assessed, the questions asked and the way the results are presented or reported is unique to the assessment tool used.  The choice of assessment tool should be an intentional, informed decision that takes into account the reasons for doing the safety culture assessment and the plans for how you plan to use the results.  If the plan includes multiple assessments over time (to gauge the impact of interventions aimed at changing the safety culture over time, for example), then the initial selection of the safety culture assessment tool is critical;  using different assessment instruments may yield very different results.

Administering a safety culture assessment does not automatically lead to building a strong safety culture.  At best, safety culture assessments are indirect means to improving workplace safety and health.  The outcome of the safety culture assessments are measures across several dimensions.  The measures may identify areas of relative strength and weakness in the safety culture.  What you do with that information does not automatically flow from the results.  The assessment may provide and impetus for improvement or change but that is not the same thing as making the workplace safer.  Even if the audit or survey reveals areas that would be amenable to improvement, someone still has to prioritize the opportunities and win budgetary/operational support to invest in them. If there is no will to act on the results of a safety culture assessment, there is little value in doing one.

Safety culture assessments are not costless.  Even if a safety culture assessment instrument is “free”, the time and effort costs can be significant.  Could an equivalent effort have a bigger impact?  Quite possibly; there is, after all, an “opportunity cost” for any assessment.  Alternatives such as introducing wellness programs, supporting initiatives to increase individual “safety mindedness”,  investing in safety training, and acting on “near miss” reports may all increase workplace safety for the equivalent cost/effort investment.   

Safety culture is not the sole determinant of workplace health and safety.   No safety culture assessment is a panacea.  If you think your injury rate will drop just because you engage in a safety culture survey or audit, think again.  The safety culture assessment can provide a starting point but the real work begins after that.   

For the right organization, the right reasons and the right plan, a safety culture assessment can be a great starting place for improving safety.  For others, an equivalent investment in more direct action may be a more effective way to improve both workplace safety and safety culture. 

Ten questions to ask before a safety culture assessment:

1.       Why do we want to measure our safety culture?
2.       What expectations will be created by conducting a safety culture assessment?
3.              What alternative time-effort investments could achieve this purpose?
4.               Is a safety culture assessment likely to tell us something we don’t already know?
5.               Which safety culture assessment tool should we use?
6.                Who will be included in the process?
7.                 How much will the assessment cost (including the cost of the instrument as well as the time and effort to administer, analyze and report the results)?
8.                How, when and with whom will the results presented or shared (internally and externally)?
9.               How will the results be used?
10.                 Is this assessment intended to be a one-time assessment or part of a series of assessments over time?

How "Safety-minded" are you .... Really?

I was mowing my lawn yesterday (Yes, Vancouver weather means mowing begins in mid-February some years) when  a passing neighbour noted my hearing and eye protection with a “thumbs up”.    I guess wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to mow the lawn says something to others about a person’s attitude toward safety.  

When  I reflect on how I mowed my lawns decades ago,     I’m  certain my behaviour back then also said something about my inner values and beliefs;  safety might not have been the message I was sending .  The battery-powered electric mower I use today is arguably safer than the old gas mowers  I used years ago,  but back then I didn’t always wear the PPE or disconnect the sparkplug terminal before clearing the blade.  Today, wearing the PPE is second nature and removing the power key to “lock out” the motor when clearing the blade is something I always do.  I do it now for myself but I remember making that a consistent part of my routine around the time the kids were old enough to want to help.  I recall wanting to set a good example.  I realized that my actions communicated something about my inner values and beliefs.  Kids are perceptive;  you can talk about safety but what really gets through to them and becomes part of their way of thinking is not what you say but what you do.    

My attitudes and beliefs about safety have changed over the years; that changed mindset has altered the way I think about hazards and the way I act to manage risks at work, at home, on the road and at play.    

The connection between the way we think (our attitudes, values and beliefs) and the way we act (what we do-including what we chose to consider in decision-making) is important.  What we do is mediated by what we think.  Periodically assessing our underlying personal attitudes and beliefs can provide a valuable perspective on how “safety-minded” we are.  But how can you assess your own “safety-mindedness”?

Most people will say they are “safety conscious” but being “safety-minded” is more than being merely safety conscious or aware.  You can’t directly observe a state of mind but because your mind mediates your actions action, you can observe your own actions—what you actual do when it comes to certain safety-oriented situation that arrive in everyday life.  The pattern of your actions across your work and non-work life reveals your current level of safety-mindedness. 

Categorize your current safety behaviours across the following safety statements in this Safety-Mindedness Self-Assessment.  Be honest with yourself about the frequency of each behaviour and you may get some valuable insights into where you are on the” safety-minded continuum”.  Just fill in the blanks with the most appropriate word to describe the pattern you follow in these common situations with a safety component.

Use the following terms to complete the ten sentences below:              

Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Usually, Almost always, Always

1)       I ______drive within 10% of the posted speed limit in normal conditions.

2)       I ______ignore text messages on my handheld or wrist device while I am driving.

3)       I ______use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE- safety glasses and hearing protection, for example) when it is recommended (hard-hat at work, hearing protection when mowing, etc.).

4)      I ______ visibly pay attention to the airline pre-flight safety presentation.

5)      I ______read the safety card provided on commercial flights I take.

6)      I ______walk further to the marked intersection to cross the street rather than cross elsewhere.

7)      I ______dispose of tools / appliances / furniture pieces   that may work but are unsafe.

8)      I ______use the recommended PPE when I engage in sports activities (cycling, skiing, skating).

9)      I ______ wear high visibility, reflective clothing or accessories when walking after dark.

10)   I ______ give safety-oriented products/accessories as gifts (first aid kit, earthquake kit, helmet, CO detector, fire extinguisher, safety helmet with bike).

Scoring:  Count the number of times you selected each of the following terms.  Multiply count times the value assigned each term and then total the points to determine your score.

  Term            Point Value    X            Count             Points 

   Never                         1         x            ______   =  _______

   Rarely                        2         x            ______   =  _______

   Sometimes                 3         x            ______   =  _______

   Usually                       4         x            ______   =  _______

   Almost always            5         x            ______   =  _______

   Always                       6         x            ______   =  _______

____________________________________________________

                                                       TOTAL Score   _______        

56-60  Safety is part of your belief system.  You  “walk the talk” at home, on the road, at work and play.  Safety is part of the way you think. You automatically assess the environment for hazards, continuously manage risks even in changing circumstances and adjust your behaviour to eliminate or minimize risks.

51-55  You almost always act safely and recognize the hazards in most activities.  You know you have some blind spots and you often make the effort to overcome them.  When you make a conscious decision to act less safe, you are highly aware of the potential risks, often resolving to change behaviour in the future.

41-50  You are aware of safety most of the time and act to reduce risks in most circumstances.  You are sometimes surprised by near misses and  injuries that happen to others and will consider changing your behaviour based on new information about hazards and risks. 

31-40   There are gaps and contradictions in your behaviour.  You don’t have a negative attitude towards safety but believe risks are sometimes overblown.  You frequently wonder if safety behaviour is worth the effort and cost over what else you could do with those resources.  You also believe that some risks don’t apply to you.

21-30   You may comply with required safety activities but don’t believe the risks are real for someone like you with your knowledge and experience.  With few exceptions, safety is extra work, not a way of thinking and acting.  You can see the point of a few specific safety measures but rely on design and procedures to have taken other hazards and risks into account.  It takes a real effort to think about possible hazards and risks beyond that. 

15-20  The immediate objective dominates your way of acting.  If you think about hazards at all, you minimize the risks/costs or you don’t believe the risks apply to you.  Safety is mostly passive and external to you.  You may comply with safety laws if you perceive the risk of being caught is more than minimal and penalties are high enough, otherwise the value of safety is just not there.    

10-14  Safety is not a consideration in what you do.  You rarely think about safety, hazards or risk.  Your safety relies on the innate design of the equipment you use, the actions of others and the environments you encounter.  If you are caught violating a safety rule, you are not likely to change your behaviour unless the cost of not doing so are very high. 

Safety-mindedness is not a static trait.  You can change.  You can become more safety-minded.  And that change will be reflected in increased frequency of behaviours that increase safety, reduce risk,  and communicate to others something about the importance of safety to you.  Something to think about next time you mow your lawn.

How does workers' comp compare among TPP countries?

Interjurisdictional comparison of compensation for work-related injury is difficult.  Among the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries, there is wide variation in laws covering work injuries.  The “context” of each jurisdiction is critical to any comparative study.  To complicate matters for comparison in workers’ compensation and OH&S, three TPP member states (Canada, the US and Australia) have laws that vary by state or province.   Some TPP countries integrate work-injury compensation with other aspects of social insurance.  Just to get an adequate baseline on what would seem to be a simple measure can be overwhelming.  

Comparisons of employer cost for work-injury “social insurance” (whether workers’ compensation or some other social security provision) are even more problematic.  Employer costs for work-injuries typically include workers’ compensation insurance costs but these are driven by wage rates, injury rates, compensation or benefit rates, medical costs and, of course, injury frequency and severity.  With a wide variety of mechanisms from individual employer liability to integrated accident compensation in TPP countries, there is no simple approach to a common comparison on the employer cost side. 

To illustrate this challenge for the worker-side comparisons, consider what would be required to compare the most common work-injury compensation cases.  For argument’s sake, consider the effort to compare the compensation a worker with a typical work-related time-loss injury might be entitled to in each TPP member country.  Sounds simple enough but let's make the consideration even simpler; let's look at only the most common work-related injury cases that result in time away from work.  The median days-away-from-work in the US is 8 calendar days, so keep that in mind when you think about employer responsibilities and worker compensation when you consider each jurisdiction. 

A full review of each TPP member state and the individual state/provincial workers’ compensation provisions in Canada, Australia and the US is beyond the scope of this blog post but here are some notes on each member state that focus on coverage for short duration absences and wage-loss due to work injury.   

United States

As a starting point, consider how work-injury compensation cases are handled in the US.  Every US state has some sort of waiting period; in this discussion, a waiting period is a worker deductible in the form of days (3 to 7 calendar or work days, depending on the jurisdiction) without earnings or benefits before compensation for temporary total disability begins.  All but two states have retroactive periods so claims for work absences of greater than a specified number of days or weeks (typically 14 calendar days to four weeks)  are compensated  retroactively for the waiting period.  Benefit rates are typically 66.67% of average earnings but may be capped by other provisions such as statutory maximums. 

Japan

The compensation or benefit rate is 60% of the basic daily benefit plus a temporary disability special supplement of 20% of the basic daily benefit ; it is paid after a three-day waiting period until recovery (but the employer pays 60% of the average daily wage for the first three days).

Malaysia

The compensation or benefit rate is 80% of the worker’s average daily wage in the six months before the disability began.  The Employment Injury Insurance part of the social security program pays beginning on the fourth day following certified disability from work. 

Mexico

The rate is 100% of the insured's covered monthly earnings is paid from the first day of disability until certification of permanent disability.

Peru

100% of the insured's covered earnings is paid after a 20-day waiting period for up to 11 months and 10 days. (The employer pays the insured's full earnings for the first 20 days.)

Vietnam

The employer pays 100% of the insured's earnings from the first day of treatment until the insured is recovered, discharged from the hospital, or assessed with a permanent disability.

Chile

For public-sector employees, the monthly benefit is 100% of net earnings. For private-sector employees, the monthly benefit is the average monthly net earnings in the three months before the disability began. The benefit is paid from the day of injury for up to 52 weeks (may be extended up to an additional 52 weeks).

Brunei

Benefits are 66.7% of the employee's average monthly earnings in the six months before the disability began is paid monthly after a four-day waiting period for up to five years. If the disability lasts more than 14 days, the benefit is paid retroactively for the first four days.  The maximum monthly benefit is B$130.

Singapore

For work-related injury, 100% of the insured's average monthly earnings in the 12 months before the disability began is paid for up to 14 days if not hospitalized (up to 60 days if hospitalized). Thereafter, 66.7% of the insured's average monthly earnings in the 12 months before the disability began is paid.  The benefit is paid from the first day of incapacity for the duration of incapacity, up to one year.

New Zealand

The workers’ compensation idea is integrated into a personal-injury “accident compensation” scheme covering both work and non-work related injuries resulting in incapacity for work.  The system is administered by the ACC.  The benefit is 80% of the worker's average weekly earnings in the period before the incapacity began is paid until he or she is able to return to work. For work-related personal injuries, the employer pays for the first week of incapacity after which the ACC insurer takes over the payments.

Canada 

Provincial schemes with temporary benefits ranging from 75% (Nova Scotia) to 90% (BC, Alberta) of Net  wages.  No waiting period in most provinces (except NS and NB which also have retroactive periods and some waiting period exemptions).

Australia

The benefit varies depending on the state or territory in which the award is made. Generally, the benefit rate is 85-100% of earnings for a minimum of 26 weeks. Benefits may be payable for an extended period at reduced levels. Employers responsible for the first 5 or 10 days (Victoria) of wage compensation. No worker waiting period.

Injured workers with work absences of eight days or less in most TPP jurisdictions are likely to suffer a significantly smaller loss of income  in most TPP member states than most US (and some Canadian) injured workers.  Will increased trade motivate improvements in benefits and safer workplaces?  How will we know?

As the TPP agreement is ratified by the current dozen member states (and perhaps others in the future), questions regarding the cost and comparability of work-injury coverage are likely to grow.  I doubt the backers of the TPP would want to see the agreement result in diminished coverage for work-related injuries but workers’ compensation (whether on its own or integrated into a broader social security system) are real costs with real consequences for employers, workers and their families.  Research is needed now to establish a baseline that will help future studies determine how the TPP impacts worker health, safety and compensation for work-related injury. 

What will the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP trade agreement) mean for workers’ compensation?

Trade deals often contain provisions regarding labour, social security (including workers' compensation), occupational health and safety (OH&S).  The Trans-Pacific Partnership text  contains several clauses of note. 

Aside from its aspirational purpose statements in the beginning of the document, Article 19.3: Labour Rights notes [item 2]:

Each Party shall adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.

You might be forgiven for assuming that this clause implies there will be some external standard-setting body or authority on what “acceptable conditions” might be.  A footnote in the agreement, however, narrows the potential impact of the scope considerably:   

[Footnote 5 page 19-2] For greater certainty, this obligation relates to the establishment by a Party in its statutes, regulations and practices thereunder, of acceptable conditions of work as determined by that Party.

Article 19.10 opens the door to “cooperation” on many issues including:

(c) innovative workplace practices to enhance workers’ well-being and business and economic competitiveness;

(e) work-life balance;

(j) occupational safety and health;

(p) social protection issues, including workers’ compensation in case of occupational injury or illness, pension systems and employment assistance schemes;

There is also an article on “Non Degrogation”.  Article 19.4 reads in part:

The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protections afforded in each Party’s labour laws.

The TPP clearly anticipates the criticism that trade agreements can put downward pressure on social security, working conditions, OH&S and workers’ compensation.  There were concerns over  “a race to the bottom” on safety, health and workers’ compensation issues that followed the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example. 

Will the TPP result in improved workplace health and safety or workers’ compensation overall?  I’m not sure from my quick review that there is any will to fund the independent research necessary to answer such questions.  That sort of research is complex, time-consuming and expensive.   However, the only way the public in every member nation will know if the TPP is helping or hurting the safety, health, and workers’ compensation protections is through objective, well-designed study that assesses each system against common standards. 

The economic benefits of the TPP may well improve the OH&S and work-injury financial protections for workers;  we won’t know for certain unless its implementation and progress is objectively assessed against credible standards.

Hopefully, member states will fund the research necessary to establish the baseline comparison, monitor changes and assess the impact of the TPP on workplace health, safety and compensation issues. 

What will elimination of the waiting period mean?

Workers’ compensation “reform” often means changes that effectively reduce costs and/or benefits.  That is not the case with the recently announced changes to one workers’ compensation system.  If the legislature approves the proposed amendment, the Workers’ Compensation Board of PrinceEdward Island will eliminate the waiting period effective January 1, 2016.  That will leave New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as the only two Canadian provinces with waiting periods.  (All US jurisdictions continue to have waiting periods of 3 to 7 days.)

A three-day waiting period was introduced in PEI as a cost-cutting measure in 2002.  In 2014 this “worker-deductible” was reduced to 2 days.  Stuart Affleck, Chair of the WCB, notes in a news release:

Eliminating the wait period will provide wage loss benefits to all workers from the day following an accident.  This measure will have a direct impact on our most vulnerable injured workers who might not have access to sick leave benefits during this timeframe.

The emphasis on the “most vulnerable” injured workers is important.  Day labourers, minimum wage earners,  new entrants to the workforces, or migrant workers must often rely on personal savings (or credit), welfare or the charity of neighbours to cover uncompensated wage loss due to work-related injury.  For these workers, the elimination of the waiting period for work-related injuries can provide 85% of net earnings (maximum annual earnings for 2015 are $52,100) tax free, substantially reducing the financial burden they must otherwise bear. 

Mr. Affleck’s focus on those “who might not have access to sick leave benefits during this timeframe” should not be read narrowly.  I am certain he doesn’t mean to imply that sick leave is a suitable alternative to workers’ compensation—it’s not. Even where sick leave is available, it is not intended to cover absences for work-related injury. 

Sick leave pay is typically available in medium to large firms and government entities.  In unionized organizations, sick leave is a negotiated benefit; in other words, the amount and structure of sick leave provisions (as well as short and long term benefit plans) are wage or salary cost items arrived at in the collective bargaining process; changes to wages, hours of work and even working conditions may well have been bargained to achieve sick leave provisions in collective agreements.  In non-unionized environments, sick leave provisions generally reflect industry standards—to be competitive in order to attract and retain talent. Whether or not the specific sick leave plan was the product of negotiations or market conditions, the value of sick leave is part of the financial compensation for the job.  Unlike workers’ compensation, sick leave pay is taxable and its benefits typically not intended to cover work-related injury, illness or disease.   

A key fact facilitating PEI’s policy shift has been the decreased frequency of work injuries.  The rate of workplace injuries and illnesses has fallen dramatically over the last three decades.  Recent “reforms” in Canada and the US have generally reduced employer costs; yet, rarely have reforms increased the worker access to or compensation for work-related injuries.  Waiting periods, long (or no) retroactive periods, low insured earnings (or weekly benefit) maximums, low benefit rates, and limits on benefit adjustments for cost of living  continue to shift a significant portion of the cost of work-related injury and disease to workers, their families and other systems. 

Work-related injuries that have durations shorter than the waiting period are essentially costless to workers’ compensation insurers.  Aside from some medical costs that may be payable, there is little financial incentive from workers’ compensation premiums to eliminate these short duration claims.  Uncompensated days of waiting period in longer duration claims also shift costs to workers and reduce the potential incentive workers’ compensation costs can have on improving workplace health and safety. 

For workers in PEI (particularly the most vulnerable), the elimination of the waiting period will mean improved access to compensation and less externalization of the cost of work injury to workers, families and communities.  It is also likely to increase the number of reported work-place injuries—not because of a decline in safety but because of increased workplace injury reporting. If improved reporting and cost incentives increase the focus on workplace health and safety, then this policy change is not only good for PEI workers, it is good for everyone. 

Are CCTV images available for workplace health and safety purposes?

If you travel on public transit, visit a public school, or simply walk in the hallway of your office building, there is a good chance your movements and actions are being caught on closed circuit television (CCTV). A 2007 ePolicy Institute survey found almost half (48%) of the companies surveyed use video monitoring to detect and discourage theft, violence and sabotage; some use CCTV to monitor work performance.  

Video monitoring and surveillance systems in the workplace are usually justified for public safety and the security of property.  What may be overlooked is their value to joint health and safety committees in investigating workplace hazards, injuries, and near misses.

Every institution or organization that has CCTV should have a policy regarding its live and recorded images.  Most jurisdictions have laws or guidelines for businesses and public bodies regarding CCTV (Guidelines for Overt Video Surveillance in the Private Sector March 2008  and Public Sector Surveillance Guidelines January 2014 are good examples of a concise, easy to follow guideline that addresses most privacy concerns).   These rules typically address purpose, signage and access but are often written from a privacy and security of property perspective; rarely do CCTV policies include worker health and safety among the reasons for surveillance.

Any business or institution with a CCTV installation should have policies that outline the purpose of surveillance and the rights of workers (and others) whose images are captured, recorded and retained.  A comprehensive policy will specifically address access  rights of workplace health and safety committees and safety officers to live or recorded images in carrying out their required duties.  Procedures will include specifics on how video records of workplace incidents, accidents and related events are requested and secured.  These video records are evidence that may have an important bearing on investigations into causation or proving adherence (or violation) of OH&S laws and regulations. 

Every place with a video camera is someone’s workplace.  A park is a groundskeeper’s workplace.  A transit platform is a transit attendant’s workplace.  A public hallway in a school is the workplace of custodians, teachers, teaching assistants, and others in the course of their employment (copier service technician, courier, fire inspector).  As you walk through your workplace and the workplaces of others that you encounter in your day, think about how the CCTV cameras you see could be used for worker health and safety purposes.  Here are a few examples to get you started:

A joint health and safety committee or safety officer could use CCTV to:

• Investigate the source of reported hazards (oil in a hall that is a risk of slips and falls)
• Confirm witness descriptions (a reported incident of an act of force by a dementia patient)
• Observe a specific risk (congestion in a passageway during a fire drill)
• Establish the sequence of events that led up to an injury

I’m neither advocating for more CCTV nor proposing new controls on CCTV use.  What I am suggesting is that every organization that uses CCTV (or any of the proliferating video capture technologies) explicitly address worker health and safety in their video surveillance policy and procedures.  Joint health and safety committees and corporate safety officers should review their access to video records for the health and safety purposes.  If no policy regarding the use of CCTV for worker health and safety currently exists, the issue should be addressed in the next policy review.  Once a policy does exist, workers and managers need to be made aware of the policy as it may pertain to them in the course of their employment.  This is critical to preserving the video record for potential use in the health and safety investigation.   

With the plunging cost of video capture and recording technologies and their growing use in workplaces, workplace injuries, exposures and risks will increasingly be captured in video records.  CCTV and other recorded images may be impersonal but their objective witness to events may reveal the cause of otherwise contentious injuries and exposures as well as expand opportunities to improve workplace health and safety. As the capture and retention of video images of people at work and in the course of their employment proliferates, policies that support their proper use for health and safety purposes need to be developed, formalized and maintained.    

Some Questions for Joint Health and Safety Committees (for a specific incident, near miss or health/safety issue):

• Would a video record of the incident assist in the investigation?
• Was the area of a reported hazard, incident, near miss or injury being examined by the committee under video surveillance? (This is an important question even if the incident is not on the employer’s worksite.)
• Does the current policy regarding video surveillance include worker health and safety within its purpose?
• Does the policy define the retention and terms of access for the committee?
• What are the procedures for the committee to request and view CCTV and other captured images for the purposes of carrying out their duties?

Can we quantify the size of the worker deductible (waiting period) in workers' compensation?

The most recent NASI report on Workers’ Compensation Costs, Coverage and Benefits 2013 acknowledges  that “waiting periods” served by injured workers are  an “implicit” and “indirect” cost of workers’ compensation.  The report also notes the difficulties in estimating those costs.  Whether measured in terms of days away from work or lost wages,  waiting periods in the jurisdictions that have them are real costs borne by workers and their families.

A waiting period is a period of time or proportion of weekly-earnings loss that must be incurred by the worker before workers’ compensation for temporary disability begins.  Lost wages during the waiting period are uncompensated.  Waiting periods are present in every US workers’ compensation system but relatively rare in Canada (only three provinces have waiting periods:  3/5ths of a work week in New Brunswick and  2/5ths of a work week in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) and absent  in all Australian schemes. 

In the US, waiting periods range from three to seven days(excluding the day of injury in most cases).  A waiting period is typically served when a worker is absent from work for the specified number of days due to work-related injury, illness or disease.  In all but two states (Hawaii and Rhode Island) waiting periods are waived or retroactively compensated for longer duration claims.  The length of this “retroactive period” varies from as little as five days (Nevada, North Dakota) to as long as six weeks (Nebraska).  While the insurer may pay medical costs during the waiting period, the worker bears the cost of lost wages during the waiting period.

Gunderson and Hyatt  (Waiting Periods and Direct Payments in Workers’ Compensation Prepared for the Royal Commission on Workers’ Compensation in British Columbia, June 1998) provide five policy rationales/objectives for waiting periods:

·         Reduce moral hazard

·         “Self-insuring” as a financial incentive for promoting safety

·         Reduce administrative costs

·         Reduce benefit costs

·         Cost sharing between injured workers and employers

Note that three of the above relate directly to shifting the financial cost of work-related injury, illness and disease from the employer to the worker in jurisdictions with waiting periods.  It follows that those with the longest waiting periods and long or non-existent retroactive periods shift more of the cost to workers and their families. 

A waiting period is a worker “deductible”.  Employer deductibles are quantified in the NASI report.  The waiting period and retroactive periods for each US jurisdiction are summarized in Table C (pages 66 – 72) of the report.  To the best of my knowledge, no state or public agency reports annual data on the waiting period cost in either dollar terms or days away from work.   This lack of workers’ compensation data on the worker waiting-period deductible has thus far made accounting for this workers’ compensation system “cost” too big a challenge for NASI and other investigators. 

A conservative estimate, however, may be gained by using other sources.  Given that all waiting periods in the US are of three or more days and given that no state has a retroactive period of less than five days,  a minimum estimate of this cost may be achieved by examining the number of cases of work absences due to work-related injury that range from 1 to 3 days. 

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the median days away from work for occupational injuries in 2013 was 8 days, down one day from previous years.  In a state with a three day waiting period, the worker has no entitlement to compensation for the loss of 3/8ths or 37.5% of an 8 day loss.  If the days away from work are less than or equal to the waiting period, there is no entitlement to compensation; wages lost during the waiting period are uncompensated.  The worker and his or her family must bear the full cost of wages lost. 

2013  Cases of nonfatal occupational injuries resulting in days away from work. 

                        1 day               2 days              3-5 days          6-10 days    11-20 days

Male               90600              70550              118280            87330         82220

Female            67740              53540               80220             56450         49550

Not Specified     430                  190                    550                 440            540

( Data extracted on: September 2015

Nonfatal cases involving days away from work: selected characteristics    

Series Id:  CSUDAX0XXXXX6G000       

Area:       All U.S.        

Ownership:  All ownerships   

Data Type:  Injury and illness Cases  

Case Type:  Industry division or selected characteristic by gender) 

If you multiply the cases in each of the first three categories by 1, 2 and 3 days respectively, these cases of work absences of very short duration (1-5 days) represent more than a million days served by workers in waiting periods.

Now, think about the cases with more than three days away from work but less than the specified absence for the retroactive period to apply.  These cases are not subject to a retroactive period because their duration is too short.  The most common retroactive period is 21 days.  If days away from work extend beyond 21 days, the waiting period is typically compensated (except in RI and HI, where the waiting period is not compensated).  Cases involving work absence categories of 6-10 or 11-20 days away from work will have typically served a three day waiting period.  So, multiplying the number of cases in these categories by three will yield the number of days away from work that result in waiting period days (most of which represent days of wage loss that are uncompensated by workers' compensation).

Based on BLS nonfatal injury data for cases involving 1-20 days away from work, workers served more than 1.8 million days of  waiting period "deductible" in 2013.   

There are, of course, limitations to this method.  BLS data may include cases that are not covered by workers’ compensation and may exclude certain cases that result in compensation but are outside the definition of reportable work-injury absences used by BLS sources.  On the other hand, this method underestimates the impact waiting periods of longer than three days and retroactive periods greater than 21 days would have on the total of uncompensated days due to the waiting period.  BLS definitions of days away from work are based on calendar days so it is possible that some workers who work five days or less per week and are absent over a weekend would be captured within some of the counts.

Based on data from private industry, just over 70% of work-injury cases involve 30 or fewer days away from work.  More than 42% of cases involve 1-5 days away from work.  That means for the majority of work-injury cases, the waiting periods reduce the effective workers’ compensation benefit substantially. 

Workers with good sick leave or access to other short-term funding sources including savings may be able to cope with the financial loss associated with uncompensated days better than those without savings or access to other benefit programs  Waiting periods externalizes the cost of work-injury and  essentially constitute a premium rate subsidy—something that should be taken into account when comparing premium rates between jurisdictions or estimating the full cost of workers’ compensation system 

Waiting period costs may not be easy to calculate but every state and province that has a waiting period and a retroactive period has the data to quantify the number of cases that serve a waiting period, report the uncompensated work-absence days and estimate the financial cost workers bear for losses during the waiting period.  Quantifying the waiting period “deductible” will go a long way to creating a more complete picture of workers’ compensation costs, coverage and benefits.