Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Workplace Drug Testing — Helping Stop Accidents Before They Happen Posted Jul 29, 2014 Many people who have made it to the final stages of the job application process are familiar with pre-employment drug screening. Post-accident, random, return to duty, and reasonable suspicion are also reasons why an organization might drug test its employees. Why all the testing? To put it plainly, drugs and jobs just don’t mix. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCADD) lists some job performance issues no employer wants to see at their sites: • Inconsistent work quality • Poor concentration and lack of focus • Lowered productivity or erratic work patterns • Increased absenteeism or on the job “presenteeism” • Unexplained disappearances from the jobsite • Carelessness, mistakes or errors in judgment • Needless risk taking • Disregard for safety for self and others- on the job and off the job accidents • Extended lunch periods and early departures Now, you can imagine that bullet point about “disregard for safety” struck a nerve. As safety professionals, you do your best to create a workplace safety culture that gets everyone home safe after their shift. You try to control potential dangers and make sure everyone knows what they need to know to safely perform all their job duties. Adding impaired workers into the mix only makes matters so much more difficult for employers, co-workers, and the abusers themselves. A workplace testing program, and employees who understand the rationale behind it, can help alleviate many of these concerns. NCAAD provides a downloadable fact sheet filled with stats that make the case for workplace testing: • Up to 40% of industrial fatalities and 47% of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol consumption and alcoholism. • 21% of workers reported being injured or put in danger, having to re-do work or to cover for a co¬worker, or needing to work harder or longer due to others' drinking. • Absenteeism among alcoholics or problem drinkers is 3.8 to 8.3 times greater than normal and up to 16 times greater among all employees with alcohol and other drug-related problems. Drug-using employees take three times as many sick benefits as other workers. They are five times more likely to file a worker's compensation claim. • Shortfalls in productivity and employment among individuals with alcohol or other drug-related problems cost the American economy $80.9 billion in 1992, of which $66.7 billion is attributed to alcohol and $14.2 billion to other drugs. A 2011 poll by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in collaboration with and commissioned by the Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA), offers these findings for consideration as well: • A fifth of organizations (19 percent) reported seeing an improvement in productivity. • Four percent of employers said they had high absenteeism rates (more than 15 percent) after implementing drug testing programs compared to 9 percent before beginning programs, a decrease of more than 50 percent. • Six percent of organizations saw workers’ compensation incidence rates of more than 6 percent after implementing programs compared to 14 percent before starting drug testing programs, a decrease of more than 50 percent. • For employers with drug testing programs, 16 percent reported a decrease in employee turnover rates, while 8 percent reported an increase, after the implementation of a drug testing program. Mobile Medical Corporation provides testing and training that will educate the employer and employee on: • When testing needs to occur, including pre-employment, random, post accident, reasonable suspicion, return to duty, and follow-up testing • Why testing for alcohol and other drugs is required for transportation workers • Importance of maintaining a drug- and alcohol-free workplace Call Today: 888-662-8358 for more information

Thursday, July 17, 2014

One in five workers drunk on the job by Janie Smith | 04 Jul 2014 Workplace drug testing gets a fair amount of media coverage, but there is a potentially far larger issue that employers need to be aware of – alcohol. A survey conducted by the Australian Drug Foundation found that nearly one in five employees had performed work duties while drunk or tipsy. A similar number admitted to pulling a sickie due to the effects of alcohol, while about 40% said they’d gone to work while still feeling the effects of their drinking. According to the foundation, alcohol and other drugs cost Australian businesses $6 billion per year in lost productivity and absenteeism, with alcohol use contributing to five per cent of workplace deaths and 11 per cent of accidents. Phillip Collins, the foundation’s head of workplace services, told HC that employers needed to realise that drinking was not an “at-home issue”, even though the majority of alcohol is consumed outside of office hours. “People don’t really understand the knock-on effect of alcohol. They think you can have a party at night and come to work the next day and be fully functional. But the truth is, alcohol takes a lot longer to get out of the system than people recognise. It impacts your performance.” Collins said studies showed that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.09, nearly double the legal driving limit of 0.05, caused a massive drop-off in cognitive skills and huge variations with regards to motor skills. “If you’re in a factory doing some assembly, there are big error rates that can occur. Or if you’re a manager doing cognitive work, you can make poor judgements. You might not feel over the limit or under the weather, but cognitively and motor skills-wise, you can actually be quite impacted.” He said organisations needed to have a robust alcohol and drug policy that wasn’t just a behavioural statement, but was ingrained in the business. It needed to cover things like what employees did in a social setting, how they interacted with clients and what the drinking cut-off rate was. “Are you going for zero tolerance, are you going for a three-strike policy? There are a lot of things in the policy that need to be addressed, not simply a throw-away line to say, ‘Hey, we’re banning alcohol’. “In certain settings, that’s actually a very difficult thing to do. If you’re in a sales environment, you may be called upon to entertain a client or to have a meeting over lunch or dinner and if you have a zero tolerance policy on alcohol, that’s not workable.” Collins said organisations had to look at the reality of their business to make sure its drug and alcohol policy was a good cultural fit and it was able to continue to do business while providing a safe working environment. Communicating the policy was also key, he said. “A lot of policies are created and put on the shelf where they collect dust and nobody actually knows about them until something goes wrong.” Reiterating the policy was particularly important around high-risk times like Christmas and the “silly season” period, when parties were more common. Legally speaking, dealing with employees who came to work under the influence was up to the organisation, said Collins. “Apart from them not being able to break any laws – so if they’re over the limit of 0.05 they can’t drive – there’s no legislation that tells an organisation, ‘This is what you have to do’. It’s really up to the organisation to set those boundaries.” Managers also needed to be educated on how to identify that someone is intoxicated. “You don’t want to identify someone who might look intoxicated but is actually on prescription medication. Organisations have to become a bit smarter about what they do and there hasn’t been any real skill set that’s been put into the HR space that allows everyone to be upskilled.” Are your employees up to speed with the company’s drug and alcohol policy?

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Women and PPE: Finding the right fit Employers need to keep women in mind when purchasing PPE Thomas J. Bukowski June 22, 2014 ■PPE such as gloves, fall-arrest harnesses and safety boots that are designed for men may not fit women because of differences in average body dimensions. ■Some experts insist that employers should provide separate PPE for men and women rather than unisex PPE, which may not fit a woman properly. ■Employers should seek out distributors that offer a full range of PPE for both men and women, stakeholders say. Personal protective equipment is one of the last lines of defense for workers against injuries. However, in certain industries such as construction, women are less fortunate than men when it comes to finding gear that fits properly. “I am a woman under 5 feet [tall] and I can tell you, there isn’t much PPE that fits me properly.” – Leah Curran, an employee with New Castle, DE-based Tri-Supply & Equipment “I have had many difficulties in providing my female workers with properly fitting PPE. Anywhere from women’s fire-retardant clothing to gloves appropriate for the job.” – Jeannette Fletter, environmental, health and safety manager for Belectric, a Newark, CA-based renewable energy sources provider “When I first started and needed to wear a hard hat, I’d have to try three or four different models before finding one I was comfortable with.” – Jennifer Grande, safety coordinator with Collins, NY-based Gernatt Asphalt Products Inc. OSHA cites the lack of a full range of PPE sizes and types at the retail, wholesale and distributor levels – as well as employers’ limited knowledge of PPE designed for women – as some of the reasons for the difficulty women encounter with PPE. Another issue may be the low number of women in industries requiring PPE. According to OSHA, in 2010 about 9 percent of workers – or 818,000 – in the construction industry were women. Of those, only about 200,000 worked as laborers or in other positions at construction sites. “Since the industry is majority employed by men, the majority of PPE is going to fit men, but that doesn’t mean PPE shouldn’t be made to fit women,” said Curran, who also is the incoming safety chair for the Fort Worth, TX-based National Association of Women in Construction. “Women may face safety risks because PPE and clothing are often designed for the average-sized [man].” Ill-fitting equipment PPE cannot protect a worker from hazards if it does not fit. Equipment designed for men may not fit women properly due to differences in body size, height and composition, said Hongwei Hsiao, chief of the Protective Technology Branch with NIOSH’s Division of Safety Research. “Women are not just [the] ‘small size’ of men; their body configurations … are different from those of men,” Hsiao said. Grande pointed to gloves and hard hats as examples of how poor fit can affect safety. “If gloves don’t fit right – if they are too big – they’re clumsy, and you may not be able to do your job as well,” she said. “If your hard hat falls off every time you look up, that’s not a good thing either – you may need to use one hand to hold it on.” According to Ziqing Zhuang, the respiratory protection research team leader of the Technology Research Branch at the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, women may have a hard time finding protective clothing, fall-arrest harnesses and gloves that are not too large. Safety boots may be one of the most difficult pieces of PPE for female workers to find, Zhuang said, and he disagrees with a common notion that women should simply wear a man’s boot that is “two sizes smaller.” According to a 2006 publication from the Industrial Accident Prevention Association and the Ontario Women’s Directorate, a typical woman’s foot is both shorter and narrower than a typical man’s foot, so a smaller boot may be the right length but not the right width. PPE tips for women A publication developed by the Industrial Accident Prevention Association and the Ontario Women’s Directorate in 2006 offers tips for women workers looking for personal protective equipment that fits. •Earplugs – Disposable, foam earplugs are more likely to fit women, who typically have smaller ear canals. •Hard hats – Adding a chin strap can help hard hats or caps fit better and not fall off. •Safety goggles – Beware of goggles that state “one size fits all” – some may be too large for a woman’s face and could allow objects, fluids or other hazardous materials to enter through gaps in the seals. •Protective clothing – Taking a man’s garment and modifying it to fit a woman, such as rolling up sleeves or pant legs, can be dangerous because the excess material can become caught in machinery. •Safety gloves – Ensure all exposed skin is covered; the gloves allow for a safe grip so tools will not easily slip out of the hands; and the finger length, width and palm circumference of the gloves match those of the hands.