I noticed a new and much-needed change on OSHA’s homepage today: “Worker Fatalities.”
OSHA’s new leadership is rightfully reminding everyone who visits the agency’s website that everyday, workers are killed on the job. The new, sobering feature provides a scrolling list of the horrendous (and preventable) ways that men and women die at work:
“Worker was struck by an exploding grinding wheel, during a grinding operation.”
“Worker was struck and pinned by two track-hoes.”
“Worker was catapulted out of the basket of an articulating truck mounted boom, during movement of the boom.”
“Worker, in a basket lifted up by a rough terrain forklift, was killed when the forklift rolled over.”
“Worker was crushed between the boom and controls while operating a knuckleboom truck.”
“Worker was asphyxiated, while in the process of unclogging a discharge hole in a 60-foot high silo. “
“Worker fell from the top of a 14 ft scaffold, while pressure washing containers aboard a cargo ship.”
“Worker fell 9 feet from a tubular welded scaffold, while performing drywall work.”
“Worker fell 40 feet to the ground while installing asphalt shingles.”
“Worker was struck and killed by a car while working an outdoor sale at a store.”
“Worker was electocuted while performing maintenance on a vending machine.”
I applaud OSHA’s leadership for putting this worker fatality information front-and-center on the agency’s website. Now, anyone visiting the site will be reminded that our nation has a very long way to go in preventing workers from suffering fatal occupational injuries (say nothing of disabling injuries and work-related diseases.)
This website change by OSHA is a good start, and a work in progress. The most recent info posted is for the work-week ending August 28, reporting preliminary data from 18 fatalities. [At least I think they are all fatalities. One link is labled “Fatality Summaries” while the other refers to “Fatality/ Catastrophes” which could include incidents involving the hospitalization of three or more workers. It’s not clear.]
In each week’s report, the agency provides a weekly total of fatalities [or maybe it’s Fatalities and Catastrophes–the label says both] and will hopefully add a running annual total as enhances this feature. So far, this “Worker Fatality” page offers summaries for five weeks, spanning from the week ending July 24 through August 28. [At least Ithink it’s the “week ending” because all of the dates are Fridays.] Interestingly, all five weekly reports show ZEROES for fatalities/catastrophes reported in the 26 OSHA State-Plan States, while over the same five-week period, 82 fatalities were reported to federal OSHA offices. Are working conditions that much safer with State-run OSHA programs?
Ah….probably not. A footnote on each of the five reports says:
“Since there is no reporting requirement, a number of states have elected not to report their fatalities to OSHA.”
“Elect not to report”?? I suggest OSHA replace those ZEROES with data provided by whichever OSHA State-Plan States choose to report, AND list for all to see the States who have “elected not to report their fatalities to OSHA.” Perhaps workers, family members and the public health community will elect to file a CASPA (Complaint About State Program Administration) about those federally-funded programs.
If certain OSHA State-Plans elect not to report something as fundamental as fatality data to OSHA, what in the world else are they electing not to report???
The Pump Handle 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 19, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Michael Wood
Celeste,
Before you get too hard on the collected state programs . .. “Elected not to report” is a bit strong for some of us in state programs. To tell the truth, I wasn’t clear on what we were being asked to report (and why federal OSHA didn’t simply pull the data from the federally funded and maintained system, which I believe we all feed). So the lack of state data is probably more an issue of growing pains with a new system than it is of a conscious decision not to provide federal OSHA with the data.
One other thing to keep in mind. In most states (including all the federal states), reports are not required on motor vehicle fatalities (generally between one fifth and one quarter) of work-related fatalities. So when the state plans report the data, you may want to remind readers that some states (such as Oregon and Washington) require all fatalities (including MVAs and apparent “natural causes” at work) to be reported….just to avoid future questions about why state plan states have higher numbers. In at least some cases, it’s because we actually count them all (or at least more of them — the truly “self employed” don’t show up in our numbers either).
As an aside, some states (again, Oregon and Washington, at least) also require all overnight hospitalizations to be reported. “Catastrophes” at the federal level are relatively rare and not likely to affect the data (because single incidents where three or more people are hospitalized are much less frequent than individual fatalities). Not surprisingly, those of us who investigate hospitalizations end up seeing a good deal more of those reports.
Michael Wood, CSP
Administrator, Oregon OSHA
October 19, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Celeste Monforton
Michael,
Thanks as always for providing the perspective of Oregon OSHA. Indeed, I thought OSHA’s phrase “elected not to report” was poorly chosen, and inappropriately lumps together the management of all 26 State Plans. It’s also interesting to know that there was some request made of the State Plans by OSHA, but that their request was unclear and not transparent about why they simply couldn’t pull the data that States already provide.
Moreover, thanks for the insight about the possibility that some States’ fatality data may suggest a higher number of work-related deaths than States under federal OSHA, when in reality, the differences may be associated with your requirement for employers to report motor vehicle, “natural causes,” hospitalizations and other incidents that may not be reported to federal OSHA.
Excellent info. Thanks very much.
October 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Tasha
Another thing that Michael surprisingly forgot to mention is that although they can’t be found on the federal page, Oregon OSHA’s reported fatalities can be found on the Oregon OSHA website (orosha.org):
Fatality page:
http://orosha.org/standards/fatals/
Link to initial reports:
http://orosha.org/standards/fatals/fatal_tables.html
October 20, 2009 at 11:26 am
John Maynard
This blog came to me at least third-hand with the caveat:
“If you get past the very biased rants in this blog, the information is pretty good, the change in the OSHA website is interesting.”
I think it illustrates that “rants” be they left-leaning or right-leaning can be a distraction and a less than ideal reflection on the source and the cause.
It can be useful to draft something and then wait 24 hours before sending. That can save both grief and embarassment. Fortunately, Michael is very good in clarifying points of facts without stirring any pots.
I try to follow this sage advice:
“Never attrribute to malice that which can be more easily attributed to ignorance (or stupidity).” or words to that effect.
Of course, I modify it to reflect my vehement disgust for conservative right-wingers, but even with them I try to just laugh it off if I can.
Facts speak for themselves. Objectivity is one of the most important attributes a safety professional can have — it helps to build credibility.
I am thankful that I got into this field in a relatively neutral manner. I have seen safety people who are biased in favor of their employer and I have seen ones who are biased from a union perspective. Neither extreme is doing themselves or the employees much good. But, that’s just my opinion! :)
Oh, I must say the Oregon OSHA website is on my top ten list!!
Take care and work safely.
John
October 20, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Michael Wood
Thanks for the compliments about the website, John. We keep trying to work on it to make it better, so I tend to focus on all the things it’s not doing yet. It’s nice to be reminded once in a while that we get a lot of information out in a reasonably useful format.
October 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Michael Wood
I also have to say, if the person who passed this blog on to John Maynard thinks that it includes “very biased rants” that are difficult to get past, I can’t imagine what they’d say about some of the other blogs I read (both “left” and “right”). The Pump Handle remains my favorite source of information and commentary about OSH issues — even if I get gouged occasionally.
October 20, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Celeste Monforton
As the author of the alleged “very biased rants,” I’d seriously like to know which sentence(s) in my post constitute the “very biased rants.” I thought my narrative was pretty straightforward. Is it the use of BOLD? Is it my tendency to ask questions? Is it my pointing out of items that are confusing or unclear to me?
October 20, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Dave Smith
My 2 cents:
1. Agree that OR-OSHA site is excellent , I use it all the time (even for people not in OR…).
2. “Rant” like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I still get upset with the fact that in the 21st century people are still dying on the job from basic safety exposures like elevated falls, or getting struck by things. If someone thinks trying to prevent these needless deaths is ranting, then call me a rantor – and they should just get over it.
3. Pump Handle is a very informative blog, I check it out at least weekly.
Dave Smith, CSP