In a just few weeks, on January 29, the family of Robert Fitch, 51, will mark the one year anniversary of his fatal fall at an Archer Daniels Midland grain-milling plant in Lincoln, NE. His daughter, sister, neice and other relatives have dedicated themselves to changing policies to protect workers who use the same unguarded manlift that was responsible for Mr. Fitch’s death.
The Lincoln (NE) Journal Star’s Art Hovey writing in “Grieving family seeks workplace safety,” relays this one family’s struggle, but also captures the sentiments of many family member victims of work-related deaths.
“We don’t want this to occur to any other family”
Hovey explains how Mr. Fitch’s neice, Tonya Ford, testified before State of Nebraska lawmakers about her uncle’s 70 foot fall, making the case that agricultural operations should no longer be excluded from the State’s Conveyance and Safety Act, and exempt from OSHA regulations for manlift if the device was in place prior to 1974. As far as OSHA’s investigation of Mr. Fitch’s death, the reporter spoke to OSHA’s Omaha office which indicated that ADM was initially fined $12,500. The penalty was reduced to $2,500 when the “company promised to replace the manlift with a different device.”
[I tried to identify for myself the violations and penalties assessed using OSHA’s on-line establishment search database. I wasted 30 minutes searching and never found an entry for the accident investigation. If someone has the “Inspection Nr” please send it to me.]
Tonya Ford began serving last year as secretary to United Support & Memorial for Workplace Families, the support and advocacy group for family members who’ve lost loved ones from work-related hazards. The Lincoln (NE) Journal Star’s Art Hovey obviously checked out the USMWF’s website, noting the
“…slide show of images of workers killed in accidents across the United States. Coal mines. Lumber yards. Construction sites. Crushings. Suffocations. Long falls. Eventually a picture of a smiling Bobby Fitch pops up, along with this tribute from his niece, Tonya Ford: ‘In loving memory of my Uncle Bobby.'”
The on-line comments responding to “Grieving family seeks workplace safety,” remind me that “blame-the-worker” and “every man for himself” mentalities are alive and well.
One respondent says:
“If this man had been operating this equipment for 30 years, he should have known the safety issues and been on the company to make it safer – despite the law. Legislation cannot save everyone – there has to be some personal responsibility.”
Another says:
“Instead of trying to use the government to make things safe for everyone, something they fail at time and again, use your experience to make workers aware that they are responsible for their own safety instead on relying on incompetent osha. Break the dependancy and we will all be better off.”
Both commenters fail to acknowledge that Robert Fitch was using an old, dangerously designed manlift that is still allowed. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s safe. As a commenter with a different point of view notes:
“I’m 52 and worked a lot of jobs, regardless of what you think a lot of these places don’t give an option. He may have known better but when you’re trying to feed your family and have that much time invested in a company, you’re still required to do what you’re told.”
Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH is with the Dept of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George Washington University School of Public Health & Health Services. She volunteers time to United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 4, 2010 at 6:18 pm
greglemke
Very good point made about the uninformed commenters who all too often make statements that they’d never make had they known the victim or had to face the family while making their keyboard comments. Imagine if that was your husband, father, brother, etc. that fell.
Pre-OSHA death rates were triple what they are now, and MSHA’s strict enforcement has mining deaths at a record low level of 34 in 2009. Safety laws are in place for a reason, and they need to be tightened up and enforced!
January 8, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Nadine Grady
I suspect that you can’t fine the inspection online because the case is still open and therefore subject to changes in citations and penalties (for instance, if ADM appealed and the appeal is still in process). The online search works for closed inspections, but doesn’t seem to for open inspections; I entered some I know we have open here in Washington State, and they were not retrieved by the search tool.
January 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Celeste Monforton
Nadine,
Thanks for checking some of your own cases. What confuses me with the OSHA on-line system is the option to select “open” or “closed” cases. As you report, I’ve been told by someone in one of OSHA’s area offices that the system does not include open cases. The instructions for the system say: “The default option for this application searches inspections for closed cases in which a final order has been entered. A separate search may be made of open cases, however, users should be aware that the status of these cases is subject to change on a daily basis.”
As far as this particular citation against ADM, the family believes that the case is closed because their was an informal settlement. Perhaps someone familiar with the case will fill us all in on the status.