Transcript OSHE 382: Construction Safety

Construction Substance-Abuse
Programs & Safety Incentives
OSHE 382, Spring 2016
Dr. Lu Yuan, CSP
985-549-2189
[email protected]
History of Drug-Testing Programs
• 1914, Ford Motor Company profit-sharing
plan
• 1960s, collective bargaining agreements
• 1980s, laboratory test
• 1986, Executive Order 12564 – Drug-Free
Federal Workplace
• 1988, Drug-Free Workplace Act
• 1991, Omnibus Transportation Employee
Testing Act
History of Drug-Testing Programs
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA),
Division of Workplace Programs
– http://www.samhsa.gov/
• Department of Labor, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Policy Working
Partners Program (discontinued)
Drug Testing is a
Controversial Issue
• Those against:
– Measure use of illegal drugs rather than
performance impairment
– Dissolution times are different
– Reliability of the drug-testing procedures
– Increased legal liability
Drug Testing is a
Controversial Issue
• Those in favor:
– Drug testing reduces the number and severity
of accidents, workers’ compensation claims,
injury rates, and EMRs.
– It also improves custom relations.
– A causal relationship between drug use and
accident occurrence is warranted.
Components of Drug-Testing
Programs
• Types:
– Pre-hire testing
– Post-hire testing
• Procedures based on federal requirements:
– Laboratory test
– Cut-off levels for report
– Use of medical review officers
– Safeguards to ensure consistent treatment of
samples
Drug-Testing in Construction
• In 1983, less than 1% of employees were subject to drug
testing. Today, approximately 49% of full-time workers
between the ages of 18 and 49 are subject to some type
of workplace drug testing (SAMHSA 1999). This growth
is particularly evident in the construction industry.
• It was estimated that in 1997, 14.1% of full-time
construction workers between the ages of 18 and 49
were current illicit drug users and that 12.4% engaged in
heavy alcohol use. This percentage is nearly double the
national average for all industries, 7.7 and 7.6%,
respectively (SAMHSA 1999).
Gerber, J.K. and Yacoubian Jr., G.S. (2001) Evaluation of drug testing in the
workplace: Study of the construction industry. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management. 127:6, 438-444.
Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.’s Study
• Data for the study was collected through a
survey which was sent to a randomly selected
national sample of officials at construction
companies.
• The data examined included injury incident rates
and workers’ compensation experience-rating
modification factors compiled over a five-year
period and supplied by the National Council on
Compensation Insurance (NCCI).
Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.’s Study
• The study shows that the implementation
of a drug-free workplace program directly
influences a reduction in
– Injury incident rates,
– Workers’ compensation experience-rating
modification factors, and
– Workers’ compensation premiums.
Other Findings of Gerber and
Yacoubian Jr.’s Study
• Reasons for implementing drug-testing
programs include:
– To promote the safety of their workers and
those who use their products and services.
– Drug testing contributes positively to a
company’s image.
– Drug testing is an effective deterrent in
preventing drug abuse.
Other Findings of Gerber and
Yacoubian Jr.’s Study
• Important barriers to implementing drugtesting programs include:
– A concern for increased legal liability
– Testing could be too costly.
– State laws prohibiting or restricting an
employers’ right to drug test significantly
hinder the implementation of programs.
Summary: Drug-Testing
• All drug testing must be conducted as part
of a comprehensive drug-prevention
program aimed at preventing and
managing substance abuse in the
workplace. (Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.,
2001)
What Do You Think?
Incentive
• Definition: A benefit that is offered as a
result of an accomplishment or an
exhibited behavior
– Monetary: Increased salary, bonus, and
asset, etc.
– Non-monetary: Prestige, fame, and
importance, etc.
Performance Objective
• Definition: An established goal which,
when met, provides some value to the
person or entity offering the benefit and
also, possibly, to the person receiving the
benefit.
• While the behavior is not the central focus
of the incentive, it is the desired outcome.
Safety Incentive Program
• Roles:
– Raise awareness of safety issues
– Improve proactive behaviors
– Create a long-lasting, safe working culture
– Eliminate or Reduce negative behaviors
Safety Incentives in Construction
• Three types:
– Outcome based: To meet a specified outcome
or level of performance
– Behavior based: To exhibit certain behaviors
– Activity based: To participate in sanctioned
activities that relate to safety
Outcome-Based Safety Incentive
• Also called injury/illness-based incentive
• Relatively easy to implement and therefore
common among construction companies
• Some concerns:
– Consistent with the duration over which the
performance is measured
– Not having injuries does not necessarily mean
safe work behavior
Behavior-Based Safety Incentive
• Comparatively difficult to measure and
monitor because:
– Employee behavior is complex and difficult to
gauge. And,
– Employee behavior changes constantly in
reaction to external factors such as new
facilities, new equipment, and new
workgroups.
Behavior-Based Safety Incentive
• It is assumed that safe behavior will lead
to improved safety performance in terms
of reduced injuries.
• The award is given in consideration of the
behavior’s potential impact on safety
performance.
Activity-Based Safety Incentive
• Example activities include:
– Safety toolbox meetings
– Safety training classes
– Safety and health conferences
• Generally easier to implement than
behavior-based incentive.
• It is assumed that there is a relationship
between participation in certain activities
and improved safety performance.
Types of Incentive Rewards
•
•
•
•
•
Gifts
Safety bucks
Recognition plaque
Distinguished Award
Etc.
Concerns about Safety Incentive
• Whether safety incentive changes
workers’ behavior consistently
• The value of incentive: Make sure it is
appropriate for the effort required to
receive it
• Injury underreporting
• Expected behavior vs. extraordinary
behavior: “Above and beyond”
Impact of Construction
Safety Incentives
• Previous research studies (Hinze, 2002;
Goodrum and Gangwar, 2004) found that
incentives are effective in improving many of the
safety performance metrics used in
construction. However,
• Differences exist within the industry regarding
perceptions of their effectiveness (Goodrum and
Gangwar, 2004).
Hinze, J. (2002) Safety incentives: do they reduce injuries? Practice Periodical
on Structural Design and Construction. 7:2, 81–84.
Goodrum, P.M. and Gangwar, M. (2004) Safety incentives: A study of their
effectiveness in construction. Professional Safety. July, 24-34.
Summary: Safety Incentive
• Safety incentive should be part of an
overall comprehensive SH&E program that
not only involves workplace training but
also engineers safety into the construction
process. (Goodrum and Gangwar, 2004)
What Do You Think?