Statements like “I feel your pain”, “I know what you mean”, and “I get your point” all convey to the listener that the speaker is “empathetic” regarding a comment made by them, which means that a person understands and shares the feelings of another.  Empathetic people can put themselves in other people’s circumstances as if they too were experiencing them. 

The advantages of having this ability in the working world are significant, especially for top decision makers occupying the “C-suite”, which are the highest-ranking senior executives because the “C” is short for “Chief.”  Although perhaps rarely seen on the factory floor or at a jobsite, they have a tremendous amount of influence behind the scenes on the well-being of rank and file employees.

For safety professionals, their success in providing a safe working environment depends on the attitude of those at the very top of the management pyramid because the executives set the tone on whether the company values safety and health or not.  This is where empathy, or lack of, may influence their opinions regarding employee well-being.  Is safety a priority, just a necessary evil, or somewhere in between?  Is it “yes, we do safety” or “yes, we live safety”?

The communication gap is sometimes to blame for a lack of executive empathy regarding the plight of the rank and file.  Safety professionals often find it frustrating when trying to convince decision makers to allocate their time, and the company’s money, to make the workplace safer and healthier. Describing the lawful mandates for protecting the health and safety of all workers typically is the basis for their initial arguments.  However, assuring executives that doing so would also lead to an enhanced business outcome, meaning an improvement to the bottom.

line, is also important because dozens of studies have confirmed that a safe workplace is also more efficient and profitable than an injury-ridden workplace.

Getting the message through may be the problem because all too often the executives talk apples, and safety people talk oranges.  Speaking their language is important but many safety professionals do not have the background to properly articulate their concerns or get their point across, but many of the skills they need are already present.  Every day when training workers or discussing safety concepts with them, safety professionals use their communication skills.  They simply need to plug in information that the executives will understand then apply these skills again.

The few C-suite members who do have an occupational safety background generally advise that proving the economic benefits of a safety program to the company is the best approach for convincing executives to approve what is being requested.   They state that the all-important ROI or “return on investment” must be included in any presentation.  This requires having facts, figures, and projections in order before making a presentation to an executive or group of executives.  When safety professionals can demonstrate that sustaining a safe work environment means saving money too, their chances of succeeding will improve greatly.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Most OSHA Permitted Exposure Limits are Outdated

OSHA is best known for enforcing rules that govern occupational safety and health and it is likely that most employers believe that complying with OSHA regulations means that their work environment is as safe and as healthy as possible.  Generally, this is true but not always.  The agency oversees quite literally thousands of industrial, warehouse, and construction activities and processes so it is not unreasonable to assume that some of its rules may become outdated or even invalid.

One such standard is the so-called Permissible Exposure Limits or PELS.  What exactly is a PEL?  It is a maximum concentration and duration that is permitted for employees to be exposed to harmful chemicals in the air.  OSHA has charts, so-called Z-Tables in CFR 1910.1000, that depict the chemical name along with the allowable maximum strength and acceptable time of exposure.

At face value, these limitations seem like a reasonable, appropriate, and necessary restriction on chemical handling.  The problem is, many of them harken back to the inception of the

agency in 1971 and are based on research done in the 1950’s and 60’s.  Most of the PELs contained in the Z-Tables were adopted from the 1968 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®), many of which have never been updated.

This situation is hard to fathom, especially for an agency that is constantly making changes to both its administrative and regulatory provisions.  OSHA does acknowledge, however, that many of its PELS are “outdated and inadequate”, and it did attempt to update 376 of them in 1989, claiming at the time that the proposed changes would provide additional health protections for over 21 million employees and eliminate 55,000 occupational illnesses and 683 deaths each year.

Unfortunately, in 1992 a court decision derailed this effort.  The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that OSHA did not sufficiently demonstrate that the new PELs were either necessary or that their enforcement was feasible. This setback forced OSHA to return to the original 1971 standard, which is still in effect. 

OSHA never again attempted to modernize the PEL tables on such a large scale. According to the agency, it “recognizes that many of its permissible exposure limits (PELS) for ensuring protection of worker health are inadequate.” The consensus among safety and health professionals is that, in most cases, these early exposure limits do not adequately protect workers.

Doug Parker, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, said, “The requirements of the rulemaking process, including limitations placed by prior judicial decisions, have limited our ability to have more up-to-date standards. Chemical exposure is a major health hazard for workers, and we have to do more to protect their health.”

OSHA, however, has offered other options for employers seeking to improve chemical exposure protections for employees but these are non-binding reference standards that the agency has no authority to enforce.   It “recommends that employers consider using the alternative occupational exposure limits because the Agency believes that exposures above some of these alternative occupational exposure limits may be hazardous to workers, even when the exposure levels are in compliance with the relevant PELS.”  Listed below are three organizations recommended by OHSA that have more up to date PEL standards: (Source: OSHA)

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs). 

NIOSH RELs are authoritative Federal agency recommendations for 667 hazardous substances established according to the legislative mandate for NIOSH to recommend standards to OSHA. RELs are intended to limit exposure to hazardous substances in workplace air to protect worker health. NIOSH also publishes its recommendations in publicly available sources such as the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, Criteria Documents, Current Intelligence Bulletins, Alerts, Special Hazard Reviews, Occupational Hazard Assessments, and Technical Guidelines.

  • ACGIH® Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs®).

ACGIH® is a private, not-for-profit, nongovernmental corporation. It is not a standards setting body. ACGIH® is a scientific association that develops recommendations or guidelines to assist in the control of occupational health hazards. TLVs® and BEIs® are health-based values and are not intended to be used as legal standards.

  • California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).

Cal/OSHA has established an extensive list of PELs (Cal/OSHA AC-1 Table) that are enforced in workplaces under its jurisdiction and can provide information on acceptable levels of chemicals in the workplace. Of all the states that have OSHA Approved State Plans, California has the most extensive list of OELs.

Employers relying on OSHA to define chemical exposure limits may be surprised to learn that most of its regulations are extremely outdated.  Still, the agency has not shied away from admitting this deficiency and offered alternatives such as the references listed above.  Employers who are determined to provide their employees with a safe and healthful work environment should look beyond OSHA’s PELS, identify what chemicals employees utilize, and consider using the most restrictive standard available. 

Our Experienced staff of loss control professionals can assist you in controlling workers compensation cost by providing a wide range of services for reducing workplace injuries. Our staff is available always to address the following workplace concerns: 

  • Assistance in resolving company and worksite safety issues
  • Develop and provide customized company safety programs
  • Assistance in updating existing safety manuals for OSHA compliance
  • Safety Audits
  • Assistance in Recordkeeping & Related Items
  • Worksite & Shop Hazard Assessment service
  • Emergency Preparedness & Implementation
  • PPE Program Implementation
  • New Employee Safety Orientation
  • Fleet Safety Review
  • Confined Space awareness training
  • Forklift Safety Certification
  • Lockout/Tagout Review & Training
  • Noise Level/Hearing Conservation Testing
  • Employee certification for the new Hazard Communication Standard
  • Safety presentations for company safety meetings
  • Participations in worksite safety talks
  • Representation for the N.Y.S. ICR-59 program (if required)
  • Site-specific Safety manuals
  • Development of Corporate Safety Manuals

OSHA 10hr Safety Class (at your place of business)

Please direct any questions or concerns to:

The Safety Division at Hamond Safety Management

Anthony Vacchio,   [email protected]   516-762-4224