Playing the Numbers Game

The accountants weighed the cost of a recall with the cost of litigation for an estimated number of anticipated accidents. The auto manufacturer decided to do nothing, let the accidents happen, and risk the lawsuits. When this practice was brought into evidence, the auto company presumably faced huge punitive damages. (The actual verdict was never shown; father and daughter made up, kissy-kissy; end of movie.)

While watching this movie, I considered how much “risk assessment” occurs consciously or unconsciously in other industries. When evaluating the cost of safety, do people really evaluate the true cost of doing it right? We tend to think in terms of trimming costs, increasing efficiency, improving the bottom line. But do contractors evaluate the real cost in not buying and using lanyards and other fall protection gear? What about skimping on the extra few minutes and additional labor it takes to conduct a good pre-shift inspection? Or the inconvenience of taking a defective machine out of service until it can be properly repaired? If we each stopped and compared these costs to the losses • legal or otherwise • of a serious accident, we might see the real financial and moral benefits to be gained.

So in the spirit of the movie, I encourage employers and employees alike who may be marginal in their safety practices to do a risk assessment of the actual cost of proper safety practices versus that of a serious accident. And consider the moral issues of an employee or co-worker losing his or her life or a limb. Such an accident and the related workers compensation claims and legal expenses may cause a temporary dip in corporate revenue, but what about the family left behind or the person left with a debilitating injury.

Try as they may, attorneys, accountants, and other analysts attempt to put a dollar value on the loss of an arm, for instance, but would they be willing to trade one of theirs for that money? I bet not.

Industrial engineers regularly analyze the amount of time a given task requires, sometimes right down to specific body movements, what is being handled and how much it weighs, and even whether a person is having a good day or not. They carry clipboards and dreaded stopwatches and when the data is collected they make predictions on how long a particular job should take to do and how much production can be expected, leading to the final cost of production.

The techniques used in this numbers game can be applied to assessing the costs of safety and risk. I am not suggesting that every construction crew hire an industrial engineer, but studying how long it takes to complete a pre-shift inspection, put on safety harnesses and lanyards, or inspect the path of motion a lift can be revealing.

How little time it actually takes to conduct some of these precautionary activities is surprising. Sharing the data with equipment operators may demonstrate how little is actually saved by alleged “shortcuts,” especially when compared with improved quality of work and doing it right the first time.

One of my favorite examples involves a boom lift operator who was caulking windows outside our offices at Packer Engineering. He was using a boom lift that had twice the lift and extension capacity required for the height at which he was working. He would elevate the platform to the point where he could safely complete about three-fourths of the job on any given window, then, rather than reposition the boom • how long would that take? • he would climb onto the rails of the basket to finish the job. I watched this worker do this once or twice, and noticed that he worked much more slowly while in the precarious position of the middle or top rail. So what did he really save? It would have taken him 30 seconds to reposition the boom lift less than six feet and in reality he cost the employer a significant slow-down in work, not to mention putting himself at risk of falling. (By the way, I did go outside to warn the worker and to tell him that neither his employer nor its customer would tolerate such unsafe acts.)

In this example, the time it takes to maneuver a boom lift could have been compared with the loss of productivity and decreased quality of work caused by taking the senseless acrobatic approach. Perhaps the information might have prevented the worker from using unsafe practices.

Employees, too, should conduct personal risk assessment. Consider whether you have the proper equipment to get the job done. Don't skip the pre-shift inspection because you're behind schedule. When it comes to unsafe environments or faulty equipment, workers often remain silent in fear for their jobs. But remember, the law is on your side. OSHA requires a safe workplace. Besides unemployment is a better option than death or dismemberment.

In a serious accident, the damages to an employer are purely monetary, but the person directly involved in the accident is the one facing the greatest loss. Sacrificing safety for profit is a losing proposition for both employers and employees.