ergonomic hazards

“Alternative facts” on worker injuries in poultry plants

cmonforton — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:02:08 +0000

“Alternative facts” on worker injuries in poultry plants

I can thank the Trump Administration for one thing. I now have a new phrase to describe how the poultry industry distorts information about working conditions for its employees: alternative facts.

Last fall, the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association made a wild pronouncement about their industry’s work-related injury rate. They asserted their injury rates are at an all-time low and have declined by 81% since 1994. The trade associations' news release said:

“Perhaps more than any other industry, the poultry industry has focused its energies on the prevention of workplace injuries and illnesses, especially musculoskeletal disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome, by recognizing the value of implementing ergonomics and medical intervention principles….”

A new paper published in the Journal of Safety Research explains why the industry’s assertion is a falsehood. It explains the ways in which some employers in the industry game the system so that injuries are not recorded on their logs.

The paper, “Under-recording of work-related injuries and illnesses: An OSHA priority,” was written by two physicians from OSHA’s Office of Occupational Medicine. The authors, Drs. Kathleen Fagan and Michael Hodgson, report findings from the agency’s special emphasis program which examined employer records of worker injuries. The findings include:

269 of the 405 establishments audited by federal OSHA (i.e., 66%) had injury recordkeeping violations.
a large share of the violations involved unrecorded cases (cases not found on the employer's log) and under-recorded cases (cases where days away or restricted work activity were not accurately recorded on the log). More than 47% of the establishments inspected had unrecorded and/or under-recorded cases.

Practices in the meat and poultry industry are particularly relevant to debunk their alternative facts. The audits in those plants found:

“More than twice as many under-recorded errors per inspection compared to other sectors, due at least in part to the very poor recordkeeping practices of some establishments.”

The phrase "very poor recordkeeping" is non-judgmental. It doesn't reflect motivation. I'm sure that's something about which OSHA needs to be careful.

I, however, suspect it is something more intentional. Poultry companies with inaccurate injury records are engaged in a number of schemes to deny their employees are injured on the job. It's the way the industry can claim an "81% decline in injury rates." Several of the industry's schemes are addressed in Fagan and Hodgson's paper. For example, the authors characterized on-site medical units in poultry plants as

“a new obstacle to accurate recordkeeping.”

They note that some of these plant retain emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs) to staff the medical units. Yet,

[the individuals] “…had little to no nursing or medical supervision, functioned without appropriate, up-to-date protocols and provided care beyond their scopes of practice.”

And the implications of that? The authors go on to explain:

“In some cases, workers were seen multiple times without referral for a definitive evaluation, diagnosis and treatment. By preventing access to higher level medical care, these cases were kept off the employer's recordkeeping log.”

Here’s one example provided by the authors of how this plays out:

“Ms. S., a 40 year old Hispanic woman, had worked at the poultry plant for several years. She described symptoms of pain, numbness and tingling of both hands beginning one month after she started working on the debone line. She had no previous similar symptoms, no history of hand or wrist injuries or carpal tunnel syndrome, and no underlying medical problems."

"When her symptoms did not go away, she reported to her supervisor, who brought her to the onsite nursing station. The nursing station was staffed by LPNs, who reported to the plant's EMT-trained safety director. The LPNs were provided no higher level medical supervision by a physician, registered nurse or nurse practitioner. The LPNs treated Ms. S. with ice, muscle gel, Epsom salt soaks and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication (NSAIDs) for a ten-week period, seeing her a total of 94 times."

"Ms. S. asked to see a doctor several times but was not referred and continued to be sent back to her regular job on the debone line. No assessment of the relationship between her job and her symptoms was performed, and her injury was not placed on the OSHA 300 log.”

The authors continue:

“After suffering worsening symptoms over two and one-half months and persistently requesting to see a doctor, Ms. S. was finally referred to the local physician. She was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and placed on work restrictions. Her clinical course included unsuccessful treatment with cortisone injections, permanent transfer off the debone line and plans for carpal tunnel release surgery.”

“…It is likely that, if Ms. S. had been removed from the debone line and referred to a physician earlier, she would not have suffered severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome resulting in chronic disability and requiring surgery.”

The authors repeat that these sort of medical management practices

"represent a significant newly-identified cause of under-reporting and under-recording."

OSHA implemented its special emphasis program from September 2009 through February 2012. It did so in part because of criticism from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO said OSHA had not focused adequate attention to the accuracy of the injury logs kept by employers. GAO noted that OSHA typically only audited 250 employer logs each year. Moreover, the audits were incomplete because inspectors relied primarily on information provided by the employers. GAO recommended that OSHA inspectors try to interview workers about injury and illness incidents about which they were familiar.

In “Under-recording of work-related injuries and illnesses: An OSHA priority,” the authors indicate that during the emphasis program, inspectors conducted over 4,800 employee interviews. Twenty percent of the unrecorded or under-recorded cases they identified came about because of the employee interviews.

Thanks to the OSHA inspectors and medical staff who helped to debunk the poultry industry's "alternative facts."

cmonforton Wed, 01/25/2017 - 15:02

Wayne Farms slammed by OSHA for gaming system on poultry worker injuries

cmonforton — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:49:41 +0000

Wayne Farms slammed by OSHA for gaming system on poultry worker injuries

OSHA proposed serious and repeat violations yesterday to Wayne Farms for a variety of safety hazards, including those that led to musculoskeletal injuries among the company’s poultry processing workers. By my calculation, it was the first time in more than a decade that the Labor Department used its “general duty clause” to cite a poultry company for ergonomic hazards.

OSHA conducted the inspection in response to a complaint filed six months ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of a group of workers. The complaint described the harsh working conditions in the Jack, Alabama plant, and also provided specifics on management’s retaliation against workers who are injured or complain about hazards. The workers involved in filing the complaint should feel vindicated because OSHA’s citations validate their assertions.

OSHA’s investigation involved staff from its Mobile, Alabama and Atlanta, Georgia offices, as well as the agency’s top-notch ergonomist and occupational medicine physicians. They note that workers in the plant are required to perform:

“prolonged repetitive, forceful tasks, often in awkward postures for extended periods of time.”

Those tasks include cutting wings, cutting shoulders, sawing wins, pulling skin, and pulling tenders.

The OSHA team also identified gross deficiencies in the company's lockout/tagout procedures. Such safeguards can help to ensure that workers were not caught-in or struck-by equipment when it is being cleaned or repaired. That’s bad enough, but Wayne Farms was cited by OSHA in 2011 for this same violation at one of the company’s other poultry processing plants. For the repeat infraction, OSHA has proposed a $38,500 penalty.

Besides validating the workers’ complaints, OSHA’s citations corroborate what researchers and worker advocates have been saying for decades: Injury rates based on employer self-reporting are works of fiction. OSHA assembled evidence against Wayne Farms on the ways in which the company gamed the system for recording injuries. OSHA’s Mobile, Alabama area director said,

“By failing to report injuries, failing to refer employees to physicians and discouraging employees from seeking medical treatment, Wayne Farms effectively concealed the extent to which these poultry plant workers were suffering work-related injuries and illnesses. And as a result, it reported an artificially lower injury and illness rate.”

I have no doubt that other poultry and meatpacking companies use the same dishonest practices to intentionally deceive the Labor Department and the public about working conditions in their plants. If you haven’t already, you should dismiss any assertions made by the National Chicken Council and other industry groups that poultry slaughtering plants are safe and worker injury rates low. That goes for the safety award given to Wayne Farms in 2011 for its “outstanding safety performance.” The company touts its behavior-based safety program called “WorkSAFE” which

“focuses on helping employees identify unsafe behaviors and remain conscious of their environment and potentially dangerous situations.”

What a bunch of baloney. Workers at Wayne Farms know what causes their injuries. It's not their “unsafe behaviors.” It’s all about the incessant repetitive motions, fast work pace and deficient equipment in their jobs. These are all things that the company controls, not the workers. The "unsafe behaviors" are the company's not the workers'.

For me, some of the most powerful language in the OSHA citations is the long list of feasible options the agency offers Wayne Farms to fix the ergonomic hazards. For workers in the chicken deboning area, OSHA explains that the company could:

increase the recovery of affected body parts through task rotation during the work shift (rotation to tasks without continuous use of a knife, scissors or forceful grip);
increase recovery time through implementation of mini-breaks, increase cycle time for each task, establish a rotation on a daily basis between departments to increase recovery time (such as rotation between debone and marination);
provide knives with handles designed for repetitive tasks;
provide hand tools with textured handles to reduce employee grip force, larger quillons (guard) before the blade to prevent hand from sliding down knife-allowing reduced grip force;
install mechanical skin removal equipment or provide textured gloves to reduce hand force required in pull skin;
provide air-assist powered scissors or wing cut;
position the knife sharpener to minimize non-neutral wrist posture; and
evaluate employees at each station to determine appropriate work platform height for each employee.

Surely, a firm with more than $1.9 billion in annual sales can afford buying some better hand tools and giving workers rest breaks.

Michelle LaPointe, senior staff attorney with SPLC remarked about the OSHA citations:

“The actions taken by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration go far beyond a company being fined for violations at a single poultry plant,” said Michelle Lapointe, SPLC senior staff attorney. ...This is an industry where workers are forced to work at dangerously fast speeds that cause disabling injuries and often thrown away when they can no longer work.”

In a statement to Dave Jamieson of the Huffington Post, Wayne Farms said it is contesting the citations.

OSHA has taken an important step with these citations. It was Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in the late 1980’s that put citations for ergonomic hazards on the radar screen. Use of the general duty clause was embraced at the time, but largely abandoned over the last decade. Our government has failed to hold poultry companies accountable for the workplace hazards that cripple the hands, wrists, shoulders and backs of workers. I hope these citations are not an anomaly, but a sign of much more attention to the deplorable working conditions in poultry and meatpacking plants.

cmonforton Thu, 10/30/2014 - 05:49

Workers at Hershey's plant feel vindicated by OSHA's $283,000 penalty to Exel

cmonforton — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:30:00 +0000

Workers at Hershey's plant feel vindicated by OSHA's $283,000 penalty to Exel

Federal OSHA proposed a $283,000 penalty against an employer responsible for staffing a Hershey's chocolate packaging facilty in Palmyra, Pennsylvania for willfully violating workplace safety regulations. The agency's action followed a formal complaint lodged by workers at the plant, many of whom were foreign students employed under the State Department's J-1 visa program. A few hundred of them walked off the job last summer to protest the poor working conditions in the Hershey plant. The New York Times' Julie Preston reported at the time about workers' injuries related to heavy lifting, twisting, reaching, and the speed at which they were expected to work.

The situation at the Hershey plant also illustrates how far companies have moved away from traditional employer-employee relationships. As Preston reported:

"A spokesman for Hershey's, Kirk Saville, said the chocolate company did not directly operate the Palmyra packing plant, which is managed by a company called Exel. A spokeswoman for Exel said it had found the student workers through another staffing company. The spokeswoman said: 'We contract with a staffing agency to provide temporary employees, some from the local work force and some J-1 visa holders.'"

The Labor Department's news release explains the work arrangement this way: the Eastern Distribution Center III in Palmyra is owned by the Hershey Co. and operated by Exel. Under a contract with Exel, SHS Staffing Solutions hired the students to work at the Palmyra site. Their foreign students' visas were sponsored by the Council for Educational Travel-USA.

Upon the Labor Department's announcement about the citations issued to the two firms responsible for staffing the Hershey plant, JJ Rosenbaum of the National Guestworker Alliance (NGA) said

"This is a case study of the way a major corporation uses a subcontracting giant to kill decent U.S. jobs. Exel stepped in to facilitate the demise of safe, stable, living-wage American jobs through corporate subcontracting to hide labor abuses. Corporations try to avoid responsibility for labor abuses by hiding behind chains of subcontractors, and by hiring guestworkers who are vulnerable to threats of retaliation."

Exel, Inc. is a multi-national subsidiary of Deutsche Post DHL which provides "supply chain and logistics solutions" to hundreds of firms including Ford, Xerox, General Mills, Office Depot, and 7-Eleven. A quick look at OSHA inspection data for the last 10 years at Exel facilities reveals dozens and dozens of inspections in 19 different States in response to worker safety complaints. Other inspections came about because of serious worker injuries and several deaths.

The most serious violations identified by OSHA at the Exel-run Palmyra Hershey plant involved the company's alleged willful failure to record more than 40 serious injuries on required incident reporting logs. The kinds of unrecorded injuries identified by OSHA investigators included some of the exact types of sprains and strains complained about the foreign-student workers. As NGA's JJ Rosenbaum notes

"These findings vindicate the claims by our members that Hershey's subcontractors Exel and SHS ignored and repressed complaints about serious health and safety violations. OSHA found that in effect, Exel had no health and safety regime at the Hershey's plant that would allow someone to perform these jobs safely over a long period of time. OSHA found that Exel concealed repeated health and safety violations over a period of many years."

Despite OSHA's citations, there are some things that are unsettling to me about this case. When I scroll through Exel's website and its case studies of "accomplishments," I can't help but wonder whether the production and efficiency models touted by Exel were the underlying cause of the hazards experienced by the workers. One case study of Exel's "improvements" at a Hershey facility in Mechanicsburg PA describes how engineers develop production standards for the imaginary average person.

"...The team was able to estabish the site's engineered labor standards: a list of warehouse tasks and the time it takes to complete each one. Because these times, called 'zero base,' are what an average person could accomplish, the program establishes fair and attainable standards, ensuring consistent expectations for every associate's performance. Those who perform about the zero base are given incentives to continue their high performance. And, with documented standards, management is able to work with associates who may not be meeting peformance expectations."

Here's how one of the Palmyra Hershey workers told the New York Times about how these engineered labor standards played out on-the-job:

"...cameras were trained on her, and supervisors told her that if she did not want to maintain the pace of work, she should leave."

So much for the fundamental prevention principle of fitting a job to a worker's abilities, not the other way around.

For the most part, the OSHA citations issued this week to Exel do not address the underlying causes of the hazards that led to the workers' injuries. Exel was cited for failing to record those injuries, but nothing in the citations compel the company to address the root of the problem. That's because OSHA doesn't have any standards on the books requiring employers to reduce or eliminate injury-causing repetitive motions, awkward postures, excessive line speed or other risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. When OSHA issued a regulation in 2001 at the end of the Clinton Administration to address these hazards, Congress voided the rule.

Despite the heavy toll on workers' health and livelihood from work-related musculoskeletal disorders, the Labor Department hasn't been very aggressive in using OSHA's "general duty clause" to address ergonomic hazards or in proposing a new standard. The best OSHA could do in this Exel case with respect to the hazards themselves was send a letter to Exel urging the firm to take action. OSHA's area director for the Harrisburg, PA office wrote:

"Based on a review of work practices and illness and injury data at your facility we have identified potential ergonomic risk factors. The below listed tasks were identified that may be contributory in causing back and upper extremity disorders:
(1) Lifting boxes from pallets sitting directly on the floor and having to bend at the waist to either retrieve or stack product.

(2) Reaching to the back of pallets to retrieve boxes of product.

In the interest of workplace safety and health, I recommend that you voluntarily take the necessary steps to materially reduce or eliminate your employees' exposure to the conditions listed above." [emphasis added]

Exel has 15 working days to notify OSHA whether it intends to contest the citations, and an Associated Press report says Exel already plans to fight them. For the workers involved and with the continued support from the National Guestworkers Alliance, perhaps the willful violations can be used to leverage meaningful injury prevention efforts, and not just corrections to make sure injuries are recorded after they occur.

cmonforton Thu, 03/01/2012 - 09:30