Agents For Change: We Can Make The Workplace Safer

by Arthur Moll

More agent involvement in safety programs can be the single most important way to reduce accidents in the workplace.

Small companies-those with 50 employees or fewer-now make up 95% of all American businesses. Many are so focused on getting the product out the door and meeting bottom-line objectives that they don't have the time or resources to develop safety programs. Insurance agents can be the safety and loss-control managers for these employers.

Establishing the agent for this proactive role requires a change in our thinking, but the rewards can be unlimited. The agent is close to the employer and sees him or her regularly-and thus can provide a fresh pair of eyes to identify hazards. That's only the beginning. I encourage a more hands-on approach to safety. Agents can make a real difference by helping the employer establish safety committees.

Why is this important? Studies show that 90% of all accidents are caused by employees rather than by faulty equipment or conditions. Turning over the responsibility for safety and accident prevention to employees, through safety committees, is the only sure-fire way to achieve lasting results.

Through my experience, I am more convinced than ever that the only successful approach to safety is to implement an employee-centered program. The agent can be the catalyst who makes this happen.

The employee safety committee needs direction from an outside, independent coordinator, and should be made up of nonsupervisory personnel. The people closest to a problem are best able to find practical, cost-effective solutions.

Managers sometimes believe that employees lack the sophistication necessary to develop solutions. However, the safety committees I have worked with have produced excellent results. Indeed, workers such as assemblers, sweepers, maintenance people, sales clerks, stock clerks, and cashiers are valuable assets for identifying unsafe conditions and making recommendations that improve productivity and quality.

One of my industrial clients told me that communication with the work force had greatly improved since the start of the employee safety program.

I approach safety in an orthodox way. Approximately eight employees meet once a month for an hour. We review accident reports to pinpoint the accidents' causes, and make recommendations for corrective action. We walk around the facility on an inspection tour identifying hazards. During the tour, we solicit employees' views and suggestions about safety.

For example, employees were having difficulty continually transferring boxes containing 40 pounds of chocolates from the production line to a staging area. There was no room to install a conveyor. Someone on the committee suggested getting plastic buckets to transport 20 pounds of product, thereby halving the weight load. A simple solution, but who in management would have thought of it?

Another powerful reason for agents to become involved in safety committees is that they can influence management action. For example, who would believe that a department store could be fraught with hazards? Greater emphasis is placed on generating sales than on the safe operation of the stock areas. With their broken ladders, cramped space, improper shelving, poor lighting and other hazards, stockrooms are often accidents waiting to happen. I explained to management that a back injury can cost $20,000 and asked, 'How many new ladders can be bought for $20,000?' They listened and acted.

As the spotlight on workplace safety intensifies, several state legislatures have created mandatory safety programs for employers that have adverse experience. My fear is that some employers will take the path of least resistance and give lip service to implement a program, along with a fancy safety handbook that just gathers dust. This approach will yield few or no long-term results. Paper programs and written missives have never worked.

Management support is by far the most important element of a successful workplace safety program. Without a genuine commitment from management to do what's necessary to prevent accidents, the best program is doomed to failure. Management must also ensure 100% employee involvement or the program will not be effective.

Safety and accident prevention have to be an integral part of what I call the 'magic triangle' of any enterprise: production, quality, and safety. I believe that they're interrelated. Without a strong safety component, productivity, quality, and certainly profitability will suffer. Therefore, we must integrate safety into the hiring, orientation, and training processes.

In today's environment, safety can no longer be considered a staff function with only safety professionals responsible for results. In smaller enterprises, the agent can become a major influence in molding these elements together.

The effort should be made not just for the sake of safety, but to improve morale. For instance, a sanitary district had special trucks to pick up heavy items, such as refrigerators and washing machines, but did not supply its workers with hand trucks. The workers had to move heavy items manually from the curb to the truck-not a safe environment. The employees thought I was a 'miracle man' when the district's commissioners followed the recommendation of the safety committee and purchased hand trucks. When safety is employee-driven and the results are evident, all employees see the improved conditions and realize that management is committed to providing a safe workplace for them.

How can we spread the word that safety affects a business' bottom line? I'd like to try an experimental seminar program, geared toward the smaller employer. It could be an after-work program, in which many agents would bring their clients to a central location. We could have presentations by safety experts, the state labor department, companies, OSHA, AFL-CIO, and so on, and show financial data that demonstrates what happens when a safety program is implemented (or what it costs when safety is ignored).

A two-unit department store saved more than $1,250,000 in the first two years on their retrospective rating program. A sweater factory went from $470,000 in paid claims and reserves for two years prior to the initiation of a safety program to only $45,000 after the program's first year. Similar results were achieved at a manufacturer of vibration-isolation equipment.

The traditional agent's role has been to write the policy and handle accident reports. I believe that agents can become proactive missionaries for safety and loss prevention. Imagine, we could have 20,000 missionaries preaching that the 'the cheapest accident is the one that never happens.' Think of the possibilities!