Speeches - (Archived) Table of Contents
• Information Date: 10/12/1999
• Presented To: The Risk Management Forum in Chicago, Illinois
• Speaker: Jeffress, Charles N.
• Status: Archived

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

Charles N. Jeffress
"OSHA: A View of Today
and Tomorrow"
Risk Management Forum
Chicago, Illinois
October 12, 1999

  • It's been said that nothing is more valuable than a workable idea. I agree. And we're here today to share ideas that work.

  • OSHA has many ideas to improve workplace safety and health in the next century. They are all geared toward achieving one goal: sending every worker home whole and healthy every day. That's not a short-term aim. It's a long-term proposition. And it requires daily diligence and ongoing commitment in the face of competing priorities for time, energy and resources.

  • In striving towards this goal, we've discovered that a broad approach works better than a narrow one. So when it comes to standard-setting, we will favor performance standards over specification standards. A specification approach is inherently limited, narrowly focused and inflexible. It's also insufficient to address the myriad and ever-changing hazards in the American workplace on the edge of the 21st Century.

  • Performance standards, on the other hand, provide the flexibility to accommodate change, to incorporate unique situations and to fit the culture of individual workplaces. For that reason, more and more standards OSHA adopts in the future will rely on a systems approach. It's impossible to tailor standards to fit every conceivable hazard. Instead, we must empower employers and employees to address problems within a practical framework.

  • The first and foremost framework is a safety and health program. That's my top priority performance standard. We know that when worksites take a holistic approach by establishing a safety and health program, they do a better job of protecting workers. For sites like most of yours, specific OSHA standards are only a beginning. You manage risks rather than follow rules.

  • And as risk managers, you know the dividends that safety pays. But not everyone recognizes the value of safety and health programs.

  • A systems approach to safety is an idea that works. It's the right thing for us to tell employers to do. You need to analyze your worksite and find and fix hazards. You don't need OSHA to direct every step. Our job is to provide the impetus to get you started and an accountability process to keep you going.

  • Once employers see the benefits safety and health programs bring, they become believers. We must dispel the myth that safety and health programs pose added burdens and offer no benefits. You know the opposite is true: safety and health programs add value and subtract costs.

  • Even average companies can reduce injuries 20 to 40 percent by establishing safety and health programs. Several studies have estimated that safety and health programs save $4 to $6 for every dollar invested. Yet only about 30 percent of U.S. worksites have established these programs.

  • That is of grave concern to me. Ten years ago OSHA set forth guidelines for safety and health programs. We based our guidelines on the successful programs adopted by our Voluntary Protection Program sites. A number of you here are from companies with VPP sites.

  • VPP companies are the shining stars in safety. They offer living proof that safety and health programs protect workers and pay off for employers. Together these 560 sites in 180 industries save $110 million each year because they average 50 percent fewer injuries than their counterparts.

  • But we have yet to translate that success from the best companies to the rest of the companies. Voluntary guidelines have been helpful. But if we want universal adoption of safety and health programs, we need a rule mandating them. That is my top priority, and we plan to publish our proposal within the next few months. It won't be a surprise to any of you.

  • But what has been a surprise to me is the level of opposition we've seen. I've been disappointed that companies that have made a sound business decision to set up an effective safety and health program don't speak out to support this rule.

  • Companies would not be investing their dollars in safety and health programs if these strategies didn't make sense. Yet those who speak for corporate America and small business in Washington are saying safety and health programs will be costly and ineffective. That's nonsense.

  • There is a serious disconnect between companies that value safety and health programs and the people representing you in Washington. I ask you to make a special effort to make sure that your government affairs staffs in your companies and your trade association officials know what you're doing. Ask them to ensure that the business groups to which you pay dues accurately reflect your experience.

  • Safety and health programs are good for workers and good for their employers. That's common sense. And we need to make sure everyone knows it.

  • Another issue we face as we approach the new millennium is work-related musculoskeletal disorders or MSDs. Establishing an ergonomics program standard has been even more controversial than requiring safety and health programs. Again, the leaders in industries where hazards are high are addressing overexertion and repetitive motion injuries at their sites. But only 16 percent of employers nationwide have developed effective ergonomics programs.

  • The science is not really in dispute-it's significant and substantial. The findings are straightforward: MSDs are linked to work and reducing physical stress on the job can reduce injuries. In other words, ergonomics programs work. Organizations representing more than 2 million medical, scientific and safety and health experts have urged OSHA to move forward with an ergonomics standard. We intend to do so. We expect to publish our proposal within the next few weeks.

  • What these two standards illustrate is the difficulty of taking the most effective approach when that approach involves professional evaluation and judgment. Difficult for you, and difficult for us. All of us in OSHA, from standards writers to compliance officers, have to shift paradigms. We have to conduct a more in-depth evaluation and use more professional judgment. We can't just take air samples and check expiration dates on fire extinguishers.

  • We have to consider an array of approaches. We must assess the effectiveness of strategies. We've got to encourage employers to adopt progressive systems that keep safety front and center.

  • Creating a safety culture is critical to designing a system that works. In an all-too- typical culture, the CEO says "The safety of our employees is first and foremost." Executive management translates that to "Safety of our employees is first, but we must also maintain production and profits." Middle management says, "Safety is important but we must meet our production goals." First line supervisors interpret that as "Keep production up while being as safe as the process will allow." And employees hear the message as "Production is top priority. Do it safely when possible."

  • The challenge is to institutionalize excellence, to foster a safety culture where everyone accepts responsibility for safety and pursues it on a daily basis. Safety becomes a value of the organization-not just a commitment of the CEO-and an integral part of operations.

  • As you can tell from our evolving focus on performance standards, OSHA has changed, and will continue to change. But not everyone has recognized that fact. It's clear from the debate in Washington that some folks don't believe that OSHA will be reasonable. They see performance standards as carte blanche for OSHA to play gotcha at the expense of employers. That's not our intention. But we have some work to do to prove ourselves.

  • We must demonstrate that we understand what makes sense, what's feasible and what's acceptable. We must understand your industries. We must expand our horizons beyond a simple tally of violations to an assessment of systems. That will take some retraining and some attitude adjustment. We're working on both!

  • In that regard, let me say a word about our new policy on OSHA use of employer self-audits or third-party audits. This policy was published in the Federal Register on October 7. You may want to take a look at it under Federal Register notices on the OSHA website at www.osha.gov.

  • First, we will not routinely ask for copies of audits when we walk in the door to conduct an inspection. We want to make it clear we're not using employer-sponsored audits as a road map to pinpoint violations. At the same time, if we find a problem, we need to know if an employer was aware of it. At that point, we will ask to see what information you may have on that specific problem.

  • Second, if an employer is addressing a problem identified in an audit that would result in an OSHA citation, the agency will not consider the violation willful. And third, employers that conduct self-audits may be eligible for substantial reductions in penalties. That's because OSHA will consider self-audits that lead to corrective actions to represent good faith on the employer's behalf.

  • Self-audits and audits conducted by Liberty Mutual or private consultants offer a practical way to step back from the press of everyday business to identify potential problems. And those who take that step are committed to follow through and fix hazards. OSHA wants to praise, not punish, those employers. Employers who do not respond to safety audit priorities, on the other hand, deserve no such credit.

  • Another item that will appear in the Federal Register is OSHA's final recordkeeping rule. We had hoped to publish it sooner so that we could have the new forms in place in January 2000. We're not going to meet that deadline.

  • We want to be sure that everyone has sufficient time to get ready for the new system. So, it will not go into effect in January 2000 but in January 2001. I think you will be pleased with the changes we've made. The new rule will offer clearer definitions of work-relatedness, a better explanation of what constitutes light duty and a much improved and simpler recordkeeping form.

  • We've talked about some of the new rules our agency is developing. But we must move beyond the notion that OSHA exists solely to set and enforce standards. We have a role in educating employers and employees. We've heard smaller businesses tell us they want to do the right thing-as long as it's sensible and not too hard to figure out. They need help in understanding their responsibilities. We need to provide that.

  • That's why President Clinton has asked for an additional $12 million in OSHA's budget for the Year 2000 to place full-time occupational safety and health training and technical assistance staff in every federal OSHA office. OSHA has never had full-time staff dedicated to teaching employers and employees about safety and health, except for a small staff at the OSHA Training Institute here in the Chicago area.

  • We need to provide more technical assistance to employers to make a greater impact, but we cannot do it without an investment by Congress. We think this is a good investment, that will pay measurable dividends for employers and workers.

  • As you can see, OSHA has many ideas for the next millennium. We want to focus on the big picture rather than little details. We want to set forth frameworks to empower employers to protect workers. We need to expand our outreach and training.

  • It's been said that some people entertain ideas while others put them to work. It's clear to us that we need to put these ideas to work in the workplace. Only then can we send every worker home whole and healthy every day. And as we approach the 21st Century that's an idea whose time has come.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

Speeches - (Archived) Table of Contents

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.