A supplier and mender of the rolls used in paper-making machines, Xerium Canada, Inc., was fined $60,000 on October 2, 2009, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) after a worker was injured.

In an incident that occurred on March 19, 2008, workers at Xerium’s North Bay facility were attempting to repair a machine used to mix bonding liquid. The power to the machine was turned off and the protective guards covering the machine’s drive shaft were removed so that they could work. The workers again turned on the machine, but failed to replace the guards immediately. As a result, one of the workers caught his sleeve in the machine’s moving parts.

Xerium Canada Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the machine’s driveshaft and gears were guarded to prevent access to their pinch points.

The $60,000 fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Susan Hilton. In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25% victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

That’s $75,000 total off of the company’s bottom line, because workers forgot to do something deceptively simple that would have taken a few seconds, at most. Building a culture of safety, in which workers are trained to consider every detail before they even flip a switch, is worth every bit of the up-front investment your company puts forward.

Alberta Occupational Health & Safety has recognized nearly 700 companies across Alberta for their superior health and safety records.

The agency made the announcement last week, praising all of the companies for placing major emphasis on safety, and for integrating safety into all phases of their operations, even in rough economic times. One of the main benefits of such recognition is that all such companies can use the 2008 Best Safety Performer logo, and let prospective workers know that these companies put a premium on making sure workers get to go home after a hard day’s work.

According to OH&S, to be recognized as a best safety performer, employers are required to meet specific criteria, including a current certificate of recognition from the department’s injury-reduction education program. They must also be able to claim 60 consecutive person-years worked with no disabling injuries, have no outstanding compliance orders from OH&S, no violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the previous two years and no work-related fatalities in the previous three years. In other words, it requires a clean safety record.

If 700 Alberta companies can manage a clean safety record, why can’t most of them?

These 700 companies will be able to attract the best of the best to their workplaces, and they will be able to point to their stellar reputation for safety in their promotional materials. Once again, we see a demonstration that safety doesn’t cost companies. In the long run, a safe workplace pays.

According to a new report from the Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Institute (TURI), entitled “Asthma-Related Chemicals in Massachusetts,” more than 300 substances are known or suspected to cause or exacerbate asthma, and that “[m]uch of the evidence (for identifying these substances) comes from workers exposed in the workplace.”

Asthma is an increasingly common chronic lung disease that kills more than 500 Canadians annually. The most common symptoms include shortness of breath, chest pain or tightness, coughing and wheezing.

Based on the report’s findings, workers in a range of occupations may be exposed to ammonia, chlorine, formaldehyde, diesel exhaust or any of the other 300-plus chemicals identified in this report as causing asthma symptoms. Lab workers, woodworkers, construction workers, plumbers, farmers, painters, and those in industries that produce metals, plastics, electronics, rubber and textiles are just a few examples of workers who are at risk. Asthma-causing substances are also commonly found in most cleaning products, including those found in most workplaces and homes.

The Canadian Lung Association reports that three million Canadians are suffering from asthma, and 25% of them have symptoms that are triggered or made worse by exposure in the work environment. That means hundreds of thousands of workers are affected. In addition, they report that up to 15% of new asthma cases are caused by workplace exposures.

There needs to be greater effort on the part of workplaces to either eliminate these substances or minimize worker exposure to them. The TURI report identifies more than 300 different chemicals, and that information should be used to develop strategies for replacing substances with those less harmful, and to isolate those that can’t be replaced, in order to reduce exposure.

In Ontario, occupational health and safety law requires that employers take steps to protect workers from harmful substances, and it gives workers the right to know about hazardous substances through the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). The province’s new Toxics Reduction Act (TRA) may also prove useful in safeguarding workers and the public from harmful substances including those linked with asthma.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) is currently working to develop regulations that effectively implement of the Toxics Reduction Act, and those regulations should be completed this fall. In the meantime, it would be a good idea for supervisors to read . Slated for completion in the fall of 2009, the content and enforcement of these regulations will help determine how effective the legislation will be.

For our part, the Workers Health & Safety Centre has developed information resources and training programs to help workers, joint committee members and others better understand how to identify and eliminate exposure to harmful chemicals including asthma-causing substances.

Supervisors should read the Massachusetts report, as well as the Toxics Reduction Act, and the WHSC asthma fact sheet, in order to prepare for the new regulations coming down the pike. TURI also a database of potential cleaning solution alternatives that could be helpful.

Asthma is an increasingly common disease, and workplaces will have to prepare to stem the tide very soon. It’d be best to prepare now for the changes that are coming.

The Canadian Agricultural Safety Association has launched a yearlong campaign stressing the importance of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), with the theme, “PPE only works if you use it!” And while the message is directed to farm workers, there are lessons to be learned by workers in other fields, as well.

The campaign’s message operates on two levels. The first is to encourage workers to think through their work before starting it, in order to anticipate and correct any hazards that might occur. The second level encourages workers to ensure correct access, use and fit of personal protective equipment, if needed.

When a worker identifies a hazard, according to the campaign, there are several things a worker might be able to do, in order to correct it. They can redesign the set-up to eliminate the hazard; they can use less dangerous materials; they can change the equipment; or they can establish administrative controls or safety rules. When those steps are either impossible to implement, or they don’t eliminate the hazard, then personal protective equipment should be used to reduce the hazard to acceptable levels.

The campaign points out that the definition of “acceptable level of hazard” is different for each person, and will depend on the physical capabilities of the individual worker, as well as their work experience and training. The campaign stresses the importance of ensuring that workers are properly trained to do their job, and that such training is properly documented. Personal protective equipment is the last line of defense when it comes to safety.

It is not only farm workers who should be using personal protective equipment, and use it properly. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has compiled detailed, workplace-specific information on nearly every type of PPE available here.

I remember in my old shop class, we had a rack of safety goggles hanging up on wooden pegs on a board by the table saw. At the start of the class, there was always a race to the board to grab the best goggles. We had a few newer ones in good condition, the plastic was clear, the elastic bands were nice and snug, and there was no chance of them slipping and sliding all over your face, and the rest were uh… Covered in scratches, yellow and cloudy with age, and with straps that barely held the goggles on your face, much less in one spot.

Luckily, I never witnessed anyone “poking an eye out” as a result of these shoddy old safety goggles, but I have to say, that’s probably not how I’d run a shop class. The oldest goggles, you could barely see through them in the first place, and it wasn’t uncommon to see other students propping them up on their foreheads so they could actually see what they were doing.

I don’t know if the money wasn’t in the school’s budget to replace those old goggles, or if they just never got around to it, but either way, a few of the smarter kids in the class actually started bringing their own safety goggles from home.

Something I recommend a lot of workers do is simply provide their own hard hat, goggles, steel toe boots, gloves, whatever safety equipment they need, even if their employer usually provides them. I mean, this is your head on the line, literally.

Besides just making sure that your equipment is up to date, sturdy, and fits you well, there are a few other reasons to pack your own safety equipment and keep it up to date…

It’s common practice on construction sites, in power plants, etcetera, to keep a stock of “loaner” goggles and hats for anyone who forgets to bring their own. One construction site I visited actually ordered hot pink hardhats to easily mark the jokers who forgot to bring their own. Needless to say, after a week or so of that, they didn’t wind up having to loan many more of them out. That was probably the only time I ever saw construction workers whistling and cat calling at their fellow handymen.

According to a new survey released by Kimberly-Clark Professional, U.S. workers are risking workplace injuries by not complying with important safety procedures. And there are indications that the problem may be inadequate safety training programs and resources, due to economic cutbacks.

The survey found that 89 percent of safety professionals polled at the 2008 National Safety Council (NSC) Congress have observed workers failing to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when they should have been. At the same time, the survey found that just over one-third of respondents (34%) claimed that the bad economy had affected worker safety programs and resources. Additionally, 27% of respondents cited insufficient management support and/or resources for health and safety functions, 14% cited under-reporting of workplace injuries and illnesses, and 5% cited escalating worker compensation costs.

Of the respondents citing the economy as a factor, 63% said they had less money for education and training; 42% claimed that the economic downturn had led to fewer safety personnel, and 33% cited business concerns taking precedence over safety concerns.

If business concerns indeed take precedence over safety concerns in the modern workplace, someone should remind companies in the United States, and elsewhere, that work-related injuries cost businesses more than $50 billion per year.

This year’s survey also polled safety professionals about the steps they have taken or intend to take to encourage greater PPE compliance. The top response was “improving existing education and training programs,” followed by “purchasing more comfortable PPE.” Increased monitoring of employees was third, followed by tying compliance to individual performance evaluations and purchasing more stylish PPE.

This year respondents were asked to describe their personal safety philosophy from a list of choices. Two responses tied for first place: “Safety doesn’t cost it pays” and “Organizations must create safety based cultures” (43 % each). Only 10% selected the statement “Safety begins and ends at the top,” while only 2% chose “Safety is a pain, but so is my boss.”

If economic conditions can have a serious impact on safety in the United States, is it possible for Canada to experience the same sort of inattention to safety at times when its economy isn’t in great shape?

This is worth talking about because, if you work in an industrial environment (and you like your skull just the way it is), you wear a hard hat, and the hard hat actually has some neat history behind it. With that in mind, I figured a Brief History of the Hard Hat might make for an interesting read. Consider it a little known piece of job safety trivia you can use to impress people with the next time you’re at a party with nothing to say.

Here’s something not everybody knows; the famous German author Franz Kafka (he wrote “Metamorphosis”, the one about the guy who gets turned into a bug) actually began his professional life as an insurance officer. While he didn’t much care for the ten hour workdays, which interfered with his writing, he managed to make a name for himself in the field, nonetheless.

While working at the insurance offices, he noticed that most worker’s claims involved head injury from falling objects. So, he invented the hard hat (and saved his insurance company a lot of money).

These first models weren’t quite as we know them today, of course. The first hard hats were actually made of leather, until E.D. Bullard, owner of a California mining equipment company, took a look at his son’s helmet he had brought home from WWI. In 1919, Bullard came up with the so called “Hard-Boiled Hat”. This was made of little more than steamed canvas and glue, but served as a lightweight, strong shell. Shortly after, Bullard was commissioned by the US Navy to create a protective cap for shipyard workers, and from there, the use of hard hats just kept spreading.

The first construction site usage of the hard hat was in 1933, on the construction of none other than the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. From thereon, we’ve seen aluminum hard hats in 1938, fiberglass, in the 1940’s, and finally thermoplastics hard hats, starting in the 1950’s.

It’s kind of funny to think, though, that one of the most iconic symbols of tough guys working hard was invented by a skinny German author who hated his job.

NEWMARKET, ON, June 13 /CNW/ – A Concord, Ontario, company has been fined $120,000 in the Ontario Court of Justice in connection with an injury to a dump truck driver.

Justice of the Peace F. M. Camposano sentenced Con-Strada Construction Inc., on June 4, 2008, following a trial and conviction, October 31, 2007, on three violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Court heard that on February 5, 2003, a dump truck driver employed by Con-Strada lost an arm and suffered abdominal burns when the worker’s arm became caught in the rotating auger of a salt spreader on the back of a dump truck. The worker had returned to the workplace yard to dump a large quantity of salt from the dump truck at shift’s end. The worker shovelled the salt while the auger was running. The worker became caught in the machinery.

Con-Strada Construction Inc was found guilty, as an employer, of:

· Failing to ensure the auger was cleaned only when motion that endangered the worker was stopped, as prescribed by section 75 of Ontario Regulation 851. This was contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act;

· Failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect the health or safety of the worker in the cleaning of the auger, contrary to section 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

· Failing to ensure the auger was guarded by a guard or other devices that prevented access to the moving part, as prescribed by section 24of Ontario Regulation 851. This was contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge on the total, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

Accidents, that could have been prevented, happen everyday. Safety must always be considered when working with or around heavy equipment. Operations involving heavy equipment must ALWAYS be done by highly skilled, competent operators who have the knowledge and skills to operate the machine safely. Here are a few safety tips to keep your workers safe!

· Communication: It is extremely important that both the machine operator and the signal person understand the hand signals that are to be used. Operators should also know exactly where all ground based workers are located. It is also recommended that workers wear high visibility vests as this will help the operator to locate them quickly. Equipment should be equipped with a backup alarm that can be heard by all workers.

· Roll-Over Protective Structure (ROPS): The ROPS is designed to protect the operators cab in the event of a vehicle rollover and to protect the cab from falling objects. A seat belt must always be worn so that the operator will not be thrown out of the seat during a rollover. Operators should never try to jump or “clear” the machine should a tip-over occur, 98% of the time they will get crushed by the ROPS.

· Regularly Inspect and Service Equipment: It is important that operators always take the time to thorough inspect their machine before operating, this will ensure their safety and the safety of other around them. It will also maximize machine life while reducing maintenance expenses.

There is something in this picture….but there should be a person attached to it??

And this picture is an easyone…..I know…it was hot…and you can’t make them wear it….can you?