Comments by AKSafety - Las Vegas Sun

Comments by user: AKSafety

Your very first number is woefully wrong to start with. It doesn't include the cost of first aid incidents and it does not factor in the indirect costs of work stoppage, work slowdown (workers typically work at a slower pace when a co-worker is injured), incident investigation, injury reporting and recordkeeping, increased workers' compensation premiums that can affect payment levels for up to five years, etc. It is estimated that the indirect costs of an injury can amount to three times that of the injury itself.

Then you need to take into consideration that companies with a strong safety program typically have a lower deficiency rate in their products and services. Quality and safety improvements usually go hand in hand.

Even an industry that you wouldn't normally think of had a positive cost result from the implementation of a strong safety program; the Los Angeles Greater School District lowered overall costs while improving student test scores. The savings more than covered the cost of additional staff, training and equipment.

OSHA only exists because many companies are only doing the absolute minimum (or less) to comply with the law/regulations. OSHA wouldn't need to exist if every company voluntarily did what was necessary to provide a safe, healthy, productive and profitable work place.

(Suggest removal) 12/3/08 at 9:55 a.m.

Posted on: Worker safety eroded during the Bush years

Hmmm. While I might agree that Pres. Bush has not advanced OSHA, I have to, in the purpose of fairness, point out that both the House and the Senate introduced the "Protecting America's Workers Act" (HR2049 & S1244) in April of 2007. The purpose of the acts are to revamp OSHA, improve regulations and increase the financial and criminal penalties for violations. Please make special note that both bills were sent to committee 3 months after introduction where no further action has occured in almost one and a half years. There is enough blame here to go around without regard to party affiliation or level of office.

(Suggest removal) 12/2/08 at 9:59 a.m.