NOTE: This document is provided for historical purposes only.
Question and Answer Session
DR. ORTA-ANES: Can we get the lights, please? I guess we will open the floor now to question and answers.
Q : Lida, are we to assume that the recommendations generated from the participating team were exactly that of the non-participating employee team or were the same modifications, recommendations and changes exactly the same for both teams?
DR. ORTA-ANES: No, different. I didn't have enough time to describe the whole study, but they had different agendas. In the participatory plant, jobs that were going to be identified from the injury records. So it was kind of a plan-wide effort. In the non-participatory plant, the committee decided to target their efforts in just one area that the industrial engineer has been working with all along. So they have different agendas on both teams. They were able to get recommendations for implementations for their respective agendas though.
Q: Hi. My name is Greg Wynne. I am with Midas International. I wanted to get some input as to how we might inspire confidence among the workers to involve themselves in a medical management portion of an ergonomics program, as opposed to their own personal physicians maybe suggesting radical surgeries and things like that prior to conservative treatment directed by the program.
DR. ORTA-ANES: Anybody?
MR. STENTZ: I think you should. That is a corporate question.
MR. GILLESPIE: The buck stops here. It is a difficult question because I presume you are in a state where the employee has the right to select a physician. Is that correct? Terry indicated that we involve the plant, in the plant the community, medical people. I don't know how large a community you have or what the selections are or choices available. If you involve the medical community in your program and get their buy in to it, it is a natural, I think, following that the doctors will buy into and not be as interested in performing what I will call radical response to maybe a non-surgical intervention.
I hope I am making sense to you, but it is a tough one. You really need to go out and work with the medical community. Get them to recognize the programs you are developing. Also understand the type of work that the employee is being requested to do. Does the type of work match the physical symptoms or subjective complaints of the patient?
Q: Actually, that is more of the root of the problem a lot of times. It seems that the employees intentionally seek out medical professionals who may attribute their symptoms to work, whether or not it is work related, you know. So they are looking for professionals that would, by nature, conflict with ours.
MR. GILLESPIE: They are either looking for or being directed to by their friendly representative attorney.
Q: Exactly. Exactly.
MR. GILLESPIE: Under most state laws -- and I am not familiar with all 50 states, but under most state laws manufacturer employers have a right to a second surgical or a second opinion. Certainly where you can help may be to control the surgeries is by utilizing that service or that opportunity. That is not an easy answer. There is no easy answer. The work comp. clause has always been interpreted liberally. It is defined that way in the law in most states, and therefore, you have just got to do whatever you can do to manage in advance. Again, our success has been in involving the medical community.
Q: My name is Chico Mcgill. I am with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and I represent electricians at Ingles Shipbuilding in Mississippi. Just in support of what you just said, one of the things that we did at our facility was to get the doctors in the local area to actually come into the shipyard. We bus them in, and we let them actually tour the facility and see employees at work on the job and some of the problems that you have when those type of things exist. Basically, what it did was it gave them a lot better understanding of what shipbuilding is and that type of industry and some of the radical problems that you have, contorting, crawling through ships and doing what you have to do in the inner bottoms. So that proved to be very successful, and I agree with what you are saying there.
It still doesn't prevent employees for shopping for certain representatives that have another interest in mind, though. That is for sure. Something else I wanted to ask you about was in your leadership training in the last presentation, is any communication skills part of that leadership training, and are all team members put through that training?
DR. ORTA-ANES: The leadership training only included the subcommittee members and the key managers of the facility. This is intended to outline and make the action plan, and that is about the extent of that leadership training. We do that at the level of the job analysis training. This is a training that is specifically targeting the committee members. We want to make them fluent in the job analysis tools. We want to be able to perform a walk-through the facility and identify problems in the shop floor and know what to do about controlling those risk factors. So those skills are at the job training, job analysis training level.
Q: How easy was it to bring people up to the same level, a far as communicating the idea of ergonomics out in the field?
DR. ORTA-ANES: Well, we did awareness level training throughout all of the facilities, and because we wanted to control how much information employees had for this study, we did not go farther than that. In the real situations, day by day situations, what we do is we will do that awareness level throughout the facility, and it will be a more extended type of training and we will follow-up with committee member's other concerns that individuals may have because they see people looking at jobs. They see the videotaping camera. They ask questions. So we will encourage the committee members to actually go out and do the role of facilitators and talk to people and try to get their concerns out as well.
Q: Thank you.
DR. ORTA-ANES: Sure.
Q: I am Susan Moyer, the Director of the Construction Occupational Health Project which does ergonomics with building trades workers in Boston. I have two questions. One thing that I wanted to mention first off of the last question was -- I guess this is a comment on the whole panel. I came to ergonomics from employee involvement. I was a bus driver for 15 years, and that is how I got into this. I ran our ergonomics program.
What I think is not represented on the panel is the extent to which there are employee or worker run ergonomics programs. Our program was entirely run by the union members, and there was an open seat on the committee for management, which never came, unless we invited them for a specific purpose. We had our own meetings. We ran our own programs. We did our own job analysis. We write our own reports. We present them directly to the bus company and to the people who they contract with. So I just think the panel was unbalanced in that way. We have only seen one version of what employee involvement means. In many cases, employees are not being invited to participate as team members but are creating the entire program.
Additionally, I wanted to add from the management representatives from Farmland and Eaton, after your initial reference to the United Food and Commercial Workers, Mr. Gillespie, there is no mention of union. Now, I assume actually -- am I right when I assume that the union selects the members, and then the psychological approach of how to work with people is selective. You don't get to select. Does the union select the representatives to your ergonomics program, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: We are a non-union site.
Q: How can you have teams in non-unions?
MR. ANDERSON: We have probably 75 percent of our teams that are operator led teams.
Q: Do they meet separately?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
Q: Isn't this in violation of collective bargaining? I don't know. I am not up to date on this. I think this is in violation of Labor Law. I mean, I don't understand how you can do that. Isn't that a company union?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
Q: What state are you in, again?
MR. ANDERSON: Nebraska.
Q: Well, in Massachusetts, you wouldn't be able to do your model. I think that it is a problem because this is a paternalistic model. Who has the power? You use terms like "using folks" and "making decisions and selecting" that really indicate that the power is on one side. The people commonly have input. They can give their opinions, but what happens when an operator led committee decides something that management doesn't want to do? Who makes the ultimate decision?
MR. ANDERSON: I think it is a mutual agreement, if it is the right decision to be made. I guess when those teams meet, if they choose to have management, engineers, whoever they want on the team, they can invite to that team. I mean, there can be a team made up of several different backgrounds.
Q: Well, I just raised this as a policy issue maybe more for OSHA and VPP and what it is going to mean when we have a standard that mandates employee involvement. I mean, I think it is a real problem if the employees do not have their own organization and if they are participating in another management structure. Finally, is that signatory to UFCW contracts?
MR. ANDERSON: Most plants are.
Q: Well, then I guess my next question then, differently, to go off to something else is: Ron, you indicated that you historically placed the roots of this in the concession battles in the early 80's and the dark ages of downsizing and then went on to talk about how many management responsibilities workers have taken on. Lean and mean management means that somebody has to take up some of the functions that are not being done and a lot of teamwork means that workers begin to pick up some of the responsibilities, extra work load.
I am not against this myself, and I am kind of a conservative on this issue because I think some of these employers make work which can be very tedious. I mean, I did a job that was extremely tedious, and part of the reason I got into ergonomics is it made my job much more interesting. I mean, you know, if you do something for 15 years it is pretty routine, you know. You get the kids. You pick them up. You take them to school. You pick the kids up. You take them home. So I think employee involvement -- and I am not against it -- I think it can make people's work much more interesting, but my question is: Are people being compensated for it? How much of the wage has gone up in the red meat industry to compensate people for picking up extra work load by picking up management functions? Have the wages gone up to reflect this extra work load?
MR. GILLESPIE: Obviously, I think you probably know the answer to that question.
Q: I don't really because I don't know anything about red meat.
MR. GILLESPIE: Unions, by their nature, are required to have contracts, right?
Q: Yes.
MR. GILLESPIE: And the wages are negotiated. So whatever wage increases have been made have been through the negotiation process.
Q: Is it on the table that people are picking up -- I mean, is this seen as extra work? Is it on the table so that people can negotiate added compensation? MR. GILLESPIE: No, ma'am, it is not perceived as extra work.
Q: Well, that may be a problem with the UFCW. If anybody were here, I would say that to them. That should be on the table. This is more work to function on the teams and to do management work.
MR. GILLESPIE: I would like to propose to you that if you were to ask the majority of our employees whether they consider this as work, versus, I think, what as indicated as really fun, they enjoy the involvement.
Q: Management knows management is fun, and they call it work and get paid for it.
MR. GILLESPIE: Quite frankly, I enjoy my work. I look at it as fun.
Q: Yes, and you get paid for it, even though you think it is fun. So that is a red herring. Okay, thank you.
DR. ORTA-ANES: Any other question or comment?
Q: I have a comment and a question. My name is Roosevelt Broadnax. I am from United Union of Leader Trades Industrial and Textile Employees. Just to comment at the young lady, (woman comments that she is not so young) I would think we are young until you get so old so you can't do anything else. I am going to be young. I thing the issue here is very important and it is not in contradiction to my union belief because if I had my way, I say every company should be unionized. I think the issue is far too great and too important for us to say not to formulate any committees simply because you don't have a union. I think the worker involvement should be utilized to its maximum potential whenever and wherever it can be utilized, and when we do that we can begin to resolve some of those problems about our health and safety and how do we manage what is happening in our work force.
Certainly, unions have played a very vital, a very important role when it comes down to health and safety. I have been directly involved in a lot of these things, and one of my coworkers, Angie Rogers, can attest to that as well. So I think we do ourselves a disservice if we say we cannot, should not and will not utilize worker involvement simply because there is not a union there.
The question I do have, though, for Mick Anderson is this, and I certainly looked at your bottle example and I certainly believe very strongly that there are different segments and different people that become involved. My question to you is then how do we get that input from those people who sometimes are bottled up or who are sometimes slow about coming forth. You always have that person, and sometimes I kind of think of myself as being that wide mouth who always has something to say. But, how do you get the others to participate and come forth and share their ideas from time to time?
MR. ANDERSON: One of the things that we try to do with all our teams is take them through as much of an ergonomics training, a team leadership training for everybody so that everyone knows how to deal with other individuals and respect their thoughts and input on that and make it easier for everyone to participate in the team. That is a big part of the area that maybe I didn't get into which is the training that goes on in those individuals.
MR. GILLESPIE: If I may, I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I would echo the same thing. The team building training that goes on is as important probably as the understanding of the ergonomic principles and the role that the people in the team play. It is critical, and it does improve their ability to recognize the wide mouth, the big mouth or whatever you want to call them versus the small and to show respect for that difference.
Q: Chico McGILL, again, with the IBEW. I just want to make a couple comments based on some of the questions that have come from the floor. Also on some of my personal experiences right now, I am a member of the Maritime Advisory Committee. We are drafting the standard right now on safety standard programs for shipbuilding as well as the general industries, working on those and construction.
One of the things in there certainly that we have looked at and from the union perspective, myself, I understand that I would like to see every shop unionized too. That is something that union members strongly believe in, but employee participation is absolutely essential in any safety program that is put together. The shop floor is where you find your experts. You know, you can have people that are trained and qualified and titled and have Ph.D.s or whatever you want and have all of the vocabulary you need to speak on it, but the person that actually does the function, that does the movements is the person that can tell you the best thing that you need to do to solve the problems. Okay?
Now, in our situation down in Ingles, what we are doing is we are having our team members put together a little resume on themselves and what they feel they can do for the team and where they want to see safety improvements. It is going to be composed of six people, and it will be mainly union driven type programs, as far as the fact that they will select a member of management who will participate with them to get things done because of the fact that there has to be good communication and people have to feel comfortable with who they are with. A lot of these communication skills that I talked about earlier are some of the things that we are trying to teach people. We are putting them through Corey training, which is the Seven Habits of Effective Leadership, simply because of the fact that people have to know how to deal with people to communicate issues in a responsible way that people will respond to them. I think that is something that everybody will agree with.
As far as the law and as far as programs go and who selects what, the National Labor Relations Act basically says that as long as it is not a situation where the employer dominates the program, selects the members themselves and doesn't allow employees to select them and is basically setting up another collective bargaining process, than it is illegal. Other than that, you need to get your legal advice from your attorneys. Anyway, I appreciate the panel. Thank you.
DR. ORTA-ANES: I would like to make a comment before the next question. I want us to keep in perspective that we are talking about ergonomic processes here, and I think it is only fair to have the individual that is suffering for the bad design to participate in decisions about how to make improvements to that work station or to that job. Within that framework is what we want to discuss how we would like to use employee involvement. It is very important to have the information from that person as part of the decision making of what is going to happen with that job. That is mainly the issue that we are trying to stress in here, and hopefully that is what the panel has been trying to convey this morning.
Q: Hi, I am Jennifer Shishido with the State of Hawaii. I have one question. Ninety percent of our employers in this state are ten or less, of which four of them are family members. They are president and vice president, that type. So you have got six who are true employees. How do you get employee input and involvement when everyone of them is needed right there doing the job on a day to day basis or is the solution going to be formula driven? In other words, are the solutions going to be something that is found in the larger companies and then you just export it to the small? Does the small business have to just wait until these solutions come up? I am just kind of wondering what do you do about those type of businesses? Any ideas?
MR. STENTZ: I have some involvement with small business, and I know exactly the kinds of problems you describe. I think it isn't any different for small businesses, compared to big business, and it all boils down to leadership. Your leadership finds a way for that to happen, and in some respects with small business it is much easier to communicate. People are around more, and you have more personal contact with each other.
The problem in the small business that is family owned is that whoever leads that business has to convince the other family members that they are employees of that business and that their principle job is to perform as well or better than anybody else. Secondly, to help take care of the people that are in that small company. That is a leadership issue. I don't know if there is any cookbook method that I could give you, but it is back to leadership again.
Small companies face lots of research problems, and they have to be more creative in some respects compared to large companies. My view of small business, that is what is so great about it. It is very interesting to overcome these problems creatively.
Q: I wanted to ask a question. I thought it was very interesting in your presentation, Lida, about in the participatory process that you said there was equal participation of union members and the management members of the team. I was just wondering if the other panelists could comment on their numbers, in terms of the compositions of their committees.
MR. GILLESPIE: I will be happy to. It varies, but I guess if I were to sit and think of the 11 plants, probably we are averaging on an average of 80/20 union or operator, if you will, participation. What Terry talked about before, though, is done on a regular basis, and that is as needed, if we have people that have a specific knowledge, we will ask them to step into the meeting. So the makeup of the committee varies, but as far as input, 80/20 on any given meeting, I think. Terry, is that about right?
MR. STENTZ: I guess I could echo Ron. It varies from each project, but as I said, we probably have 80 percent of our employees on a team, and over 65 percent of those are led by hourly employees. So it definitely depends on the makeup of the project, the distribution of it.
MR. GILLESPIE: Should we go out in the snow?
DR. ORTA-ANES: Any other questions? Well, we do appreciate your patience and willingness to share with us your experiences as well. I hope that you enjoy the rest of the afternoon. Drive safely or fly safely.
