NOTE: This document is provided for historical purposes only.
Presentation by Chico McGill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
MR. CIMMINO: I'll introduce our first speaker, William or Chico McGill, as he likes to be called, is a Safety Committee Chairman as well as the Assistant Business Manager for Local Union 733 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representing over 1,800 electrical workers at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi. He has been in his current position since 1987, and he has been associated with the Union for the past 22 years.
He has served as an instructor for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in OSHA and injury reporting, hazard communication community right to know, accident investigation, basic industrial hygiene and asbestos in the workplace. In addition, he has actively aided the National Safety Council Labor Division by assisting in the rewriting of the book and home study course called "Protecting Workers' Lives." He is a long time member of the National Safety Council Labor Division and has received the Outstanding Service to Safety Award in 1990 as well as the Distinguished Service to Safety Award in 1994.
He is currently on the Board of Directors of the National Safety Council representing the labor division of which he is the current Vice Chairperson as well as a member of the Executive Board of Labor Division. In 1993, the President of the IBEW appointed Chico to the National Shipbuilding Research Program, Ship Production Panel Number 5 which is Human Resources Innovation. In February 1995, Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, appointed Chico to the Maritime Advisory Committee to OSHA.
When the committee was again rechartered, he was again appointed to serve as labor representative on the committee. I'd like you all to welcome Chico McGill.
MR. McGILL: Thank you, Dan. I appreciate that introduction. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding our industry and ergonomic programs and their successes, especially along with such distinguished colleagues as Karl and Dan. I do have some handouts in the back. Feel free to pick them up at any time.
The ability to drive down our workers health and safety costs to the employer, to aid and implementing solutions to help detract from or in fact eliminate the employees' pain and suffering physically, mentally as well as economically, and at the same time to create the environment that gives our workers the safe and healthful culture in their every day work life, is nothing but positive for all parties and is the driving concern of labor representatives. This not only increases our ability to be more productive in doing the work but also aids in our ability to be more competitive in the bidding processes due to lower compensation costs.
The Union has a definite interest in seeing that these things come to play. If we have work that has been gained at competitive bidding, then not only is management the benefit but labor to benefits by having their bargaining unit employees active and employed and thus, also contributing to the collective bargaining process. When this is achieved with the reduction of injuries and illness, then we, both labor and management, have fulfilled our moral responsibility to our workers. Safety and health is the most common ground that we can agree on.
It's affects are felt both by labor and management economically in a most positive manner. Dollar saved, productivity gain and it affects the culture of our workers with a positive message of concern for their interest and well being. I must tell you that sometimes throughout the outline and just say how I feel and be brutally frank about it. So I feel that I should tell you a little bit about myself and where I get my opinions and concerns, and that way you'll see where I form, where my conversation comes from today.
I'm known to my friends in the industry as Chico as you already know. And I've been employed at Ingalls Shipbuilding and the Ship Repair industry since 1974 after completing a tour in the military. I entered shipbuilding during its time of intense buildup. Ingalls at that time employing some 23,000 workers under cost plus contract. In a primarily government contract-based shipyard, I have also seen the industry in its years of decline.
During low times, I worked in other industries such as construction, being a framing carpenter in the chemical industry where, as a maintenance electrician, I learned and became interested in safety issues. In that position, working in a team concept participation management style work site, from 1980 to 1984, I formed strong opinions relating to employee involvement and the positive effect it can have on the company in the workplace, especially on safety issues.
The employers I worked with had a sense of feeling that I call "ownership in their surroundings and responsibilities." When the focus was on achieving things as a team or unit, I, personally as a worker, experienced a very positive environment.
As you know, I'm presently the Assistant Business Manager and Safety Representative for our Local. I've held that position for over nine years. I have the privilege of representing the electricians along with Rick Tira at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula. In this position, I've also been the Local Union Representative at the Labor Division of the National Safety Council. It's exposed me to many success stories of union involvement in safety programs that have led to solutions regarding ergonomic problems.
The United Auto Workers, together with Ford Motor Company and their "Fitting Jobs To People" commitment, made during their 1987 collective bargaining agreement, is one of those instances. It called for a joint effort to reduce injuries and illnesses through the implementation of ergonomic principles on the job and in job design. In the agreement, the formation and training of jointly administered local ergonomics committees were agreed to and implemented.
They also developed an "Ergonomics Process Jog Improvement Guide." It listed the effects of poor job design, identified priority jobs, evaluated job stresses, developed solutions and implemented those solutions and documented the effects of those efforts, as well as the follow up to those things. From the top down, they committed to the necessary training to improve ergonomic problems. This commitment continues today.
The International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers at Boeing in their joint labor/management committees have addressed areas in the aircraft industry. In my home state, the Boilermakers have teamed with management in a boiler plant to address ergonomic needs.
In addressing ergonomic issues at home, on incident stands out most in my mind and that's of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Their struggle over ergonomic concerns in the catfish industry led to a formal complaint and citations being issued. In addressing the concerns in that issue, it is my understanding some jobs were replaced automated cutters and many design changes to jobs and tooling for jobs occurred. Also, interesting on the side of the ergonomic coin, is the efforts the company went through to find someone medically qualified who could evaluate and reach decisions on illnesses, injuries of ergonomic concern and issue. So the treatment could be had that identified those traumas.
I also sit on the Maritime Advisory Committee to OSHA as one of two representatives of labor and serve as Vice-Chairperson of the National Shipbuilding Research Program Ship Production Panel 5, Human Resource Innovation.
Because of my participation with the National Shipbuilding Research Program and the Labor Division of the National Safety Council, I feel from a labor perspective that in our country and in our industry, we, labor and management are moving forward in addressing the ergonomic, health and safety issues as well as repeated trauma disorders. These groups have helped formulate where I feel we are in the industry regarding ergonomics.
It is important to consider my relationship as a representative with our employer and our contractual environment and plant culture to understand my impressions of what we at Ingalls, labor and management, have done since I first heard the word ergonomics and became responsible for it some nine years ago. The positive side is where I believe, we at Ingalls, are going at this point in our labor management relationship concerning safety issues.
Our source of influence into safety and health problems at Ingalls is our contract. This establishes a joint safety and health committee and gives us direct input into the review of plant safety problems and procedures. It ensures our being able to give input and make recommendations for change in safety and health matters. For example, in 1990, we were very effective in reducing foot related injuries when we agreed to and aided in the writing of the company's Safety Shoe Program.
This required the proper foot protection described as steel-toed leather shoes with uppers, dependent on the job classification, six to eight inches for welders, be worn in any production area, and that would be shops, ships, sub-assembly, platens, wet docks, warehouses, steel yards, tool rooms, launch pontoon, also the training center, in any posted foot hazard area as well as any job site outside of the Ingalls confines where Ingalls has a contract and work is being done.
The initial cost to implement that program as well as providing safety shoes to all the employees at half price was reportedly around $260,000. That initial investment was recovered in the first six to nine months of the program, and this was six years ago. The incidence of foot injuries has been drastically reduced and is almost the situation that very seldom occurs at Ingalls.
Since 1989, we also have a "Work Restriction Program" in place. The program places employees with restrictions due to industrial related injuries and illnesses in temporary light duty classifications. The temporary duties are framed around the employees' ability to perform job functions with the restrictions imposed. This is only for a set number of weeks and can only be extended with approval of the Director of Industrial Relations Services.
In our bargaining unit, safety and labor has gotten together and collectively reviewed work sites. Some years ago, they reviewed the Identification Nameplate Operation in our --- shop. We looked at the aspects of lifting, lighting, bench work, and made some improvements with the aid of the companies industrial hygienist, Randy Abrams, who happen to come from the steel industry, and after being laid off, pursued industrial hygiene. He was very sensitive to the workers and what the workers' were. Coming from the steel industry, he also had a good feel for how to adjust things for the worker.
Our installing components in the overheads of the ships we build, by doing them inverted or upside down, has reduced having to place the employee's torso in hyper-extended positions such as reaching overhead on ladders. This has, I know as a craftsman, reduced strain and stress on employees making a safer way to perform their tasks in the building of our ships. This is based on my personal knowledge, having performed work as a combination electrician in the shipyard.
The company has designed and produced job safe practice work sheets to explain the proper way to perform cable pulling tasks and provide back supports, explaining what the supports are intended to do in aiding the employee, noting that support belts are just something to be worn when needed and considered as a tool and not something that you wear every day all the time.
I'm sorry I don't have figures of compensation costs or savings as a result of measures implemented at Ingalls. However, I'm sure if you contact my counterpart, Glen Harris, whose address and phone number is on my references and handout, he'll be glad to discuss with you how we've impacted compensation costs at Ingalls Shipbuilding.
Do I, as a safety representative, feel we're doing all we can to address ergonomic issues at the company? No, I don't. Do I feel that my company is moving in a positive manner and direction that will lead us to address those matters more significantly in the future? Yes, I do. And let me give you an example how. Ingalls is a company that is changing, changing it's culture and how it does business. They have invested, I would say at this point, hundreds of thousands of dollars in, what I call, personal enhancement training or covey training, Seven Habits of Effective Leadership.
It teaches people how to treat others as they would like to be treated, noting that the benefits of those which enhances productivity in a working environment. Communication skills and commitment to word are part of the new culture. As is stated in the Mission Statement at Ingalls: "To our employees, our greatest asset, we commit to open communication, team work, mutual trust, respect, recognition and opportunities for personal growth." This, my friends, is a changing culture. We, in labor, hope to add to these positive changes. Let me give you an example of how we've done that.
Currently, Ingalls Safety Department, with the involvement of craft management and labor representation, has established a steering committee to present to executive levels of management a proposal that would establish teams of a mix of craft management, safety personnel and craft employees to target safety and health concerns and aid in the elimination of hazards in the teams particular workplace or craft. Proposed training in the area of hazard evaluation and job design, with direct input and aid from the safety department to the teams, will enable them to address specific hazards such as ergonomic problems.
The Safety Department will make available to these teams information on industrial illnesses and injuries. Areas of repeated occurrences can be evaluated for causal factors and addressed for recommendations for improvement. This is currently being drafted and created for recommendation as we speak here today. I feel this is a very positive step in addressing the concerns that we have here today as well as the concerns that I have back in my company.
I've discussed first-hand knowledge of my company, and I've told you of learning experiences from other organizations to the National Safety Council. But the most profound conclusions that I have reached have come from my involvement with the National Shipbuilding Research Program. It receives its funding through DOD's Advanced Research Project or ARP. It consist of eight Ship Production Panels, the one I served on being Human Resource Innovation. There are several observations to be gained through the projects this panel has covered.
This panel is made up of management personnel directly responsible for human resources in their yards as well as management safety and health personnel, along with labor in the form of myself and other experienced shipyard craftsmen from various international Unions such as the Pipefitters, the Boilermakers, the Machinist, to name but a few. I must not forget we have consultant groups, participants from NIOSH, OSHA, the Maritime Standards Group and also participation from the Navy.
Shipyards from both the Shipbuilders Council of America and the American Shipbuilders Association also are representative on the committee. The purpose of this group is to examine both content and process in the realm of human resource innovation, to recommend projects that will aid in the study of human resource innovations in the country today and to disseminate new managerial practices and organizational concepts developed for implementation with the United States Shipyard.
A project completed by this group and published in 1991, 0318, is titled "The Survey: The Principal Elements of Ship Safety Programs of Nine Major American Shipyard." The purpose of the project was to collect detailed information on the principle elements of safety programs in the nine participating yards. Identify core elements common to the most programs, identify the managerial philosophies, provide base-line information for comparison by others in the industry, and bring about the awareness of new initiatives.
Unfortunately, in the report, there are only a few references that would be considered to touch ergonomic concerns. One that does is a new work facility design or improvement of existing facilities. While seven have what would be considered qualified management or engineering personnel evaluate those designs for safety, the rest do not. Employees who are subject to these changes are not asked to evaluate the design. This illustrating to me that while we talked about ergonomics at that time, we, in the industry, had, in my opinion, not yet placed it on the front burner.
Other SP-5 projects have also addressed safety issues. In 1987, a project titled "Organizational Innovations in Shipyard Safety" was published. It evaluated the ability of small work teams to identify and find solutions for safety related problems in the shipyard environment. While effective, the report indicates the group selected contained no craft employees, with maybe the exception of a lead man. Once again, effective, but even though some efforts to work design reduced some problems, ergonomics was not the principle concern.
The project that starts to generate employee participation was in June of 1990 published by the NSRP, and it addresses directly employee involvement in safety action teams and illustrates their successes in some ergonomic areas so much so that the teams were decided to keep going even after the project was completed. I still, however, feel that the importance of the issue was not realized by the industry as a whole until the proposed development of the General Industry Standard directed at the subject of ergonomics.
At our SP-5 Panel meetings, it became apparent to me how a proposed standard such as the General Industry Standard would affect our already declining shipbuilding industry. It was also made apparent too, I might add, by the construction industry, as well as our industry, that because of our particular methods of construction, unlike manufacturing industries, which are due to postures, temperatures, working conditions and the entire shipbuilding process, the requirements of a standard, as had been proposed, would be too demanding on the industry considering the criteria outlined in most signal risk factors.
It would be almost impossible to comply within our industry and would be most cost prohibitive. Having been made aware of such concern in 1995, the SP-5 Panel recommended a project abstract be drafted and approved for submission which was titled "Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Ergonomic Study." That was developed and was to be pursued by Bath Iron Works. The purpose of the project was to address areas in shipbuilding and ship repair that fall out of the scope of controlled environments such as shops or workbenches.
Identifying the fact that once construction begins on the ship itself, the environmental control become almost impossible to implement. The project was to help identify alternative methods for our industry. The first project I had known to address solely ergonomics in shipbuilding. Since the ergonomics standard dies, the project was not pursued. However, I am glad to say that at the last SP-5 Panel meeting, there was subcommittee formed by Chuck Rupy, the Chairman, to address safety problems in shipbuilding.
They have asked that that project be revisited, and Bath Iron Works has been asked to resubmit it to be proposed and to be followed up on. Also of interest is the article in this months "Safety and Health Magazine" published by the National Safety Council. Patrick Tyson, who spoke earlier today, was the acting head of OSHA in the Regan administration. He wrote the article and it was titled simply "Brace Yourself for the Return of Ergonomics."
It basically states that cumulative trauma disorders seem to be climbing. The problem is becoming more recognized by health and safety professional, such as us here today, and the article further states that it is believed that we may have a standard developed that will be more acceptable to the business community than the original proposed standard. The same original proposed standard that, to this speaker, brought the ergonomic issue to the front of the plate.
In summation, let me say I feel we, both labor and management, have come to a point that we are working and should be together to reach an agreement on the subject of ergonomics. I feel that NSRP, in the form of the SP-5 Panel, has brought the industry in focus, ready to do research on the issue, ready to give us a better understanding of the vast needs and issues of ergonomics.
We must remember to address this issue, the shop floor is a where a whole resource of information lies. The idea of accomplishments and successes achieved by other industries in ergonomics should influence us in the industry. We, both labor and management, must strive to cooperate, learn and adjust to the directions that will strengthen our worker base through truly making a safer and healthier work place.
Do I feel that we, both labor and management, as an industry, have addressed ergonomics issues? Yes, but not in the manner in which we are today. Do I feel that we are going to address the issues the same tomorrow? No, I feel that we're making positive steps to address it better in the future.
Thank you very much.
MR. CIMMINO: Thank you, Chico.
