NOTE: This document is provided for historical purposes only.
Question and Answer Session
Q: Question for David Carroll. I'm wondering, in your compensation package for your employees, do you pay piece rate, is there a lot of O/T, and also is there any profit sharing or bonus paid to employees?
MR. CARROLL: We started a profit sharing program last year, and that has had a positive effect on people interested in saving money and doing their jobs better. In our small company, we have six paid holidays and two weeks' vacation; a pretty nice benefit package.
By the way, we are one of the major employers in Cabool with 100 people.
DR. RODGERS: Thank you. Other questions?
Q: My name is Laurie Kellogg from the Health and Safety department of UNITE! We represent workers in small factories in the apparel industry as well as large factories all over the country. And I guess I just want to ask a minute of indulgence to make a comment about what we see going on in small business and how that relates to this conference.
So let me just start by saying there are some voices that are not here at this conference. We started a support group for injured workers in New York City, and here's a few things that they said when they were asked to describe living with repetitive strain injuries:
"I cannot hold my chop stix, feed my baby, or dress myself. I have not slept through the night for two years. I walk around the house like a mad woman."
Another woman: "I have no feeling in my hands, and many times I've caught my hands on fire while trying to cook."
Another worker: "For 30 years, I gave my life to the job. Now I can't fulfill my duties as a wife and mother, and all I think about is how to end it all."
These are some of the workers, many of them are immigrants -- they're certainly low wage workers, and there are millions of them around the country who are not reporting these injuries, and their employers are not getting the message about ergonomics. But someone is paying for these injuries, and it's all of us. We're paying as taxpayers, because when these people can't work anymore, they have to go to some form of assistance.
They're not getting compensated in many cases by the worker's comp system, and Jonathan Dropkin here from Mount Sinai can give you a study that Mount Sinai did on how the comp system is treating these people. It's taking a year and a half for anybody to get any money; it's taking six months, eight months, ten months to get approval for physical therapy, or in the case of the State of Virginia, these injuries are not even recognized as work-related. What's happening to those people in Virginia? They're going on public assistance; we're all paying for it.
I realize a lot of this doesn't apply to everybody here, so that's why I wanted to say it.
In New York, 100 percent of carpal tunnel cases are rejected by the insurance companies, almost 100 percent. We've got a big problem, and I'm very inspired by a lot of what I've heard here. But in the case of many of our small employers, they will never do today what they can avoid until tomorrow, and to that end, I guess my comment is I really think it's incumbent on the progressive employers that I've heard from who have inspired me here. It's incumbent upon many of you to get involved in stopping the rhetoric.
Get on board with an ergonomics standard not because I want to go to 5,000 small factories and say "Hey, I'm going to call OSHA on you." I don't have any intention of doing that, that doesn't help me as a union person. But I do need to go to them and say "Get on board with ergonomics and partner with the union, because if you don't, some day OSHA could show up, and there is an ergonomics standard."
That's why we need a standard, because it sets out a guidepost and it reminds some employers, not you guys, but some employers, what they should be doing; gives us a way to talk about what they should be doing. And I also hope that many of the progressive employers here will kind of speak out more about what I think is the rip-off that's occurring from some insurance companies, ripping off of employers, workers and the public by not accepting these cases as work-related.
By the way, in the Mount Sinai study, it shows that of that 100, almost 100 percent of the cases that were rejected, a few years later we checked up -- they all went thru the court system, and guess what? They were all valid. Or most, 99 percent of them were valid.
But in the meantime, those workers got evicted. I found one of them living in his car. That's how bad it got.
DR. RODGERS: I want to thank you for your comments. What's terribly important to realize, as you said, is that we have the converted here rather than the unconverted. I know as a consultant, I don't get called in by the people you're talking about. The answer, I think, as you've suggested, is to use every available means of making sure that people who are not sensitive to these issues are not only made aware but held accountable for them. One thing I use myself, having done some courses for some major corporations here who have overseas plants, is to tell them that what I'm seeing particularly in the Far East and Asia is that they're doing a lot of these things right, and they are much more competitive by doing that. And, if these people are not going to move forward, they're not going to be around. So I think we're getting some help from the marketplace in the global economy in that sense.
Carol, did you want to say anything relative to the medical management on that one?
MS. STUART-BUTTLE: Well, I think that those sorts of cases, in my experience, have been not necessarily struggling with dealing with medical management, they are just not dealing with it. I think that's part and parcel of the problem. But, I think it's unfortunate that perhaps you have to also press the buttons that really make people wake up. That is to say that some of the points that Sue made, that you don't get the same quality from people who are hurting. And push the quality production aspect, and the benefits in the reversed sort of way. That's still downplaying the fact that people are injured, which is not a pleasant thing to be doing, I think. But if it gets ergonomics in there, and they begin to realize the benefit, and the people aren't injured, then you have still accomplished that goal.
DR. RODGERS: I think you may agree with me, too that some of these things go in cycles. I think we're in a bad cycle right now because of the downsizing, the stress on everybody, the high medical insurance costs, and things of that sort. I see people taking shortcuts who never took them before, partly because of those issues. With a lot of support from the people who are trying to make sure that these things are done right, we should get to a better part of the cycle pretty soon.
Is there any other question out there?
Q: I'm Carl Marion from Ergometrics in Eugene, Oregon. I have two questions for David. First of all, I'm really impressed with what you've done in your plant. I was wondering, first of all, did you use any kind of incentive program in conjunction with your safety committee awareness? And secondly, could you give us some ideas on any creative financing methods that you came up with to justify the scissor lifts and other equipment and worksite modifications?
MR. CARROLL: First of all, the incentive; we do have an innovation program; we pay it in $2 bills. It could be one $2 bill or up to a dozen $2 bills, which would equal $24 for ideas. And we encourage any kind of an idea; it can be a small one to a large one, but that's the range that we pay. And, that has got some enthusiasm going, I believe, on the safety issues, but it can be any idea as well. So the ones that are earmarked get a special plaque and award quarterly. At our annual banquet, we have a lot of recognition that we do for that kind of thing. So as far as dollars out, it's not very much compared to the recognition; you know, they get a parking place, there's a few things we do like that.
The second part of that is how we justify equipment and machinery and so forth. We just get to the place where we know we need a scissors lift, and we talk about it, what kind to buy. A lot of times we'll buy used equipment, but most of those, we just put in place. We know we need to have them; it's just like a dust collection system -- I don't know how you could ever justify a $200,000 dust collection system other than you just need to have a good environment. And you just need to have it cleaned, you need to get rid of the dust; I mean, it sure saves some sweeping and cleaning. Some issues like that now, some of the tables and some of those things, the teams can do themselves. They don't even have to ask management; they can just start and build those things and make those changes themselves.
Q: Sue, your handouts sold out pretty quick. Is there a way some more can get generated before the end of the day?
DR. RODGERS: It's going to be in the proceedings, and there may be a way, but I'd have to pay for them.
Q: There will be a proceedings?
DR. RODGERS: Yes. There are going to be and I've handed it in for the proceedings.
There will be some available; and if you're really hot to trot and you don't find one, I've got two up here. Okay?
Q: Rich Rebar from SmithKline Beecham.
Just a quick comment: I represent a large pharmaceutical manufacturing facility. I know that we're talking about small business, but we're not really that far apart, because we treat each of our facilities basically as a small business. They have their own management, their own staffing, their own problems. We have to approach them individually. So from the standpoint of looking at big business versus little business, we have a larger control over it, but we still have to approach them on a small business standpoint.
And to address an issue that the woman before brought up, we're talking about the U.S. and how the conditions are here. Think about Third World countries like India and Mexico, some of the very backwards countries. Our philosophy is that they're the same as us, and that they have to follow the same standards that we do; and we're trying to give them, the same level of help. So, realize it's not just in the U.S. that there's a problem with repetitive strain injuries, but more so with the Third World countries, because they don't have the option of equipment and that kind of stuff.
DR. RODGERS: I think that's why its exciting to see the creative solutions that come up when you don't have a budget. If somebody says they can't do ergonomics because they don't have any money, then they really haven't even tried. The creative solutions are the fun ones, and they are effective; and they involve the teamwork, as you were talking about, that gets you to where you need to get.
I can't tell you how many people I've seen who put in scissors lifts when all they needed was a fixed platform, a wooden platform to raise something. They weren't going to use the height adjustment; they just needed it higher. That's the difference between $200 and $5,000 in many cases, and you don't have to have as much guarding.
Other questions?
Q: Ivan Most, University of Southern Maine. I've got a question for the consultants. How important do you feel it is in working with small businesses to use benchmarking? Having them visit similar firms and see what they're doing. How important is that?
DR. RODGERS: I just want to make a quick comment then I'll turn it over to Carol. I was working with a major corporation for about five years, they had a management change. I met the new head of the industrial relations department at a dinner party when I was doing a course over there, and he says "Well, we've just benchmarked another company; we've just been down there and they have a great program." I had to tell him that the person who had done that great program had come to their plant to learn about ergonomics three years earlier.
I think getting information is great, and I think it's important to see other plants and how they do it. That's why I'm visiting the NAVISTAR plant tomorrow. I haven't been in the NAVISTAR plant, and I learn something every time I walk in a plant. That's very important.
But to benchmark to the extent of not using your own culture and your own situation to develop your program, I think, is a cop-out. You ought to be investing enough of yourself, that it's your program, not the other company's program. WoodPro is a good example here of a program that has worked. Use the elements, but make it your program.
Paula Bohr said yesterday on a health care study that she gave them forms and they remodified the forms. You've got to have that ownership to the point where they will feel they can modify the forms and make them work for them.
Carol maybe wanted to talk about this.
MS. STUART-BUTTLE: Yes, I think that a lot of companies do work within their own industries to get some idea of what's going on, how things are done. I've also seen it work negatively; I've seen some industries say "Well, you know, why should we be doing it this way? Nobody else does." And resist making great improvements, essentially in process, because they've benchmarked in the negative fashion.
I think that most companies do because they want to know where they lie in terms of relative competitiveness. And what I really encourage is that those companies that really can break away from that mold of just doing what everyone else is doing, can sell it back; really be an example of where things can head. What I do see is that sometimes they say "Heck, we've got a tremendous leg up here," and they keep very quiet about it, because they know that they're doing something pretty cool. So I do encourage sharing tremendously, and, again, I think trade association forums are a good means to really promote better ways of doing things.
DR. RODGERS: David, do you want to comment, have people come in to look at your program?
MR. CARROLL: Sure, yes. In our trade association, KCMA, Kitchen-Bath, we annually tour other plants, and we have had other plants come in. That's great to be able to see other companies just like ours. But, like we said, in any plant you go into, you can see some really neat things happening, and we've tried to capitalize on those kinds of things in our own program.
DR. RODGERS: Okay, the gentleman at the microphone.
Q: Yes. Workers' compensation insurance is a large financial piece of the picture. Are there any examples of insurances acting in a proactive way to help finance up front rather than simply having the club of excessive or continuing costs?
DR. RODGERS: Would you give us your name and company?
Q: I'm Dr. Donald Herwin, an occupational physician from Kalamazoo, Michigan.
DR. RODGERS: Okay, I know of a couple; I don't know if you want to speak to that? He was asking about whether there were insurance companies that are working together to do the ergonomics; is that what you're asking?
Q: Yes, including any premium benefits or such for forming committees doing work up front to help finance this.
DR. RODGERS: Yes. I can tell you my own experience on this. I was asked by a company in Sacramento to come out because they had tried selection testing for people doing warehouse work, and had had problems. Ten people would come in for jobs, and seven would be rejected for one reason or another; they'd have three left and only one could pass the physical capacity test. So it was 10:1 for their hiring. They decided they might look at ergonomics. And the doctor who served the company was working with his workers' comp insurer, which is a medium sized company.
The first year I went out and the company paid for me to be there and do the training. They got an 89 percent reduction in workers' comp costs in the first year. The insurance guy said "What did you do?" And they said, "Well, this lady came out and taught us a little ergonomics." So he said "Well, I'd like to bring her back out." So the insurance company paid for me to come out for two weeks, four days of which went to the next phase of the training for the first company. They've done all of the ergonomics since then. And, the rest of the time the insurance company took me around to six other clients who had some workers' comp problems. We spent a half a day with each of them, and then did two one-day seminars.
It was a very interesting experience, because I went to all of these small companies; there was a church pew maker, an ice company, and a plant and tree nursery, that type of thing. And it was fascinating to me that so many of the problems are very similar across them. The insurance company paid the bill; they were very interested in reducing the cost of workers' compensation cases.
So I know it does happen; that's a reasonably small insurance company, but I know they're very interested in this. I also have trained claims adjustors, as I think some of the others you may have done that too.
Q: There's also a lot of rhetoric about managed care programs for occupational services meshing with workers' comp programs or self-funded programs. Are there any examples that you can report on in terms of ergonomic applications in such financial and service models?
DR. RODGERS: I don't personally have information on that; I don't know. Is there anybody in the audience here who knows about that?
MS. STUART-BUTTLE: Well, I haven't met much fore-money coming out of managed care groups personally. Certainly, I see loss control as being very active, but I think that depends on the state as well. In Pennsylvania, they've recently written that loss control needs to be offering -- not necessarily personally offering the services, but offering access to services of some nature to control their worker's comp. This has encouraged the loss control people themselves to be addressing the issues.
So there's a lot of assistance out there. Certainly loss control needs to offer some free assessments; I think that tends to be going on for a fee. And I see a lot of occupational groups coming in from the worker's comp standpoint and offering a broader service to address some of the problems. There are very many routes to get some assistance in reducing their worker's comp dollar that I meet all the time.
DR. RODGERS: I'm getting the high sign from Larry here that we've got to stop.
So thank you very much for your attention, and we'll be up here for a little bit if any of you didn't get a chance to ask your questions.
[Whereupon Plenary Session II ended.]
