The construction industry experienced increased fatalities in 2020 for a second consecutive year. This troubling trend has construction managers and safety leaders searching for answers to what is driving these catastrophic incidents and what can be done to help stop them from occurring.
Although there are multiple causes for the increased fatalities, some of the more obvious remedies include:
- more extensive training and orientation for new employees;
- short service worker/mentor programs;
- thorough accident and near-miss investigations;
- a commitment to determine root causes and convey findings to all employees;
- work stand-downs to address unsafe behaviors and conditions;
- continual training and accountability for all supervisors and employees;
- Job Safety Analysis implementation to address conditions and corrective actions before work starts or if work activities change;
- evaluating safety practices and programs; and
- seeking assistance from safety professionals to help with company efforts.
Facing the Grim Facts
The Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries report in December 2019 containing important new data on construction site accident deaths nationally throughout the year. In 2019, the U.S. construction industry had 1061 fatalities, 53 more than occurred in 2018, which was a 12-year high.
What should contractors be focusing their efforts on? The “Fatal Four” account for more than 60% of all jobsite fatalities. They include:
- falls;
- struck by an object;
- electrocution; and
- caught in or in between an object.
Of all these causes, falls account for one-third of all the construction related fatalities. Eliminating falls altogether in construction would save more than 300 lives every year.
What’s especially troubling for construction executives is the fact that these four biggest causes of catastrophic loss have not changed much over the years. Yet, these common deadly hazards are evident on many construction sites:
- a missing handrail that exposes workers to a fall from a height greater than six feet;
- fall protection not being used;
- ladders unsecured and stationed improperly;
- uncompleted scaffolding not tagged, but in use anyway;
- excavations not protected;
- unmarked floor openings;
- workers on roofs;
- employees in man-lifts without fall protection, among a myriad of commonplace jobsite dangers.
If there’s anything positive to take away from this, it’s that simply practicing diligence in addressing the many potential causes of falls alone could result in a substantial decrease in construction fatalities and catastrophic injuries.
In the aftermath of any catastrophic construction incident, the purpose of the investigation is to determine a root cause, develop specific corrective actions and share the findings with leadership, management, supervisors and field employees. In some cases, this process has been accomplished effectively; however, there are numerous situations where this work falls short.
One reason is that given the litigious environment, some companies are reluctant to point a finger at themselves. Unfortunately, unless decision-makers across the industry are earnestly willing to look inward, assess what happened, determine how and why, and develop corrective actions that drive improvement, these unacceptable outcomes are unlikely to change.
On a positive note, many companies are striving to improve their safety programs and engage outside resources to assist with investigations, review corrective actions and help develop and implement process improvement plans. Many of these plans include reviewing the new employee orientation process, including:
- How does a company train new employees, not only on OSHA required training, but on the company’s safety culture, their process, stop-work authority, accountability, safety leadership, behavior coaching techniques, equipment use and tool safety to name a few?
- Do they train mentors? Do the mentors understand the safety processes and are they good at coaching the new employees?
Some construction mentors are excellent, but others are not effective. In these cases, workers being mentored are reluctant to ask any questions because they fear how their mentor will respond. Certainly, that isn’t the type of mentor for this position. Additionally, ongoing follow-up with the short-term service worker is key to track their progress.
Many successful “safety-minded” companies have one thing in common: They use Job Safety Analysis or Job Hazard Analysis as a cornerstone of their safety efforts. The process of:
- getting a crew together;
- identifying the hazards associated with the task they need to complete;
- developing solutions to those hazards to help the “team” be better prepared;
- having the proper tools and equipment on site; and
- reiterating to the team that everyone has stop-work authority
will always help to create a safer work environment for all the workers on the site.
Jobsite safety focus is key
The leadership of craft foremen who diligently walk through jobsites to address safety efforts (or lack thereof) for other crafts because they don’t want individual workers to get hurt or possibly hurt their co-workers plays a major role in facilitating safe practices and reducing accidents.
Behavior coaching techniques are also beneficial in addressing at-risk behaviors. Notably, there is what’s commonly referred to as the “ABC model” – Actions, Behaviors and Consequences. In most cases where a behavior resulted in a fatality, the coworkers tell the investigation team that it was not the first time the employee did not wear fall protection, stand on the top rung of a ladder, work on electrical that was not locked out, walk under a suspended load or any other at-risk behavior that contributed to the fatality.
Indeed, “We have always done it that way!” is a common excuse in post-incident investigations. Focusing on behavior modification puts a company ahead of the curve—and ahead of serious injuries and fatalities.
Focus on at-risk behaviors and coach employees on the proper way to do a task by asking them questions and then ask them come up with the correct answer. This process also helps the organization with developing solutions around what is driving the behavior.
For example, if an employee is on the top rung of a ladder, there may be two ways to handle it. One, shout: “Get down now or I’m going to write you up!” This only makes the employee defensive. The better practice is to ask them to come down. For instance, consider this conversation:
Q: “Have you been trained on the safe use of ladders?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “Is standing on the top rung of a ladder acceptable?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Why are you doing your job that way?”
A: “The company only buys 8-foot ladders and we need 12 footers.”
This approach helps determine where improvements need to be made. Alternatively, if the employee says “the 12-foot ladder is on the truck and I didn’t want to take the time to go get it,” then, the exchange might continue as follows:
Q: “Does that put you at risk of injury?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “How does your getting hurt put you or your family at risk?”
This is always a good question to ask because the worker will focus on the “C” part of the ABC model: Consequences. Once employees understand the consequence of their actions, a safety culture starts to form and safety performance starts to improve.
Of course, some people will not get it. So, the question then becomes: Should a company keep an employee who potentially gets seriously hurt or killed on the job? Should they be disciplined and given an improvement plan? Or should they be terminated because they can’t work safely?
A case in point: During an accident investigation a foreman revealed: “If I had fired him two months ago, he might still be alive.” Who could forget those words?
Ultimately, even when a firm has all the appropriate safety protocols in place—training, mentoring, coaching, reinforcement and discipline—it may come down to an individual employee. Under certain circumstances, employers may need to consider: Is an employee who continually violates safety policies worth keeping if he doesn’t respond to coaching? The answer may mean the difference between life and death.
