Rank: Super forum user 
|
Reading a SHP article regarding health and safety unannounced inspections, I could not help but notice the following OSHA occupational statistics for 2010:-
'In the US in 2010, 3.8 million occupational injuries and illnesses were reported, costing the economy an estimated $250bn-$300bn (£158bn-£190bn). In the same year, 4690 US workers died.'
'The maximum penalty OSHA can impose for serious violations is $7000 (£4425), and for wilful violations, $70,000 (£44,250). However, in 2011, the average penalty was just $2107 (£1332).'
Scotches any doubts that there is a link between fines, compliance and the moral imperative once and for all.
Full article: http://www.shponline.co....her-than-hinder-business
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user 
|
However, Ray,
With the hyper-inflated litigation culture in the USA, the real-terms cost to negligent businesses must be significantly higher than over here, surely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
simon
Presumably occupational injuries are paid for via insurance (ELI) and I'm not sure the 'hyper-inflated' awards will include workplace injuries. It's of no benefit if your dead whatever the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
However, the figures are per individual violation. Normally, when OSHA visits a site, it will issue multiple violations. Just by looking at the oSHA news, one can see the TOTAL "fine". As far as I am aware, the citations are not criminal law!
The link below clarifies the "civil" nature of the fines:-
http://www.osha.gov/pls/...ble=OSHACT&p_id=3371
The link below gives the news releases for total fines after citations have been issued:-
http://www.osha.gov/pls/..._level=0&p_keyvalue=
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So, it's not even a crime - it just gets better and better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The Workers Comp system there has standard benefits with lower associated costs than our adversarial EL system.
However, I have long believed that USA safety and health regimes are inferior to UK ones and good risk assessment and consequent controls produces much better results than extensive OSHA Codes on what to do and what not to do.
I haven't done the sums but 3.8M injuries for a population of 250M, along with 4690 deaths seems horrendous compared to UK. However I don't know what the working population is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Dear All
OSHA states the working population is 130 million. On a comparison between a working population of 26 million, the rates in the States are about 5.5 times as high for fatal injuries. However I don't know if we are comparing like for like. For example just over 500 workers killed at work in the USA during 2010 were classified as workplace homicides. I'm not aware of what the comparable figure would be in the UK.
I have spoken to numerous American H&S specialists over the years and concluded that the overall approach in Europe/UK is more conducive to promoting effective preventative measures to protect workers than in the States.
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is an intersting HSE Research Report at:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr607.pdf
"RR607 - International comparison of (a) techniques used by state bodies to obtain compliance with health and safety law and accountability for administrative and criminal offences and (b) sentences for criminal offences"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Also, OSHA workplace fatality statistics includes work-related road accidents that we simply do not inlcude in RIDDOR!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Interesting maybe Jay. I note dated 2007 - and therefore it appears it has proved useless in respect of anything good coming out of it here in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The New York fire department has 10 times more deaths in service prorata than the London fire brigade.
Apparently its all down to there 'gung ho big man' attitude to fighting fires.
The term 'assessing the risk' isn't part of there vocabulary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A very true word Ray - my Cousin was a GI bride and her son is a NY Fireman. A really nice guy but........ 9/11 doesn't seem to have changed his approach much....... perhaps they all get carried in with the 'tide'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've worked for two big US employers, and both had a fantastic approach to safety, engaged at a leadership level and committed to good management of safety.
I dont know what it is like for smaller businesses and the self-employed but if we in the UK included our driving at work fatalities I dont think that (pro-rata) we would be a million miles apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my experience and understanding of US safety requirements, we have very little to learn from our Trans-Atlantic cousins.
If it ain't in the OSHA standards/requirements, they won't do it. Risk assessment? SFAIRP? Whats that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Interesting thread.
I have been advised that the primary reason 18001 is not an ISO is because the US do not recognise the term Risk Assessment.
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Garfield, not sure that is correct. I believe that 18001 is not an ISO standard because h&s management systems are more bespoke to the needs of the organisation, therefore a 'one size fits all' approach is not suitable or appropriate.
Don't know a lot about h&s in the US of A, but it is my understanding that the onus on those who create risks and regulate them is much weaker than in the UK/EU. Statistics can be interpreted in many different ways. That said, the facts are for all too see and in my view pro rata they are much worse than UK occupational stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.