<%BANNER%>

Subcontractor Safety Practices for Hispanic Workers

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021999/00001

Material Information

Title: Subcontractor Safety Practices for Hispanic Workers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (92 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, hispanic, injury, safety, subcontractor
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In today's construction industry, the workforces of subcontractors and specialty contractors face greatest potential of injury. These contractors tend to be smaller firms with limited budgets for safety. For the most part, these contractors implement very basic safety practices when compared to larger firms. In developing firm safety practices, each company will need to consider the make-up of their workforce. The number of Hispanic construction workers is increasing, and these workers are more likely to suffer work-related injuries than the average construction worker. The differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers are more than just lingual, they are also cultural and educational Subcontractor safety practices need to be tailored to reach the Hispanic workforce while still working within their means as a smaller firm. Our study explored the safety practices of Floridian roofing subcontractors. Our study also explored the scope of the growing Hispanic construction workforce in order to observe the safety efforts of subcontractors to keep them safe. Finally, this research generates a set of best safety practices that can be applied to all subcontractors regardless of size.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021999:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021999/00001

Material Information

Title: Subcontractor Safety Practices for Hispanic Workers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (92 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, hispanic, injury, safety, subcontractor
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In today's construction industry, the workforces of subcontractors and specialty contractors face greatest potential of injury. These contractors tend to be smaller firms with limited budgets for safety. For the most part, these contractors implement very basic safety practices when compared to larger firms. In developing firm safety practices, each company will need to consider the make-up of their workforce. The number of Hispanic construction workers is increasing, and these workers are more likely to suffer work-related injuries than the average construction worker. The differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers are more than just lingual, they are also cultural and educational Subcontractor safety practices need to be tailored to reach the Hispanic workforce while still working within their means as a smaller firm. Our study explored the safety practices of Floridian roofing subcontractors. Our study also explored the scope of the growing Hispanic construction workforce in order to observe the safety efforts of subcontractors to keep them safe. Finally, this research generates a set of best safety practices that can be applied to all subcontractors regardless of size.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021999:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101111_AAAACO INGEST_TIME 2010-11-11T23:20:54Z PACKAGE UFE0021999_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25271604 DFID F20101111_AABVFA ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ruben_m_Page_90.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
ebf81b36bad2a8ce5a1fceb4355defa7
SHA-1
cfbbf274ab021042c26503154e6598a3e8e11034
87803 F20101111_AABVFB ruben_m_Page_19.jpg
5bd17a691646332abbe6892f5aae9603
55c5e8e6b9e90281785d5f8c417863b565304725
F20101111_AABVFC ruben_m_Page_48.tif
824dceecefaa60caf0a76ac1bcd8c2e5
aeef5e9b71ffa40d9cc75ce050f1a015f70df984
F20101111_AABVFD ruben_m_Page_08.tif
2eead54acf431dfb3031b609cfe1ffb7
d52307b5e67575f9f29f36dc63a0173348904df2
44898 F20101111_AABVFE ruben_m_Page_69.pro
68358be6d109a6af69476c4c2ff682ee
f66d7f6aae9463b3ed80654fa3c0ad6d67687733
6964 F20101111_AABVFF ruben_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
2b003ee0b8d46ed44eece9a280873445
25bfc3a76aa3ce01de4d92485ddb8813f03951e5
F20101111_AABVFG ruben_m_Page_20.tif
32ee3c0a709c956210e3b2cafb694f97
8325f76bf5be1f9283006fb18ed776a4911883b5
6951 F20101111_AABVFH ruben_m_Page_23thm.jpg
d84532ef6ab0ad95254cfffef8352f27
1ef0127080150c35ce85e5f7beb7d54aae11e4b4
26888 F20101111_AABVFI ruben_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
783b58affc9aad7f501ab0fcdf6c37ac
16e3402a585e65a220b525c41162ba7c24ae937f
79470 F20101111_AABVFJ ruben_m_Page_37.jpg
94176a3c67f8c6ca195cdd09c27b28dc
84cc2b5ecd64376aa44a34c39eb43cac9cfefc50
2175 F20101111_AABVFK ruben_m_Page_18.txt
a3feb7d0e9e3261706c9e0844a6eeaa4
006e40ecdb07384bd7977fee061ace02581bfcb6
1025166 F20101111_AABVFL ruben_m_Page_86.jp2
2d5139863c48e965e33ee2db7c48180a
6b543d142e23f4889c0c932a5f4984a9e8e25d7e
862 F20101111_AABVEW ruben_m_Page_74.txt
de6be36287c945234fc62f69f69a0391
ad2a3bbb655f90764cf2e274e8d4dc8a80b222e4
717392 F20101111_AABVGA ruben_m_Page_66.jp2
5b1977d6d3cf6211e245c26c8f4d6e1f
56887b5ff3000217896b82575d6665a9fc0815f6
F20101111_AABVFM ruben_m_Page_63.tif
553759af91ac1f14b78f9329ecbae9cf
f60225f9dd1f3953085353726946053d461fa6bb
2104 F20101111_AABVEX ruben_m_Page_34.txt
0d241258fec5a12e3dd816d24ed4d948
574f1542b98b5b77164d954676d8841798a874ca
F20101111_AABVGB ruben_m_Page_72.tif
fd63b78bb6d36799a74d3b82d0a89834
67192cf4bcfd29063c95bf08767586d9d826294d
F20101111_AABVFN ruben_m_Page_31.tif
def3236b84ad3d618da51adbb3139deb
76f6887d020b19bad1c1459e86801763572d7831
6812 F20101111_AABVEY ruben_m_Page_89thm.jpg
9dbedab8d0ed382d34707ac6552e46d5
22d81d194348f62b9815b2159d9a0150fff99fab
19655 F20101111_AABVGC ruben_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
d57d59a7d48908c11398ca8f9cfcb7c7
a5c70b7de36a5de08058f0f44466e3d7d460232a
87329 F20101111_AABVFO ruben_m_Page_51.jpg
c1a1bdd6a92662826b3f3c4c30b62ddc
612d467867015caaadea75245336b7cb7fd1f479
62441 F20101111_AABVEZ ruben_m_Page_91.pro
0759617f4896b182ff07ff38ef784255
0817b7238fb56eb4eb26628fcb674bebdabf939f
31391 F20101111_AABVGD ruben_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
4ec14f1b21d46d315474ad2564f3f35b
3067392d96a6fb42a34f9fc81bcfa2151a6b8235
118077 F20101111_AABVFP ruben_m_Page_28.jpg
808d0d5f5464466b09fda4977733d5c0
307e65aac4621301138c44207f7cf3f646f9c6d4
1051925 F20101111_AABVGE ruben_m_Page_41.jp2
4e554ba3148056248489436a5e5171e3
dfb5f5b0512d47462b53341cd7f18e8237eec50c
88914 F20101111_AABVFQ ruben_m_Page_48.jpg
684686b4b800cf0cb3b35301d220868f
a020d709838b25d943a6d4be1862bfa222513e07
53621 F20101111_AABVGF ruben_m_Page_48.pro
7508d489ad8d96894e5bdce049144cca
69e60bb641ac39bd2ea93b42f8641aec34523a6b
81348 F20101111_AABVFR ruben_m_Page_09.pro
3fb383a920a5f34a5522d1ec2d4186bb
faadfc7c49e26a5cf1990bea547a8affc2af31a7
F20101111_AABVGG ruben_m_Page_01.tif
8a5480d5d7330e1b004afd8f8e2ea60b
a80effbb415ffc29bc7400bc261336c8eb08567e
6741 F20101111_AABVFS ruben_m_Page_29thm.jpg
19a7620400ef84df8ad06f1f225fae63
2406889f0a9a69c602928ebae5bdde4e01e26ceb
49406 F20101111_AABVGH ruben_m_Page_42.pro
53bab2619c5a1ceee615ba20c5f578b9
bbc0d464422b39097903fd1f0c4d50cccd29592e
19434 F20101111_AABVFT ruben_m_Page_68.QC.jpg
0466a5d0a07ff71f47656cf0514265ca
fd1bb52a1ac40301b1af7fe78bccad29d8438ce2
1051983 F20101111_AABVGI ruben_m_Page_35.jp2
7639ecebd8bfa667084e0610cc4b3a48
23573ed3689e64b780e0569560f7f89c8cf591b4
F20101111_AABVFU ruben_m_Page_07.tif
e570630354be1a28ec253fb62655a1df
47a98342a82c8b15ca007bb94e700119e5496cb1
3019 F20101111_AABVGJ ruben_m_Page_08.txt
0a8a2c1723da628751004c76c6a318a6
58b5dbe76425918eca5d89865ede50e654c07999
22572 F20101111_AABVGK ruben_m_Page_71.QC.jpg
1af95de05fff235591727291226497ae
962b9faece146513c117e2c142c27186f36a589b
2063 F20101111_AABVFV ruben_m_Page_20.txt
4fb6ba456eb7a6637976fbf423b7ffac
a49f0dc3838b6e15e379eb5ed3b30357b13fd792
1051984 F20101111_AABVGL ruben_m_Page_90.jp2
6fa107707b9c2fbfd47fa0418f0a87ff
a12b9095eb0ecff3f72d1fe4f2ad627379799f17
F20101111_AABVFW ruben_m_Page_23.tif
b094dd2ae11d6dda255b47e9e8c43f14
6a5c062f75376f7ae749c09a832aefe8e61bd57b
243285 F20101111_AABVGM ruben_m_Page_01.jp2
a8b539cdaf400d53203328d995839aed
2bad9c24cc560637c5fbe9c5b0b5af6396348865
80471 F20101111_AABVFX ruben_m_Page_61.jpg
05cf6c13dee0af74d5b3ed7acf10472a
de1703a9eac115491dd76cc4b48189ee0e88dd0a
6696 F20101111_AABVHA ruben_m_Page_44thm.jpg
8697ee3c255c24224bde54398fa51098
95b5d4f4a77192d65fd8a480ee9a60cf2439c2cb
F20101111_AABVGN ruben_m_Page_34.tif
07edc9af1ed570ff7618705dc82f590e
46039fa876da9d3bc82244b45e365379dda2e94f
F20101111_AABVFY ruben_m_Page_64.tif
e749c31a71220d74abce62415d6eb024
24338521758b735b2b8cfdf4e1a7d09ac716bb41
112701 F20101111_AABVHB ruben_m_Page_91.jpg
7d4bb864d32f2992325a95e416dd5b71
58ecbcec5cfd39b4cdbc3f67518d850064eb868a
84106 F20101111_AABVGO ruben_m_Page_16.jpg
74c0496c065588845c0894dc1b5713ff
01ee460243f4d91f0f41fe308e94bca7e8591de0
103973 F20101111_AABVFZ ruben_m_Page_89.jpg
a08138c9130f4ee601f985ee2c5a562f
016679698f162c40f8186841e3abee986123affe
2155 F20101111_AABVHC ruben_m_Page_84.txt
d3ede380b3cfbdc0b117a22206e1b1a4
69895671f52a1ded55ef7ff82c4da540122b814c
623 F20101111_AABVGP ruben_m_Page_75.txt
14b39fc4833c9300ed02891e1075ccc5
62898e1fa692c7c5ff746485e4f7e0ac820c6b32
29383 F20101111_AABVHD ruben_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
4e8a6cd4a7aaee5a10df1939395ee9aa
8d8fe577f79b04ba86d53dcf7d22f5ea40529198
328852 F20101111_AABVGQ ruben_m_Page_92.jp2
c89d4a4f3860d67834737f17b2f929df
4989163b8abbca42956925c7055dab4e669b44ab
407 F20101111_AABVHE ruben_m_Page_03thm.jpg
48c4a65054223a3f73a962837a151cc5
1b9519002774eb18e64e4760a8392b45257282a1
F20101111_AABVGR ruben_m_Page_16.tif
2e16b071f8ca8cecaccb9d52ab0a444e
685ef1afe1d0a8f8ab6d13b7827e78a15ab7833c
39797 F20101111_AABVHF ruben_m_Page_74.jpg
82433a124e552a48dd98632d1e768ef2
bcb2f30963864c9f5c5ed5844505e75488fa0ad9
3885 F20101111_AABVGS ruben_m_Page_02.jpg
a88350a2a6f3db51230a4897ac8ab537
6acd879f1bff27558253a64c55ae61841254bc41
F20101111_AABVHG ruben_m_Page_29.tif
054bfc6a57807b274de0def45e100424
8d25d229901e5a435992f06e035329bc52ed84ae
13216 F20101111_AABVGT ruben_m_Page_74.QC.jpg
d553d9127d1b39f1c5784307d9f174db
574e729408bd4bfbf94e94e5e5af4bb61130d47d
89356 F20101111_AABVHH ruben_m_Page_41.jpg
82d2550c24502e5b07a0133506e3d819
01ba4f7ad24c0cd3423aca4790068cdc1b98ee82
28919 F20101111_AABVGU ruben_m_Page_02.jp2
a65dbf8c42888a2b6a9872aebcd3bb65
ef35d99677f6a528572ad384e2255ae06054e0fc
16470 F20101111_AABVHI ruben_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
39f252031053fe2d8951497106c5a07e
7589ef5084a2b5e5a311e2b76f42effcfbe1c471
1978 F20101111_AABVGV ruben_m_Page_43.txt
755e0284ce9890473916f4179425df95
557748d5fdfde7d253acda952e1900ca260beae2
28475 F20101111_AABVHJ ruben_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
3db21e90ad2d66cd8dbecc88616a9783
219eabc32925c07128215b324df510ba75d4b6e9
7135 F20101111_AABVHK ruben_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
e2d387d2d6dde0c041e0b97550b5374d
3cc04890a965802a6270045ff66e63f2942c360c
6846 F20101111_AABVGW ruben_m_Page_51thm.jpg
fc53fd5a1d90b36f0f4b304a6bb66878
999ab86ef4d081188aadfeb578b4576ceda64752
15241 F20101111_AABVHL ruben_m_Page_80.pro
5b71b58191eafd815a3c0e7291aab0b8
9aba9d251915f8ec4d4226fbd4215db9328ec565
26531 F20101111_AABVIA ruben_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
09d82e42de75d081a6459c79d525a57c
c71ff9fc47476faaa0b4c2f7094d85a314a8e8df
F20101111_AABVHM ruben_m_Page_26.tif
f5d9e7de637f3eaec6dfde0bd5f6d749
057648ac84af715129d526aafc571271e47f1a3e
10617 F20101111_AABVGX ruben_m_Page_76.QC.jpg
29bd27a1aa6983fd4daf3616837d292f
0deaacc74809350b3659948ad46986db1bc4d26c
35715 F20101111_AABVIB ruben_m_Page_83.pro
853dd5473800ed8392bdaba94ffff103
1ce2af6bc7a8a21cbd529590f8ee2033bf0508c1
464121 F20101111_AABVHN ruben_m_Page_04.jp2
a925d8fba62ef12618f57198837cf4a4
e08695fc5c6e55b5a33bf0bf96b2d281c118dfaf
58639 F20101111_AABVGY ruben_m_Page_24.pro
7322b11e4137039a7547ae98d9d534e0
e5217100c7d2c5d4c404f7ff7475ec893a1b1f71
23236 F20101111_AABVIC ruben_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
dafff99d496569f286d87ac325a89339
2b04eb7abf879ce7c633eeede3bbfee3f0f8f102
6498 F20101111_AABVHO ruben_m_Page_20thm.jpg
46248e85ba45a910e35a9416cc686cb4
eadaa56134e62e0fbce951417985757a4ca49029
66955 F20101111_AABVGZ ruben_m_Page_10.pro
2a5fc05ade069544cdbc14f5d33c2032
d9c60a3ccacfcba34f275874809e06fd7fe564d1
1000681 F20101111_AABVID ruben_m_Page_88.jp2
e7a3d4d5d5066455084dacdb53339380
4947729d5a20bdbd3a7b47c7f221b1e12d31a6b7
584220 F20101111_AABVHP ruben_m_Page_56.jp2
bb3356d3e7e001a26fc6c8471a15ec38
1acab4f2def53e421e3abc6f2dc9012298a3f7d8
48519 F20101111_AABVIE ruben_m_Page_37.pro
6d86d802edd451bac4bc6e2c856b011a
46ed639e61462707cb235df0edf80ade703dffa4
873840 F20101111_AABVHQ ruben_m_Page_85.jp2
59429ac708b3e1e4d32851198e7a1fb2
7032823e5b8a6da392f967c6ef61ce04c6f4240f
791771 F20101111_AABVIF ruben_m_Page_62.jp2
4d43db9143c90dd1b23f760940b913ca
af9d20dda2adf41b0a1921618a15472434caa3d7
14541 F20101111_AABVHR ruben_m_Page_67.QC.jpg
b87645ce4e0b2f6d8e053709d4e48997
398cb5b0c9c60bd0d8b67f82742fb015f58edc20
F20101111_AABVIG ruben_m_Page_25.tif
476e9c1d7d0efb3c27c0359be522259c
0449baf0b4ab6d29b686865e23baf14a803bc225
24967 F20101111_AABVHS ruben_m_Page_87.QC.jpg
d01642f39715b114e5d4f1d35b0fe3fd
1120160f07397d6264a46d45f434d10bd51a1b71
F20101111_AABVIH ruben_m_Page_24.tif
28f0c14122cc0aadc77b2846b5502e03
486efe3c29d1eb7fda0e4b8405a0ae3112440d74
99435 F20101111_AABVHT ruben_m_Page_17.jpg
e86ab81870f6494cd37835bebd309ddf
47281f67da70298cd8caaf1b21eb97efccf41b5d
918 F20101111_AABVII ruben_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
c4939dce3d837df505a0f245ecc0974f
bd291c7a3b75f8381105157818e3ecc314f4b832
2059 F20101111_AABVHU ruben_m_Page_19.txt
42fc77d03e987f58fa994fcfe6157cea
4821100f11f15787386d644e8321209e88d21bfe
8008 F20101111_AABVIJ ruben_m_Page_01.pro
3bc9619832e6237b68dde70fb3ae078c
eeb9e3a1f926f064df8c6286e6fb1868fe216591
1111 F20101111_AABVHV ruben_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
ec051f915ea9103f1239a96ec5e5eae7
8e5b88687bc254ede335c4dfc1a1e0275c370d13
570820 F20101111_AABVIK ruben_m_Page_06.jp2
040f5fa93530eca846d8d58fdcea97b2
b77a99e893a2cd0e5bfe171eab417f908960cd61
1919 F20101111_AABVHW ruben_m_Page_88.txt
96d83ad29e4f8e727a7129135d42033d
130555eda72203e02819dc467a54a39720dae55f
985419 F20101111_AABVIL ruben_m_Page_38.jp2
dde7dc9c39400afcfbc83823eee43e80
99621e26f14daf70183c56cf27da61af3a056a70
1051986 F20101111_AABVIM ruben_m_Page_51.jp2
cff35d9a0654c71beda64a0954b3b874
fe165f506754c47c81c99ae5d9222ed0d04c81da
3215 F20101111_AABVHX ruben_m_Page_09.txt
bed9a172eb4d326c1bb35fd9919f315d
1a3edc675ca0fc883a3d0267e546c372896173db
52609 F20101111_AABVJA ruben_m_Page_39.pro
e56a15b77a59fbfb4b945a552e323be5
5563cb02e01acfd93153f9e2ddfeb5fa6994e577
65412 F20101111_AABVIN ruben_m_Page_62.jpg
fb3185153bb52d9f5421c575efd03986
e33bd713faae2ae22003a722432ac00c361c5485
1051980 F20101111_AABVHY ruben_m_Page_26.jp2
ea2ed04f19f0e7ff8dad4b8dd4b50418
afa6b1df013bb87c14acf8c42681703d9af78366
F20101111_AABVJB ruben_m_Page_70.tif
b15fc80c5cec62c2b2fa29808be605d6
1a5d4e0b884d29161e6f6f218643ac9929f4c5a5
F20101111_AABVIO ruben_m_Page_27.tif
bfb71b7c9dfae9ae3a9ed08f875f0642
c8345ac386fd1c43e1343323f6db35a99f8b77b3
59072 F20101111_AABVHZ ruben_m_Page_29.pro
47e81434dabb521a764b832257ccd0e0
90737bab50f7776684b7e509fc91ceb12298083f
6210 F20101111_AABVJC ruben_m_Page_40thm.jpg
b6f12cb0c24c08d9b8d9015fe827206d
0ca81122f05bcd04a47314b0ccfb2bcaef215311
63895 F20101111_AABVIP ruben_m_Page_68.jpg
4c521815a99db2bb66eacda64474c779
4d078d8af3c2bb04f8322f905d86b6181024508c
503 F20101111_AABVJD ruben_m_Page_73.txt
16c35b7099e20a1a0740e3b265e57189
b82789325bbece81321401a81ac6d9108a47def1
6312 F20101111_AABVIQ ruben_m_Page_11thm.jpg
8beae0d9425d339fcbfba4e2941ff571
732140864ace7df2537c71f4be0727b6b3a1304f
27546 F20101111_AABVJE ruben_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
6a579fa82cc4e813416a6e6be48bd7ae
7e450a8dc81b3f33b60b85dc7ed83c561dede8dd
1051961 F20101111_AABVIR ruben_m_Page_16.jp2
0f925da0410a65906890cc39e9706a24
46d46dd77d84b67e950676bd4185cefed3369748
1051978 F20101111_AABVJF ruben_m_Page_47.jp2
e9e7be3e918f8f6c089fcb7c3eb5f514
9bb6baf0dae15759886571a4b9db0c8d068dae78
1051969 F20101111_AABVIS ruben_m_Page_45.jp2
536e10f76b8b3779e261eac516e8aeb6
dc1432519f0d215a4c1463da3ab2e875b0ba9258
87058 F20101111_AABVJG ruben_m_Page_14.jpg
f19976a003c19f2f73e51b25f6b117b0
dc224183126e025e5c0f9023f0c96c37abf7e460
2366 F20101111_AABVIT ruben_m_Page_87.txt
a20b41dc79965da009d68593a6204cd0
1639a6864b1a3dc726797362d15d3d3e8953d007
F20101111_AABVJH ruben_m_Page_54.tif
0d9c99de0129a15ebd65b17448800e97
41f30f8053c6c23f4a4c1d55b521a231ce343995
56787 F20101111_AABVIU ruben_m_Page_63.pro
ef5736ed12e24d7e601a0728726652c2
44c41f297cf07e91f9e1ad06bd461bed34942821
2896 F20101111_AABVJI ruben_m_Page_04thm.jpg
cf9874ea8f80a8586a56683edf3ef661
bb14a197faebe95121a751d1d89d3a3c89a97337
103342 F20101111_AABVIV ruben_m_Page_23.jpg
e676a3b7cef0991b10ddb03dcdbef3ad
b0199cb5307b3d3658fa8839108ba9b5c6ecc86f
86659 F20101111_AABVJJ ruben_m_Page_05.jpg
7454feafdf793453516ed5e24f13599e
5b504bc06cfd42aafe99395bbbb0fcdb10526110
6874 F20101111_AABVIW ruben_m_Page_41thm.jpg
4f35021424e760cd5fee924c75dee350
98041ec9652338a3fb209ee6eed132959d9eaa1c
3875 F20101111_AABVJK ruben_m_Page_80thm.jpg
030e4e68d91725406cff5875f2854242
01e553c77a9fd37c94cfb2b3a34438d6e2fff2ba
F20101111_AABVIX ruben_m_Page_60.tif
0f8bcc918074e9d7088e15eb1fb2007d
0a5386edcbfc67256b7b785cc1569e3209b6f236
96102 F20101111_AABVJL ruben_m_Page_25.jpg
f06a877720304fae8867cc81cec802a1
d7ac38fbc31545d5c6ca45a2648734adb7ce0e52
27813 F20101111_AABVKA ruben_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
13b56cdeccbd527fed249736a26113dc
6afbf7c7e9c4513aafa082c7d4f697cd280d53bc
F20101111_AABVJM ruben_m_Page_39.tif
6593a1e343bab970bbfd736e87ac07f0
766cf850bf30b38eaad004dd1979c02d7a0cd4fc
6592 F20101111_AABVIY ruben_m_Page_35thm.jpg
ac526b5ba625f69a8c30887636f4b7bf
588889a44a6e915e2f6d6c756433ce22b2ffbebc
21830 F20101111_AABVKB ruben_m_Page_70.QC.jpg
abd1e61caed7afb47f54342209e4d216
515281788e1683d3199b35edf28035ad44076171
3714 F20101111_AABVJN ruben_m_Page_67thm.jpg
09c2a81c7d55fbd468b376403f63ebdc
d0a6c89defa5ceffcd1779c0f6e219ded2efbbf2
82826 F20101111_AABVIZ ruben_m_Page_53.jpg
fbbfc336a5fafe49add7dc8941471497
536efda05e57a28cf5498eaa7e953828d59029e2
429 F20101111_AABVKC ruben_m_Page_01.txt
30d191136dc1bc1d58cd4a545e681db4
64f391cb53193714eae79ef4d24c059dd16def90
3143 F20101111_AABVJO ruben_m_Page_59.txt
3e52b637b71a726c68f69b29da7b0c38
2d8abee55cb02544be7f5f563be54e4545c89b44
F20101111_AABVKD ruben_m_Page_30.jp2
fa5c0693dee66510ebe4fa541f35e487
0ca06d9b7df2bc230b9cf14aafc8ccbbc477e4f2
30883 F20101111_AABVJP ruben_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
92eb05b019bb95d538081a141e17d50e
5af3e6ab3b923279663e2a4f410935855e4ea4f1
559005 F20101111_AABVKE ruben_m_Page_67.jp2
868ef55951807b9cd11a8546c0239ebe
f369d1bd8e819a6a7bbc2204cba04c8ce0502a59
4517 F20101111_AABVJQ ruben_m_Page_83thm.jpg
44e22ec41f4d9604086fb2b3dc1af820
bde3854865466a6b0109370c3b8357fbd931eec4
F20101111_AABVKF ruben_m_Page_55.tif
e921e53bf0be0cd667711d7b37fde7d8
c7eaf40c190e5fc5866f94c457c23d44c46c598f
29479 F20101111_AABVJR ruben_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
b79bc17560968488030dddb9a8ccbb46
640d3d6f4a759ff0599fd2ba0978b051f5de0326
F20101111_AABVKG ruben_m_Page_05.tif
754446f0ff986bf12e2b7d63c286aa9b
1f05fbf659ff828f912083664b6dfb216b675d4c
63849 F20101111_AABVJS ruben_m_Page_65.jpg
f59f34754a68bafff11fc7101d99b4c6
1abd848f8beb5ba8b96c5b137c15cd67307f7ad9
F20101111_AABVKH ruben_m_Page_10.tif
660e6f24bcb6e8db323f023d8be92897
bb17113e46fe658d99465d19e2e5b3c6b3c448a2
1051946 F20101111_AABVJT ruben_m_Page_42.jp2
24b3c75529da6a8cdfc9e38e3da89610
4da316697b10548972947810fa9dbf58e545a34d
2533 F20101111_AABVKI ruben_m_Page_91.txt
455372e0bd61fe8a7c7916a4f7faff92
17661be5063f41b3286e718a319bfe651c681b43
3664 F20101111_AABVJU ruben_m_Page_76thm.jpg
800ebeaef1c674cb642f9d6c4dd09cf2
6b0b1d04cc91e0dc924bd236e4cedd88b52382f9
41406 F20101111_AABVKJ ruben_m_Page_32.pro
1ff6ab75b39f3b831803522e20c62ac3
105c1db79dc7cba94362f545fb1b7d96a331de21
19682 F20101111_AABVJV ruben_m_Page_65.QC.jpg
2d2b2bef02f2f8cf1122f726404fb2c5
7dee6e2e17f834d9b2e548478a41120e0d7fe041
10341 F20101111_AABVKK ruben_m_Page_75.pro
8ef5c93249427b17f4fe1ddfc3db77de
1950fa7c1fed681fdfd3e20f6430e9b338586a74
3987 F20101111_AABVJW ruben_m_Page_81thm.jpg
a6c7780bc1929979875206d6e67c3ea3
54c7e9ee2ad74c08f7799317ea44b73767e3e80c
1051951 F20101111_AABVKL ruben_m_Page_53.jp2
c76929ba7b5f19933597905ae242a790
2792947943b4dbf32f41ba0eb8b4fc970e5211dc
6924 F20101111_AABVJX ruben_m_Page_25thm.jpg
0c616f3960b2b0a6ae1a054282436cec
58bf468a801ba1b1f7a685783a8fe87bae102ec2
26084 F20101111_AABVLA ruben_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
b2e362acc6c5552901f11dd46a11c2e0
3547576b519745cd347ade8724b5ea42e5085c46
4093 F20101111_AABVKM ruben_m_Page_64thm.jpg
3a4978dcdaf656c59fd6f480cbfb0fe5
c280e3cd67443def33023266b112ea915582c99d
1539 F20101111_AABVJY ruben_m_Page_85.txt
de0c911d0e0f021152d85b48b299d4cf
f7c7b3c6ccc9a7ae2f5a3656e9bec59d56026f70
753590 F20101111_AABVLB ruben_m_Page_15.jp2
7f7b96390e6ab2121f14ba37cc307ee6
14187688d8cbe0193805f551c1706b88eeb6fae1
2650 F20101111_AABVKN ruben_m_Page_90.txt
be813a7ae3216465be657e210eaa905d
fa9f0ea4657a83a0fb4eaa89f03e4f95d2bc495d
1051975 F20101111_AABVLC ruben_m_Page_39.jp2
b765d6d95ab48a7fa0a3f26e06d5121b
e05c7988960d01838b41307ed8d37a4ee1389906
4575 F20101111_AABVKO ruben_m_Page_74thm.jpg
c2767947b7fdd413ffdf1a2ebb478586
ddc37fca227f63620a25c94a5130bd8541e151f4
2913 F20101111_AABVJZ ruben_m_Page_57.txt
027f748744472bd77aa9a67fae435194
f2fa699dca2e0e5c4a1ec4ab0710514296998664
1620 F20101111_AABVLD ruben_m_Page_12thm.jpg
d54158cdbc06fcfe1d0bb067e1178326
1940a3e987aafe910dc3ca76483ecc8506ca01b8
88586 F20101111_AABVKP ruben_m_Page_39.jpg
1bf9322ea6d9c5697d9cf955eeb9ab94
868c74396898e1e5b230172e12011322ba4c613c
3157 F20101111_AABVLE ruben_m_Page_62.txt
ae0c18c471413246926d4b68672dbfe9
6885b389b37fa03f53cb82fbd63a202854a3a40c
4756 F20101111_AABVKQ ruben_m_Page_61thm.jpg
2101f4ba88ab52a6e9c1699be05a4fff
5fc8776aac40c274678ca9160fb9ce9d93f6057c
F20101111_AABVLF ruben_m_Page_82.tif
2cb3ed86e35044b8c1ffc8636cd38765
8c9e671575f86c75979e49b4fe798f7168db8ad1
1051981 F20101111_AABVKR ruben_m_Page_24.jp2
cfd49b79f2076d191e17fb2b74884cba
46b5c3ba6b4440b4102f345092089394c205a088
1965 F20101111_AABVLG ruben_m_Page_40.txt
99c05e248b0f50c5a6ac57333655691c
eaa55416b647396ee6d437a4efe65b70c3839716
6338 F20101111_AABVKS ruben_m_Page_42thm.jpg
f42530a29619c077f6150e2449ae5be6
6441a06784a53e205a28f60cbbe73edd328a00ef
86641 F20101111_AABVLH ruben_m_Page_36.jpg
533f4b3de043122deae92d861808c5b3
25849885edd20484cd8d88dcee5b57d74b21bf80
6109 F20101111_AABVKT ruben_m_Page_10thm.jpg
20bff7c29203563b9cca7ca3f02fb02a
0637abc9a21bbf3a3d11d8984174045ed5149e8f
6717 F20101111_AABVLI ruben_m_Page_27thm.jpg
c9c3e00cd06c76dc9dce42546521b120
b41ed0ab145c37ab1903a3afc5979bd4eca43ffd
27112 F20101111_AABVKU ruben_m_Page_84.QC.jpg
6afd5e24ff0989604158bb91d33ca1f5
aedd3874cb7828d95d8f5d199754f0fcc3e7df73
48969 F20101111_AABVLJ ruben_m_Page_43.pro
4ed264d933b8a1cc061d98abe9f2ab12
4d3c1235dffb7fd3612649e1eab413a1ccd8f4ab
F20101111_AABVKV ruben_m_Page_35.tif
51cfa7a8c4510b519721eb3fd8539e82
4a79bc1e4302bb47a9c6dbc03394f2c71e26ea34
25762 F20101111_AABVLK ruben_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
f99858d8eb7a9a26f6d8bc7c2b9e9a4c
812858b0ea9b686ef858f047e2f988fcb04107fb
1051926 F20101111_AABVKW ruben_m_Page_40.jp2
cb7e6b3f6a37fd6319a7f077a42748f0
c4400fd1e9352fad7386d61aae867fe2ecb1c0c5
21031 F20101111_AABVLL ruben_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
fa83b4b4465e4e9993eeab76b7173f4d
63d32c4a18a6eda122272d44b704a55a7892bff0
8936 F20101111_AABVKX ruben_m_Page_55.pro
9bdb162ffa6c01a29f8c1e2f2a2bd897
f461bf6825faeaba3509bc0da68654d7e2bf4481
1968 F20101111_AABVLM ruben_m_Page_69.txt
7b9dca7b950172e1c8c3e61736b29a0e
e743c3561260c579608b79aa6e2709f39edb8f95
55118 F20101111_AABVKY ruben_m_Page_15.jpg
0c33d5fe74dbba58ddf28ce3d7527555
5c5b192a463c97291bef8f5fb0e6eef33b124ce2
F20101111_AABVMA ruben_m_Page_82.jp2
5835de01f9eb6c72090b046f2680f8e2
337bfb2cb8b7b10aaf95c12b0b657943c9c9ee62
6985 F20101111_AABVLN ruben_m_Page_26thm.jpg
b5ce3cedc2440f8b9be4a007d0b58831
e1d59b0453615ab7cde473984d2a2ce64dbf8296
33369 F20101111_AABVKZ ruben_m_Page_77.jpg
a4773f26cffb48eca8d14a12603cdef6
34de11e434b607c8401d2f7948ecb99e9fe585ef
6536 F20101111_AABVMB ruben_m_Page_54thm.jpg
5176af55f00866eec9038e4a07773b92
afb526467c137c36c30d884fb70f4a96d93eb54d
207007 F20101111_AABVLO ruben_m_Page_55.jp2
23142a5e9fa609fff18d262926032f18
7c65f123778949f74d4dea991797fecd589cea1f
54079 F20101111_AABVMC ruben_m_Page_44.pro
d12b330b615ffc179c05f0910aa57631
54820a217903668fbd22d4809c5ae35a6b6cea39
57011 F20101111_AABVLP ruben_m_Page_62.pro
eb23e3f333f9a1c47081fdc3006691dc
68ae6ff34a4762b96139bd8203f4c05f4dea5e0a
2109 F20101111_AABVMD ruben_m_Page_39.txt
396e15c644256df3115bb7c7c8b63b87
e38e1aa9d3ffcfdbd04aeb03809ab85056ffb006
4628 F20101111_AABVLQ ruben_m_Page_68thm.jpg
7ea5101ec3efed1f44b5778fb40c8e43
3f70efde9c50c8bf2b4175675b6f7e5d4cd9170d
F20101111_AABVME ruben_m_Page_69.tif
10964b20202cf22c907661708d99f94e
6432fb670950b348ed07b2bcbb1256b41c2aad70
101454 F20101111_AABVLR ruben_m_Page_26.jpg
8e1bcf78054bd9f95edfab72baef838a
64b8b84f29b2671b983c2c370550af2859194fcb
F20101111_AABVMF ruben_m_Page_19.tif
a546ebb9fba284506b27caf8dfe7f2e9
70edf9473122db55b41948fa5e861424767469fe
326023 F20101111_AABVLS ruben_m_Page_75.jp2
36b334cac94f1e1d357c2c9056115e18
23e88cb313f422a4e7ae3e45ba07dbe2d8fa00be
6383 F20101111_AABVMG ruben_m_Page_36thm.jpg
65bd01b57cbbe3569ae8a59fc474f1d7
90e0bdc5b7e23c051b9290ce8d08a66eebf4aa64
1840 F20101111_AABVLT ruben_m_Page_38.txt
d90990d1962ee07635b2e51fdb7c7909
42b2ed8db44b0dec0c2a274ae435fa18d2bc9e59
27438 F20101111_AABVMH ruben_m_Page_92.jpg
2cbaaa3d3f38d70e4a2c7c8588cc3f01
8e750f94a57a4ef6761d170885af6eaa53aa4bda
6539 F20101111_AABVLU ruben_m_Page_14thm.jpg
778ce814d2fa5b74a3ce58676d08d7e7
05b096f8c2f459cea8c9ad69e50204edd9be1da6
30413 F20101111_AABVMI ruben_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
a64ab99ffb815ecf22b4e9f1358aff14
7ad37de3690c7bb0a6705589f29fe8f0a177a7eb
50629 F20101111_AABVMJ ruben_m_Page_87.pro
537290fe49daffd45b6ccad7efe7213d
084a869ac73977317037f3551ffc6e220d84cbfb
F20101111_AABVLV ruben_m_Page_62.tif
56010691bf6974478f4647c44f7a88d3
e5ad01e01fbb9ae7674bdf0a9b81dcc052356def
1051985 F20101111_AABVMK ruben_m_Page_07.jp2
128d1e63d18e9ac65f34c684ad1aeec9
7ffff724c486fbdbca56fd818b3a4718b60f28da
51401 F20101111_AABVLW ruben_m_Page_47.pro
cdf2fbfc51aa269629a9b2aae9b9bdcb
369560042406ebb9eee1f4a05a18f203ae9c35b7
60765 F20101111_AABVML ruben_m_Page_66.jpg
5240ca9f736c4d618aa6ecc723dc234e
f656d9059a23a6cadefab7c18a4c5f61ecdd8024
55183 F20101111_AABVLX ruben_m_Page_59.pro
dc085630b50140363d1506acd52f80e6
a35884e60d32cdec1e9834c1ab7419ba867a838a
F20101111_AABVNA ruben_m_Page_05.jp2
cea4fd36c9f0fe285bc6bfedf93d48d8
3b81709182d129ec952ef6c466115d2e795ab18e
1051928 F20101111_AABVMM ruben_m_Page_44.jp2
b78ac4f21539e2b9e968d9e618e589f5
c6b54890f15e2ae3c31e021aaf475131cbc7c00e
F20101111_AABVLY ruben_m_Page_34.jp2
63ef9a9826c824adcfbb8d8709643c66
557052da5bff2225fbbfdb96ebbc2b2a86a4377e
F20101111_AABVNB ruben_m_Page_76.tif
0d07558ddae862ca13cfbde1c7e3aaa9
ff62e732032d6515d9858841be25d0c9ad5d066e
6481 F20101111_AABVMN ruben_m_Page_17thm.jpg
dfc2f8ea3be1f455314d56be679218e3
bd8e277cd5bcf429a73085f41ead16a89c5edf9f
6544 F20101111_AABVLZ ruben_m_Page_18thm.jpg
bb20fec3a8ad11018d1124f1751db3a3
ab95a02af9a2ede89d607595647b9beca74528a1
82499 F20101111_AABVNC ruben_m_Page_43.jpg
be9ac571e375e14e243d334aec08bc80
2791f7cfbab06b161c4e745d114ce9de001c8f62
40169 F20101111_AABVMO ruben_m_Page_13.pro
8e1fd93d3b5e2084650f50ecda1395d1
8c94af3d2bfadf3ab90355a624af45493c2f3d18
1051919 F20101111_AABVND ruben_m_Page_21.jp2
edb085243fe82c27e7d9a6843736c087
8d06439fa4bb827e672141f5ddf13e7a92e7df5a
3535 F20101111_AABVMP ruben_m_Page_78thm.jpg
09c734f5d77fe1770a9111a53a68df9c
6821b22f2695a1ee49da39e009dd0b2c7f60d0d8
3056 F20101111_AABVNE ruben_m_Page_58.txt
8432396f431f0753f898eadf8e2bcddf
48ecc476898eeb185b2259d5836a90885dd4106a
F20101111_AABVMQ ruben_m_Page_44.tif
f3fcaee5a3b84ff2a624e2332f4791ce
299feee27bbcc65d0b8db335f60c7e54107bf9fd
57446 F20101111_AABVNF ruben_m_Page_89.pro
b0824e87b93fca40b4a034b11aa46ef4
9e8d6853b9e0f6be239d045a495cb869055456c6
2162 F20101111_AABVMR ruben_m_Page_14.txt
61b2f8f242bcd5eb3f1f053c4eec979c
6bf7ed469a1a768b528a4be86d2c32f5ccfa35dd
2150 F20101111_AABVNG ruben_m_Page_48.txt
c58726242e95d739ebe364742ac58092
255f89f6a234d842f2fa3e09ca81020bce54d9f9
27353 F20101111_AABVMS ruben_m_Page_06.jpg
69ba482dfcd86a7b15c030d75a6feaae
60237f5031ddcb98a90bff423cc1e756b1e4ac4d
F20101111_AABVNH ruben_m_Page_14.tif
ef085ec73ae738ad8bdf2dcfc5c00fdc
e993d213f8e98050769b71e041db73cfb32d96f4
6630 F20101111_AABVMT ruben_m_Page_21thm.jpg
7707985c8940051d7ebdfe9fb9456647
0f2b0a0350e9efdedcd765a4210c7e5012d39340
1051962 F20101111_AABVNI ruben_m_Page_33.jp2
529126ba0e43505c7054af98c6941d7a
3ab465f67d72bdcf347012ed9e65e037e030e06c
2004 F20101111_AABVMU ruben_m_Page_53.txt
62f1764b7e80550a50c189256c053d60
ca76a93615b301d4818331061f6faa373facd7f2
18030 F20101111_AABVNJ ruben_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
46219504df7530be2ed96a37cfff8221
b0688c39d7e76d415ac77dfbdbf17d02158bdcd6
16920 F20101111_AABVMV ruben_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
eadea239bb342fb4e7f5916d0cb62a06
f623db69219a425e84589311a9644e0889d4df38
31458 F20101111_AABVNK ruben_m_Page_15.pro
0b0e7d8d7cd2c9ab02f22a6457908396
909a8cad772cc381d951f4a8df4c64c77c621a76
2723 F20101111_AABVMW ruben_m_Page_07.txt
3b1e29259b981023efe76d01d599a059
612de5db492e3f3601199040faafe59b6e1e8f66
F20101111_AABVNL ruben_m_Page_78.tif
a5572f339292a2555b481d40b2030bbb
1a0fd65b865c755b5d86576d5a3f7aa68d62954d
638 F20101111_AABVMX ruben_m_Page_12.txt
2a202586f79922af50b1e633c6c904f3
9f16f87656ad5e79248a4c6fa49aafd6bd9e6fa6
2766 F20101111_AABVNM ruben_m_Page_65.txt
de3a29ab75b63f21929c0864783a5ea2
72cfb52fb45e98666035bef607608fc3b45832e8
54475 F20101111_AABVMY ruben_m_Page_52.pro
e652a85c98ff1901da8bafb2f7c5271d
826b733cd238dc58ab875e140f7a5eb93fbac50d
765548 F20101111_AABVOA ruben_m_Page_65.jp2
d282507fea4dbb2209ef5adb633c7db3
05bd89d35feac0bcaa6dbcf673a0ae7e990d6c70
11929 F20101111_AABVNN ruben_m_Page_79.pro
9266a6b3af2acb48824fe663a45927c6
f0a22b66eb9d5c5aee501f1a578d5bcc12f67cf6
2136 F20101111_AABVMZ ruben_m_Page_21.txt
944dac4959942a147a5fe762f253e9c8
39f4f7525ad5a9d5c38bdf05d9ecc4907f932db0
4416 F20101111_AABVOB ruben_m_Page_59thm.jpg
a7557e9af295a10f180c7802125c0f67
880311ada3724fac71cef7c0c73fbb537e5464ae
87619 F20101111_AABVNO ruben_m_Page_18.jpg
259a184ac6621356b311d25233c95450
f4dad51727a10b4a24107da8e9d8510994356b3e
93743 F20101111_AABVOC ruben_m_Page_27.jpg
375923def4a400314249b88bac98bc9c
57d9e6e759237f889dab2d2086e05bb74a8245b2
F20101111_AABVNP ruben_m_Page_11.tif
e3c2720038bd0fa2127801269043b302
1f1c1fd310fd01104b3601adf9ab1f4f35403ccf
595552 F20101111_AABVOD ruben_m_Page_60.jp2
0b18b3edcdef00fbd778edf1e4f48537
7feb5d929bcee76c4efe892e4fc510a3846e5fa2
97407 F20101111_AABVNQ ruben_m_Page_29.jpg
b5009567e4b8380479156327a0322b8f
60e0f7b7c91a5ac8e49bc354fbca5cbbe45f510b
51013 F20101111_AABVOE ruben_m_Page_36.pro
2e2b0ece896895fcb14dff6694d846e9
5f9f311569ce2da90c35b85c3e4782c17c6517a3
2178 F20101111_AABVNR ruben_m_Page_50.txt
de53060344f417205d99ba534e723498
d7fdc43734f55dd7daf10705329a63c86f50e693
F20101111_AABVOF ruben_m_Page_45.tif
501daae81012bafec16f130a3b7438e1
ff06d3a3ebc04d02bf4197775ac6a32204f41854
52693 F20101111_AABVNS ruben_m_Page_61.pro
b63d214d98428d3c438f131fe52ecee1
a58f864562eca67bdb14de900be179f7c9806ed5
8732 F20101111_AABVOG ruben_m_Page_92.QC.jpg
c51b0e6f3e59c4e0e4ff0df102dadd0d
0322185182f15c37133904369dc24ba8d4035c87
7177 F20101111_AABVNT ruben_m_Page_90thm.jpg
ccd8089cc1cc11647a3cb414ac923225
1666f24d13646fab6424803d920124f14c5978eb
18959 F20101111_AABVOH ruben_m_Page_63.QC.jpg
7fd0f92078ef0101b7df13aa85547da6
8b517fd1e9bd510678fa25742ea4cda293c1a7c4
17691 F20101111_AABVNU ruben_m_Page_55.jpg
03101bdc6097ee76d6dfd739e8b7bc56
f64e578816fcb9dc35ec1b1eb58d407a273c097e
F20101111_AABVOI ruben_m_Page_81.tif
8fc0e320478250ecc946450de23912dd
37d06a82da5ffa46d627ebe4311f612339986e48
24619 F20101111_AABVNV ruben_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
673d384beded2ac2f8f90e31183aeea3
bc436c7c0616895a3e62b4c7fe68a60ee5dcbbfa
18781 F20101111_AABVOJ ruben_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
52d12128ccc23e7e7a6addd4895253b2
d2f4f63ad1c9defc0befc85763df4164b1be80e0
6234 F20101111_AABVNW ruben_m_Page_43thm.jpg
d1aefc709cbb2344091dd461e0a39ee7
5c1241cec1a8349f6e69f491cd9125efd9aad6e0
6208 F20101111_AABVOK ruben_m_Page_33thm.jpg
16660a5cd5fbda60d3aca19c2241a9c4
61a3262c68dadb41c4634fc81ec4188b6194e495
F20101111_AABVNX ruben_m_Page_66.tif
03c3e258fe8f67a2a5deaaf77ac9732f
63744f20f4de81fcb8fc268414f42e1f4eed49a3
2154 F20101111_AABVOL ruben_m_Page_82.txt
be0253cdb046b5e263815808e8341208
253ed544c9bae09406d4fddc13e44400ea186e48
60139 F20101111_AABVNY ruben_m_Page_83.jpg
25c021f0a273827bbf74fb99e647dc5a
c80b4ab2bb58a6024699b7f7d4fc90a9f5b7955b
52816 F20101111_AABVOM ruben_m_Page_34.pro
ede141d75d6916137ea003b6485fe66f
a97e7de8d13ab55cbc837035b9e162bee13b200f
746835 F20101111_AABVNZ ruben_m_Page_57.jp2
7976ba18b4cb46a7260203a8a4d89b43
c46a33fb5e81f3ea927529e2cea55b84bcb63e9b
20886 F20101111_AABVPB ruben_m_Page_01.jpg
0bdd853bb52898695d6b6110b13b45c2
1abedecc9d0732b4364099226a10c2cf537b0f49
F20101111_AABVON ruben_m_Page_11.jp2
758b339a8d5381aaba14af908cfbef8b
9492ef1c97fbf515c5f47a90fd0230e34c378536
3026 F20101111_AABVPC ruben_m_Page_03.jpg
4277706536dbe6fd542b97aa333301a4
abed0e9e68a76ada000112f0286985dc2f4fce28
7312 F20101111_AABVOO ruben_m_Page_08thm.jpg
5b1091975bad6b27e7fc2d3ae20812c3
434b2119686839012553f6e06abd09e25f7fb01c
36767 F20101111_AABVPD ruben_m_Page_04.jpg
43ea6a357140b640cdad856318d97f75
a81a7e13e5f96d05df152bbe8a22b79f21b3e872
26898 F20101111_AABVOP ruben_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
51a94d971653504c77b125d835a5a3e2
0e532c4f8a99838673cc07ea265e739e0a41668b
94780 F20101111_AABVPE ruben_m_Page_07.jpg
54004946d657226d1c02e078e93a8dfa
277600d1ee0918b527e5fb5ad994296290dfe01a
1568 F20101111_AABVOQ ruben_m_Page_01thm.jpg
7b5e765060db24e8a948c7d12ce98d1a
af039207330fe5590116bfafd98c6de5a0780cad
113999 F20101111_AABVPF ruben_m_Page_08.jpg
db971fc64d2ae1cad497429566fd757c
b47686779a648b1fdbd6fb1ff43d1aabaac67d8b
2341 F20101111_AABVOR ruben_m_Page_61.txt
2ced9efbdeefb34acb9b822b92520f9c
6bda4fc7686522bf95bd9acfdd363970198e55ed
117331 F20101111_AABVPG ruben_m_Page_09.jpg
26bd14813469310356c9dfc43ed75614
77e322b7c952eea7d311f5cc44ffd171e3448336
F20101111_AABVOS ruben_m_Page_19.jp2
9dd31bcd07f13c054285fd92d386013b
c88d2605582e4a8ed914cd9753155cb77bf47170
99375 F20101111_AABVPH ruben_m_Page_10.jpg
b4ef51eb163242c92e174e10821b76ba
4686e4feaf31c707762e734d81f49a53d7697356
F20101111_AABVOT ruben_m_Page_32.tif
fa728b427116b70ef1cc7fffe994d18d
13e3104c947d005739534258736e6742d4c4e293
99179 F20101111_AABVPI ruben_m_Page_11.jpg
7dbb47bff23ad5dd22c260f2e614a15f
3a23931ec43386c85f096e408c82d88672a678c8
F20101111_AABVOU ruben_m_Page_91.tif
dd2c45ae121c0f1e96f432107757e389
a1b7d427551691d8c5bffa7063de8c81ba33e370
24732 F20101111_AABVPJ ruben_m_Page_12.jpg
8f5ed3a11d395c703dbef10b44d5bbfd
12519a982d4c9d7b3bfb871bcdf6f3c71e5f6ac5
632 F20101111_AABVOV ruben_m_Page_77.txt
dcfb713053be67fc1859621e241c1ee8
946e778d48e1a41326aa2f18101db2b8680cb400
70594 F20101111_AABVPK ruben_m_Page_13.jpg
6ee160338e58318012d056c4a96c51b5
835ecec1e0b4a6d32a1b78de90d2792ec857e41e
64560 F20101111_AABVOW ruben_m_Page_23.pro
fb366d687cc42f54623c6e0929ed1e89
6162464d9b54b82571af845a1c349571f58666f7
87951 F20101111_AABVPL ruben_m_Page_20.jpg
f172ac14417cd87e3fbd77a05e721fb7
411e790fb27c199c0736c6a19c4d730a9f120343
1051974 F20101111_AABVOX ruben_m_Page_50.jp2
f502dcf868305de3bc8796452cd8232b
e1b80e02b403b8517f3338a7cae628afda36f009
83815 F20101111_AABVQA ruben_m_Page_46.jpg
a6c61f3363784eec1070e9d702315e29
64ff9bf1ba25b4f6f6e3db79440d61cf685db238
89691 F20101111_AABVPM ruben_m_Page_21.jpg
a262c7eeb0cd8ee3ea5b6a4eed0fd349
3d5957bf79f95b47f4e1d55ec9ce8d1b43f622fb
106651 F20101111_AABVOY UFE0021999_00001.mets FULL
45dc96dc0f21479958edc86facdc3c1a
d0a188a4af23c6d08920e7716af3929a5973ddce
86158 F20101111_AABVQB ruben_m_Page_47.jpg
e1f2ddf3854b8c8f5beb094535b2d981
91bfea823d7034f7dff14e8716108806c9e59b0b
100806 F20101111_AABVPN ruben_m_Page_22.jpg
0861f796b47721a079593a94570fad33
515f41e1649260c82c8e46a585679a9a0d0d3aff
84930 F20101111_AABVQC ruben_m_Page_49.jpg
b688681c81b19e1350f1335943e6a30b
c24fc56788a6dd2b0d76aaa4db90ef7790a73e09
97848 F20101111_AABVPO ruben_m_Page_24.jpg
a51a49ec6223cdb300977c994fb73079
09ed4e337fddd2bb07e4651f20bc2e60324d3c6c
90626 F20101111_AABVQD ruben_m_Page_50.jpg
bc2caeb080bf2acb8ad717a70ed9b9e1
3ae291b980f7f81ccfb45999b1b4276e5423c0f2
96098 F20101111_AABVPP ruben_m_Page_30.jpg
c49c1d4f7110e5380b605ba33f61bd2a
d9d1d5b955850d63226fe33d9d83072bcf36a668
88544 F20101111_AABVQE ruben_m_Page_52.jpg
d70a8ec880efcd629f4ea9724c0cdbf7
a8bfea81990676b0b64da419113973a8ac002125
95189 F20101111_AABVPQ ruben_m_Page_31.jpg
8e5286f390b456708582cb05ed6033b9
15a735ca14ab9162bbddcb6fa8fd37a04fa8c887
85828 F20101111_AABVQF ruben_m_Page_54.jpg
0d97d3250f4f3b19ffa15862521203cc
7537639fb5b8bd846d3f25fbc23aacf6ced398ec
70536 F20101111_AABVPR ruben_m_Page_32.jpg
d6f49a1c8997e85d0337e48e812430fe
f81a3752883e60b878db20d0d07d9ac515e7e187
54231 F20101111_AABVQG ruben_m_Page_56.jpg
43767834e05778ee5bee5309d59abbf5
5dd2fb9bb4f530feb5a6dba3b63d12dfef7f28ad
84521 F20101111_AABVPS ruben_m_Page_33.jpg
20e5b8ed636da12004ec15849653b4d4
d5c3973c76a4385ca7df3d4415150ab87fcb81e5
65004 F20101111_AABVQH ruben_m_Page_57.jpg
7f7a65bc1233b57ca25ad82f46a52d19
367b8dfbd32fe4f9c2892cac4149edde7b342c3e
87529 F20101111_AABVPT ruben_m_Page_34.jpg
9533ea48ba2492e88f2cb18006bc348b
92284336c3e6e96fea6318fc30695a80f595d0e7
64181 F20101111_AABVQI ruben_m_Page_58.jpg
9fd6f9d85532627aa5db19ec299a0304
9ecc84e76b15edb7f4de6c84fbcb5b9c3960139f
88120 F20101111_AABVPU ruben_m_Page_35.jpg
6a4f626692abc3e02a82036cd3077820
583d309d8143b84eef057a75082cd5620ee7f264
56820 F20101111_AABVQJ ruben_m_Page_59.jpg
9e555a245323ab1633dfc01380588a0f
ccea403305d49926711807983b2ff85f5f79a695
74553 F20101111_AABVPV ruben_m_Page_38.jpg
a5b7f90a7a7c1e50375a05f02160418d
78da58911ea5885be3f454aeb6dfc7f37c8f8377
52278 F20101111_AABVQK ruben_m_Page_60.jpg
4b4b2fc16e98e125ef09daeb8bdef8c9
24d274d256b91657b5e8e6e6ee23dd43ec7f3c17
82435 F20101111_AABVPW ruben_m_Page_40.jpg
2d824828a6cb71c194f2beb4e85e3f84
7da4928eb3b5fe61eec377d945d77fdcb9fa1ecd
63068 F20101111_AABVQL ruben_m_Page_63.jpg
0dc390a074245f1b51e73195153a1de2
61838df5b5b9a161d774166bd76f7d55cdd4261a
84024 F20101111_AABVPX ruben_m_Page_42.jpg
ca6d1d114bc5876c8e278f21ee4805b8
214bec148779e9832fd086a2f0eddcc3f6e779f4
86331 F20101111_AABVRA ruben_m_Page_84.jpg
3e27dbd28d8a55c7747285be80e9e585
ed72148b8a63d9c2b75574d4d49ef1a8545a1ca0
52771 F20101111_AABVQM ruben_m_Page_64.jpg
5d2bde1859d785550588e3ddecd6c441
f88cae29675d4b264f4f97a69703bd40821fa688
88361 F20101111_AABVPY ruben_m_Page_44.jpg
ace6652dd5af79ba97c49d1d3f9e8219
035aae88fd9855debf8fd102b580f6dbff5881a7
48168 F20101111_AABVQN ruben_m_Page_67.jpg
8d348e2f523ac3ea6f3b0d527c66cb29
1978ce9a9995917e3bd228db7790e1ddbd746544
80818 F20101111_AABVPZ ruben_m_Page_45.jpg
f6a2ba1cdd1ae5854c31c08424a75115
0da8bc1ccb3912674de495e7137acbb804ee11d0
64839 F20101111_AABVRB ruben_m_Page_85.jpg
3d2597a49b3f37220cf0468520882600
23c92270f69f857d637eee4a9c475296a63076e8
77802 F20101111_AABVQO ruben_m_Page_69.jpg
1cca736eccb012fc89bafb24ca55dbca
5e7ea737b2958cc73f5b61c0e6047c6aa044e8bb
77887 F20101111_AABVRC ruben_m_Page_86.jpg
84dea8237f19f5bdcf34edb292c7f0b9
bb30ea39717bd572f7e66688a4fae6002afeb587
71102 F20101111_AABVQP ruben_m_Page_70.jpg
49996d8c40391cb0f9806f1c115e9697
4da9691f65362b7646101cbda958ab7d4abbd511
79267 F20101111_AABVRD ruben_m_Page_87.jpg
2bfac3d3530437c406ac31262b0353f6
9ce9cb21729ef9f7fe0c3ba6fd97860470dcd22f
76170 F20101111_AABVQQ ruben_m_Page_71.jpg
4218d505c8951c1b681a3fe97a7fe9de
4b02295bef1f3247751afc1d3a7cec4dc5bb168c
79141 F20101111_AABVRE ruben_m_Page_88.jpg
d86342bf3f18029796dee736c15bdcdf
21fe1a8da4d2aa8644d1a4be969d10cb13fb1eee
77447 F20101111_AABVQR ruben_m_Page_72.jpg
0fa194b74e8a020dc6044adeed303f23
f43d1c9b521ba68b22c53d299b7bbb69f9f00337
117098 F20101111_AABVRF ruben_m_Page_90.jpg
756e0571e5a040703d68db7f6134856b
0d7b147fe509f6b478788edb37120f6cb8bb41e9
17848 F20101111_AABVRG ruben_m_Page_03.jp2
3cfaceda6944ef6552b1048db2c82465
f9e71300d56241540cad8dbe5a19faa3fee455d1
15470 F20101111_AABVQS ruben_m_Page_73.jpg
d04b446fdb9253c0c51372a5edc4a148
f326c326705f719df6c622c1df27c52ef7bcbabd
F20101111_AABVRH ruben_m_Page_08.jp2
38f4c5cd4e8c347f1d563e1d8d75951f
d1fa8468a196d84ed7ca5a8745ca6d4859213849
31451 F20101111_AABVQT ruben_m_Page_75.jpg
a852b2738120e9f7dd3488a60737c036
cf6f4b1350279cf88fef54be36ec1a039eaa5179
F20101111_AABVRI ruben_m_Page_09.jp2
a79efddcc3faa8ace9db8694fdc496bf
90d68011bff8a5d3f820c36c05f435f2ddca5a4a
30417 F20101111_AABVQU ruben_m_Page_76.jpg
f8e8ca577fa630427686179b74ed6a30
ddda4c5bb43b7c78e18d70402dc15b70b3886aea
1051976 F20101111_AABVRJ ruben_m_Page_10.jp2
c1126c2f57ef87eca4f5a5d7355c2dd6
176b9d421e7b6adc2209f031f0884a97711faf93
28910 F20101111_AABVQV ruben_m_Page_78.jpg
9005d8f7197d4ea9195d52cb71a6dd65
15c560d66b2623cc3acf9a12b2af8dd6e2aa09f1
291505 F20101111_AABVRK ruben_m_Page_12.jp2
8b7cacd484efb6eefe6c6824a3490b59
ba025898b5ea3735fa9fc0ef8ac3e6d51e723631
31657 F20101111_AABVQW ruben_m_Page_79.jpg
3c8e52f647250e6ef90089f0cc867811
0ca7c09cc1bfd1f7ecdfa8af8dea559b829eb064
1051950 F20101111_AABVSA ruben_m_Page_43.jp2
71a74eed4f994ec7ca2c2bdd81739f40
df7b43c7e7d5dbf96d6d6fe8cd18f1bd336ef286
915312 F20101111_AABVRL ruben_m_Page_13.jp2
991b357596440e8e484234d29ad1e54e
e37bbe39c91d8f191eec275eb37920d664ebb92c
39273 F20101111_AABVQX ruben_m_Page_80.jpg
bde33f90798e3196e23d405cc0f323fe
352b27b4c9ab96ca79f0b4f7fc7d7910b97880c7
1051923 F20101111_AABVSB ruben_m_Page_46.jp2
86db28d32ae76274bf3c75a0dddef3ff
00b2e983da6a559021ef64897e8815a06dd334d3
1051964 F20101111_AABVRM ruben_m_Page_14.jp2
df28923b0cbc93759a2c61ab001a5ce5
c7c1bf4c322335abb33e7363a3537361fd0f99eb
37903 F20101111_AABVQY ruben_m_Page_81.jpg
0008a36109064f2bc9f5b8a229f424ec
352d6da7a263f5b2db6e370a294df2e888a0f476
1051952 F20101111_AABVRN ruben_m_Page_17.jp2
f12851e0c59fbf66c358ef797a451f7b
e27583c2fda3d64a2045b7dc5584477eafb570bd
85920 F20101111_AABVQZ ruben_m_Page_82.jpg
71081c0087a4492f27b5641ca65239bd
75e1adc1edb7592afc5f653d5d5bc953ff758583
F20101111_AABVSC ruben_m_Page_48.jp2
17c086735a920421d08639ee9e9a4dbc
90c49881cfea56bcfa6a40a027ebb7f9c0515a0f
1051959 F20101111_AABVRO ruben_m_Page_18.jp2
00090e53d7a24075c254e6499f1189fa
94b8a4e48555dbe900bab9eb7ffd03288c1f99fc
1051971 F20101111_AABVSD ruben_m_Page_49.jp2
df305054e6bc6f41ff8bf7bf29c77ada
0c185b0f8c2f5832bef4e29249c050d86bb00c53
1051960 F20101111_AABVRP ruben_m_Page_20.jp2
793b3a1c473a45575f82e9683838c9f3
059675d138de0b213b65561734ac9417c4c80055
F20101111_AABVSE ruben_m_Page_52.jp2
aa12bea04cd06519f6842a8003e9647a
eb100774786f4c0536b0d17edea2b6ae75de03aa
1051953 F20101111_AABVRQ ruben_m_Page_22.jp2
01a0bfde9e7ee69891320ef291b802c4
c8eca8f86d1ab8b3f11af9508859c1700f53eed2
F20101111_AABVSF ruben_m_Page_54.jp2
e8adee3f0bafe0ac54ec60d3a0006087
fadfe1ae4a7dd964f29baa240f6a3d4ff83b9796
F20101111_AABVRR ruben_m_Page_23.jp2
b0a09e884c209e72f1e697dd26455299
185f642f2f91f73383681caf31ff882c12bf65e5
723557 F20101111_AABVSG ruben_m_Page_58.jp2
42852768014056d49f52e7413ff494c1
40611b042f044d77eccdfc78fee0b227d6458e98
F20101111_AABVRS ruben_m_Page_25.jp2
3e7423c30affc03599ebf9146d18eece
bafed3c1c37c19b8914a71aeb89ce0df1aa1a492
675767 F20101111_AABVSH ruben_m_Page_59.jp2
d2ed20c998c5dfcae51e1f55b55afe51
2687532b4859337d39d12c61b87819067a9c7865
F20101111_AABVRT ruben_m_Page_27.jp2
47c09834db06a3d669fd491048065e76
7b40bf3fa9b3f81cf7e7901a65e489e0126f6fe8
1031668 F20101111_AABVSI ruben_m_Page_61.jp2
b5d5eb316a604e58b8f9d36fa96eceb0
19ef90a5403e898d03dd34cd990c8c71892a0725
1051972 F20101111_AABVRU ruben_m_Page_28.jp2
6aae37a665f826e70f53dbcfcfd2a643
384c799b73e60b986fd9f5859db768e7a40db539
743420 F20101111_AABVSJ ruben_m_Page_63.jp2
b2ae62f2d193d93c39c6f57564e6563e
e773dce403ce3c4b4abe319766d0a875e12576af
F20101111_AABVRV ruben_m_Page_29.jp2
f4a7c15a7fd0b7c9185d288e35c85f83
b59cfa845615024187d3e2a93ac1c32f97f2ad91
617052 F20101111_AABVSK ruben_m_Page_64.jp2
78a8baa367e447cdda64cbadcab8bffd
b9128736f68e1c665f7017323c2038b9e11dbf2f
1051977 F20101111_AABVRW ruben_m_Page_31.jp2
6a2572b4563aa22f5af22807c6d75ce8
8c4614c14084be73245549271d272885ac638a6c
756215 F20101111_AABVSL ruben_m_Page_68.jp2
fd4008b955c49b9befd0a6ef708a6494
4d0db0e1e0fce7a1f74db56c4281bc6dda5f43d1
929293 F20101111_AABVRX ruben_m_Page_32.jp2
776f28d86c5f5d3372c85ef2cfdc8647
79aab16847c23d7db256bf2240e2afdaf8c9df87
F20101111_AABVTA ruben_m_Page_87.jp2
752adac7703115754f544b92db8ce6da
6c83365dc7eeefc1c065fa72bad3b3731d9ef092
1001392 F20101111_AABVSM ruben_m_Page_69.jp2
db3ff6b571580f6916a76d56081936ab
a60ed50451f1b5c38c471a47f9c4aa1f4528b0e7
1051929 F20101111_AABVRY ruben_m_Page_36.jp2
d4274be95592d9c923e81308b9658434
ab44d5c0900d52d7afed4d6c2a2b8e648bef5cc1
F20101111_AABVTB ruben_m_Page_89.jp2
c8ef9efd4c4fccaf0b5875d0e9c7aa8b
e92f0b18e3f7fb5ab9fd30ad695676c76008f27a
855949 F20101111_AABVSN ruben_m_Page_70.jp2
a7bc71862cd66937a9897974a2089161
5b5662a0139e2a48d3de6fb389e5a8af2c6b64fc
F20101111_AABVRZ ruben_m_Page_37.jp2
cc1d71fa6f9c6cb64649786bd9d1a486
a45fbe77a77c27399fe2f25599d641151c8e2ebf
F20101111_AABVTC ruben_m_Page_91.jp2
2bf4b780726911650a77119142a818c0
7a872374fb588b7a6e7dd16cab6f2ccf5f916554
950752 F20101111_AABVSO ruben_m_Page_71.jp2
5b2c09ca9fbc6093a265bd2b554cfc2c
4ef8315f6df4c37eb507729f53b9956f4c159b9a
946517 F20101111_AABVSP ruben_m_Page_72.jp2
108bbf15208079331d24128977193781
f3182b8baa818eb79061180693737c3f742bec81
F20101111_AABVTD ruben_m_Page_02.tif
1f2ad0c58ac048d8ac6baba526d8b82a
6cb515671ae7b0f89d573da264587e747ac82282
154154 F20101111_AABVSQ ruben_m_Page_73.jp2
358da4e23c93d9dc56d0c7e65133f2b6
ff251ee1a3308dcb2930d8ee9662d71cbf598d11
F20101111_AABVTE ruben_m_Page_03.tif
dd210867df9ac07ac39b1177c51f0879
217c00b65e74dedff3e319339ea29ae4a759e8c6
465507 F20101111_AABVSR ruben_m_Page_74.jp2
2289893fdc2e8552f5a83af549abf90a
3efa66bbc90699b63e8c065a0ff4efd65899f7f3
F20101111_AABVTF ruben_m_Page_04.tif
5269482f4304876682e260850568c86e
bbd05d77b80825a2ac59ed07e8815a6cc936b87c
321521 F20101111_AABVSS ruben_m_Page_76.jp2
5c0208cbc00563bd7d1d67367c1e3dd1
df1f2c55d526a118f219bc804c7a49a996ecad4c
F20101111_AABVTG ruben_m_Page_06.tif
0254abc981773892f2c89bd36c931ff7
90b7a04a65395241bbf2e695faee9f83d6e927b1
355318 F20101111_AABVST ruben_m_Page_77.jp2
391e10da2c25133f9c23e96da24e2be4
fe46dd8eccddb72d8e56743316ca8803e3bd2a90
F20101111_AABVTH ruben_m_Page_09.tif
35da704a7fa741b7bb9d5776c8c84533
86c42d610b847805dd0c15a396456973db9cbb52
299586 F20101111_AABVSU ruben_m_Page_78.jp2
9809d1508af3d05ce9376f59a3963cc4
9c5aacaffe65d059d8b6970931ac3fd98800d300
F20101111_AABVTI ruben_m_Page_12.tif
fbeba9687907a38c6f0f418de9b9ddcf
d106f0a5dca7923e24091609809a6a307033ead5
324488 F20101111_AABVSV ruben_m_Page_79.jp2
bb2188bba3e7bebee9ebef3b40dec1df
a68e377e5067a44a1827e3d7ad58b7aa9ee24846
F20101111_AABVTJ ruben_m_Page_13.tif
92e7da5bdc7261dd3778130e10aa8f55
9d9e5ab56e70a54f6b6522f605a400c098cd9dd3
425021 F20101111_AABVSW ruben_m_Page_80.jp2
0da0456ea94e2e5077c090b8131f66cc
6438a2b95704834a8a375b269774409159f83243
F20101111_AABVTK ruben_m_Page_15.tif
06351bea7753034a449a708904f64a7c
2e2c2cb374d0bfa6799c077ad8f465c04c80962e
404109 F20101111_AABVSX ruben_m_Page_81.jp2
3c2522e00e1fe3e85b8983b6adfafdc1
953b5c926030da08ade9f273f3cd73615e965c08
F20101111_AABVUA ruben_m_Page_47.tif
78373ecfe50606eb8461b79928c45373
1f5a80c2c3d1a6ee142dac338ad35234e7972ece
F20101111_AABVTL ruben_m_Page_17.tif
f681941fb5f498476a9c4dcb0f2d6041
835e1223e33a437e70a8edd24f5bda1a23eef7a2
802944 F20101111_AABVSY ruben_m_Page_83.jp2
37921717573aa9e847dab2cc647ad7cb
1bff3637be813ce225d1e4d305ba3efc1e270b4f
F20101111_AABVUB ruben_m_Page_49.tif
d53dd08dc066278aa2040fc8a5112a1c
abb99fe99b67b4a88e6c09846e588a451fdb2628
F20101111_AABVTM ruben_m_Page_18.tif
88cf7715411f7a12e86e0b72a0104901
a974917968042c6369d69a3140ebed04ee5c92b3
F20101111_AABVSZ ruben_m_Page_84.jp2
c6155d97d8329bf612f11e721aa5f153
79731bcb32b79301daeedba58d47eea9f6d532ce
F20101111_AABVUC ruben_m_Page_50.tif
df60a1ef4fa32a0f4942d7729714df23
f674efeb125dc9b44d95e1c4f557c03de231e521
F20101111_AABVTN ruben_m_Page_21.tif
4e642b44063abf326e7a57eadd5d6e2d
2a57ff291bff0233a86599e0f4266f1af23e27d6
F20101111_AABVUD ruben_m_Page_51.tif
dc2d1650ea0c8ea88e2164920d835e92
9c80740b52f5f10f76a757157c6032cbab4e3b00
F20101111_AABVTO ruben_m_Page_22.tif
78c07cbfc3b466969cd9be83b0f61964
79d0d2be176429b3934ca9dea9f306530557a1f8
F20101111_AABVTP ruben_m_Page_28.tif
e358d73341339b2b26f8d19929023d03
587dd120a58bc5894bd6cb18027f5b667cf38ebd
F20101111_AABVUE ruben_m_Page_52.tif
34f9097d7cf21d7ca79df2ba0a258307
096dc81eb9f7ce3f93f00dbfcb12511c2c2527d1
F20101111_AABVTQ ruben_m_Page_30.tif
b6082aa0c83ee6f48015b3528d65cd66
e715efa706ca5a0ecbdbc4d4feb24ef762de911e
F20101111_AABVUF ruben_m_Page_53.tif
2192cfe0df5874a6a771d8166586298c
aee576c3fbcdf7a440103ad7a4661ec16620b27d
F20101111_AABVTR ruben_m_Page_33.tif
0f906a6bd9c9871d811a0e6130103081
26a54452d7053708931fa126065368c71811504d
6602 F20101111_AABWAA ruben_m_Page_52thm.jpg
a5006b36aba6a0b37b7222d29091439c
f293ff9a23af2e262f164efe3f7274f7101b5398
F20101111_AABVUG ruben_m_Page_56.tif
ae97a2fe214cbd4a4f198de117914700
339822edc687b926b373f384f7179edf395260d3
F20101111_AABVTS ruben_m_Page_36.tif
aaa0dd84843b39fdce8af4370eb57d71
2db82c232063bb37ff7e843f550da8ca0358c5f4
5102 F20101111_AABWAB ruben_m_Page_13thm.jpg
be8173b5a17e7390d04b9e944674cc05
932be1ff931e7de61a05ad386f3ed8bea386c3a5
F20101111_AABVUH ruben_m_Page_57.tif
8011c8dd664c841099eb33908cdcea6c
03a099d076aa4a77cdc9a379ad3c8f529f88a5f3
F20101111_AABVTT ruben_m_Page_37.tif
e32b7317a565202b4b25e8ac20b9b83c
5772f0083ea49e5effb906e2d3688694bb3d2c9b
28510 F20101111_AABWAC ruben_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
54d7de54ef3e0d86acf52447e12fb382
493121c431e3ae0ac1a02223dede669617a9e1fb
F20101111_AABVUI ruben_m_Page_58.tif
960cc2a6a7db7807467e6f3829a98a0e
2e4b90b829319a8e9aefc8c295ebc4f66f56afff
F20101111_AABVTU ruben_m_Page_38.tif
cb8ce5971d3d5991b250039c3c12e29e
151c864c9c1cd8331423aa02ff6ee715b9556bba
4412 F20101111_AABWAD ruben_m_Page_66thm.jpg
b94ecad64e2aed0d27b2afe00edc5798
c77caa3442bb335458e0e78d2b47cb474869a1f2
F20101111_AABVUJ ruben_m_Page_59.tif
5893badc3db38157862c9701782373a7
b223e5b9ae2e7271eb0212031f2f4cebc12c3a8f
F20101111_AABVTV ruben_m_Page_40.tif
e19d3774762a667513c168b828f6beea
db7c98824d129b45b5f47d20f319811a37b1bf67
3768 F20101111_AABWAE ruben_m_Page_75thm.jpg
983fd199599362f42ec4ee55ea5a3729
aede16786442fb4111d890af05feaef227dbc7ea
F20101111_AABVUK ruben_m_Page_61.tif
2f81c7b8c48567ad74739544b61fc06a
90c92b76d978b442ab0854f659987f2afc2d59dd
F20101111_AABVTW ruben_m_Page_41.tif
c753074c2f0b1ede5fe704fc83ac3f22
b2fc85f101b121989d003630c1f34970946fb3a5
4770 F20101111_AABWAF ruben_m_Page_62thm.jpg
0d3fe692ccd7175121c841f0d4dd7863
f1e384c02a1857d30fdb9b7464dc6a65345533da
F20101111_AABVVA ruben_m_Page_88.tif
a6e299aaece31ef368f35357c17dc211
0237112094641d497631f167db8c30a883f03ccb
F20101111_AABVUL ruben_m_Page_65.tif
80c80a14f2de46a471132366cc7a4863
777e0312f2af400dd7b279ba16681d0ad0273cd9
F20101111_AABVTX ruben_m_Page_42.tif
5512a9f0561eaad4e82dfefd5de07674
6e93b4d439164b42e44069a1aecb1b5dc8071c55
F20101111_AABWAG ruben_m_Page_31thm.jpg
e0be0141a5433d3e987bb2ebb01b2bcc
941439c41f8dab23e382769343ee1798ac38d3a3
F20101111_AABVVB ruben_m_Page_89.tif
a9cd18d79e16c23b5e490c523368155b
2878e0faad926e818c07ba99c6ecae7257541298
F20101111_AABVUM ruben_m_Page_67.tif
e6ef3d87b0a60a59bfca57cde72ba56a
8e167e9929e9b161795a856bdc0906decbcc91ad
F20101111_AABVTY ruben_m_Page_43.tif
f73f22b04aa2fabab44a04644b148d01
fa79ec90d0d60fba83a75e68e9a493cb9dc86a83
26861 F20101111_AABWAH ruben_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
a8a31aeaff139bca60f6522cddc9930f
0d4ec3c63a8a563f90378f5c13a3604221cc0698
F20101111_AABVVC ruben_m_Page_92.tif
930f221b35c7be8109dd33500b9b5101
a4468cfd23bd6a073c8ac7e162109523c44b4e55
F20101111_AABVUN ruben_m_Page_68.tif
46f5ab90d16c103d48b514f3bb5f0e98
c57557d75c772b327051982693a3a2334941220f
F20101111_AABVTZ ruben_m_Page_46.tif
c1e4cc1ef174254077053dcc72800bf0
abbd195365de9c85f24fd2cd3dde56de9f1e7522
5075 F20101111_AABWAI ruben_m_Page_73.QC.jpg
86322af2445a73c2a8c7c85d2e785891
d5589a0d4289f764c902b4aaddd8325c1e870ebf
963 F20101111_AABVVD ruben_m_Page_02.pro
2d055548fcdc26a9c2f378e462ed0459
2e6050b58a95be49713866a15b08f92a072e477b
F20101111_AABVUO ruben_m_Page_71.tif
c0b815f7f8c5e020cbf5addff2906cc9
4d51b5c2e6e69102047b2240f0f11d2ae97a606b
6447 F20101111_AABWAJ ruben_m_Page_46thm.jpg
0b9c83d77ab48745e278c8380a2e9c8d
7acaa11b2e33c62b2880f0eae1991d7daf7e2e75
F20101111_AABVVE ruben_m_Page_03.pro
6d504b1b26e3a83d8930d65a14cdf5b0
2eb3945ee2c22a296a978a6041d98df3eace50bf
F20101111_AABVUP ruben_m_Page_73.tif
7c199b3133d425fe58f1b964e5456387
863e4dcbdfb6664c6bbb095cd16fb3da1f4b9402
6181 F20101111_AABWAK ruben_m_Page_37thm.jpg
d3c78823501ff976c6d3990ce912703d
58fccf872fdcc19510ae7ea5db9badff273e9013
F20101111_AABVUQ ruben_m_Page_74.tif
e5f124539b2736693bbe78be44bcf95a
d2260cb98e57288e302163029a9a43d6880c86eb
26013 F20101111_AABWAL ruben_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
6a6e647ca92b5ae97078f5f48c7479b3
5ee204bec44ebb2b41ac3c7547d4ac7d9715d8be
20233 F20101111_AABVVF ruben_m_Page_04.pro
ac62e5cfa020f1f6dedbc31d40c3dda8
477d58c9e36e6b3c73bb1208a6c201832c3a18f3
F20101111_AABVUR ruben_m_Page_75.tif
d2ded01993acd373f350eaa60a67e579
f4d27631d016549ab4d509fc74c72e4e61cfdf16
5099 F20101111_AABWBA ruben_m_Page_57thm.jpg
738cf0bea45496e5fca5c910c37ca160
d63d8b6b2a99be057ff14a3d07e70334a15872a1
28634 F20101111_AABWAM ruben_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
a17e3ce08e581462cd2c1be7cf2ef59f
efde38f8143549b11504bb69a89da15bb592976c
92891 F20101111_AABVVG ruben_m_Page_05.pro
76e3c497c35092c40bb9e3fa93b4ab70
98fc2b026933afbb73974602cc0c7e372a958596
F20101111_AABVUS ruben_m_Page_77.tif
7ea88e3e94074dbc547c8aeffc5620c9
b0323ef73ed83c7046489cadcd01a3bfa7196fda
21678 F20101111_AABWBB ruben_m_Page_69.QC.jpg
c79d448e3971d4f40e3394794d3966cc
ed9069e6ebc38082e5873c82d21d7ccac50a8f13
26977 F20101111_AABWAN ruben_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
4c4b4d99cad0812c1fd23a1e5f8010df
d83d536b5f28237b6d9a450fb7e1551e70a18921
23096 F20101111_AABVVH ruben_m_Page_06.pro
723dda33da6547675def5efaf88e9dad
7b225fce461ca2e9b63bbf5d9713a580f805e76a
F20101111_AABVUT ruben_m_Page_79.tif
52042a35e935e15e2e853bad9c4eee81
cf8f04607c0564eecc2be1e6735855d1068c5483
6747 F20101111_AABWBC ruben_m_Page_50thm.jpg
8d337503af6e1f2efaee70d58454affa
2ad91bb364df131f129cf876e5d4df2b4476edc1
12369 F20101111_AABWAO ruben_m_Page_80.QC.jpg
9e19ba0cd01209a5134d4c3208313c1e
d010d3881047f120d5a7dc09fd1be35832a9e946
68578 F20101111_AABVVI ruben_m_Page_07.pro
a86bf1aa758832c790b18c03c428acf1
35f9e228f0aa3fad5b04da73fa555974f4b6a827
F20101111_AABVUU ruben_m_Page_80.tif
3d4f28c3f89f1b58922a1f35038f8060
4764d5c790535b581ba9f36de952ea5feb1037c4
6531 F20101111_AABWBD ruben_m_Page_87thm.jpg
cc89e8211fc74cf48d2204daa2f0d300
5e1365eac61c7fa53586e47bce85192d8bfad6c3
76525 F20101111_AABVVJ ruben_m_Page_08.pro
c8857e12efc8189ac8f246162c6d94bc
5239f51b72884e93f42a4f7abed9367874815a29
F20101111_AABVUV ruben_m_Page_83.tif
016ce76aef22894a65936e12b20b5b59
dc506ed90359955f56f9783768d96cf9a6839423
27065 F20101111_AABWBE ruben_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
4215a5bed6db0a9708288939a8155307
0d8e370ed4f5e76386eb1aab1d8274ca9f082283
6568 F20101111_AABWAP ruben_m_Page_22thm.jpg
207efd728daba5778a0041a441736663
e8b47efac4af3732ffc4c344c28da67603984523
63772 F20101111_AABVVK ruben_m_Page_11.pro
9f09d73248ff3a464178479785125f1d
debf62807e195adfb2864c5fe1e1db6d7d82f3ab
F20101111_AABVUW ruben_m_Page_84.tif
92be4be99a0418728f2e00288de0a484
bdee30b97a46975ece44a190ceef8a52497b2dad
5807 F20101111_AABWBF ruben_m_Page_38thm.jpg
931a393dcb8d4d5d764a7718341c8b46
c752c30dd50bf425c4ee3aa96fb721e44ed9ae7c
16994 F20101111_AABWAQ ruben_m_Page_64.QC.jpg
7530d61eaa63da2cf9a25242ed0fd40d
b67ae637469eb37bdcce2016e0b2955ea65b99fc
13249 F20101111_AABVVL ruben_m_Page_12.pro
b3e794ba01de68b4a7a4999a0952cd98
861fdfabf6fcf36f0ecf8148a4125ff4692f2935
F20101111_AABVUX ruben_m_Page_85.tif
29e130b7d52f53aa0967a09243aa8028
19093263cf7d1899991ffea373c315832ad01832
6380 F20101111_AABWBG ruben_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
885c8fc145aac46d72e6126fa95352bf
ecfd38d9824bba6c53320c4408252d44a3156c7f
50660 F20101111_AABVWA ruben_m_Page_33.pro
abbac9e5b123ee21924fac83ec2a5a9b
4fa4d9a9a39d7923724489dbd7a2cfc4d8fc1fe2
4800 F20101111_AABWAR ruben_m_Page_58thm.jpg
4f55b0f7b7926ab4abf4c0d8c0ee2c0d
76793605995a67ad90d1832da0879a61fca2befa
52648 F20101111_AABVVM ruben_m_Page_14.pro
cb1a61433587654aad6ba1c58c9e2010
f46763a66c528fa91278ec763b410bf2025dccc1
F20101111_AABVUY ruben_m_Page_86.tif
a7e28e13fc3a96b4208e490301501602
1eaa0cf7a0a524fc29b7fc178fa1a0959744a14c
6716 F20101111_AABWBH ruben_m_Page_48thm.jpg
2c12d0ad7b65e6ccabf21d08e1ecb335
bfe958a924f0707f51ab69044083aaa8dbd780dd
52088 F20101111_AABVWB ruben_m_Page_35.pro
8207c5feb5a4e02fc09a1148f13335ac
75aefbd2a971db56fa0a79300624d0a56377585b
25753 F20101111_AABWAS ruben_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
0e0dcee5ebd2fc378cf8c9b37a681376
15909b4130075882c7abe5b5d9f7c121163f5bdb
50671 F20101111_AABVVN ruben_m_Page_16.pro
9734e546281ea8a90ad36bcb8592fec8
95371abe4bbc296164aaed90a2f8b24aff628d46
F20101111_AABVUZ ruben_m_Page_87.tif
b20c109604c5a5e79aac53e24a70d7c5
cf3e66c7ca61528184f77736bbb63b41735c9b92
26965 F20101111_AABWBI ruben_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
806e1b991957426750ce9bcb9449d9f9
920ab0d8e6c08b04330b3f9b697891ff1525235f
42825 F20101111_AABVWC ruben_m_Page_38.pro
cdc6c6ce870a1796e96fd2977a8e9ca8
9d6db1ec2fcea21033e3f1709ac46550db3849da
6476 F20101111_AABWAT ruben_m_Page_82thm.jpg
38b02eb47996149c8957819ce27e9266
1b12ccec39343a90b1d07550e56b09cb75440c5b
62329 F20101111_AABVVO ruben_m_Page_17.pro
b7c51d88581a13091e4998acbb7f3838
9ecded66a70a587e824a177c8c453621f0bf66f7
6127 F20101111_AABWBJ ruben_m_Page_86thm.jpg
f798ff6220b2fb35fb0437f6d9e83f67
21fb4056f8976a339cc470ded9537d285d455072
49450 F20101111_AABVWD ruben_m_Page_40.pro
37ebb4fc33a074999a5941f9f86cb111
b45f457f047c535ac58f7c8cc89950c8b3fa6c25
6540 F20101111_AABWAU ruben_m_Page_19thm.jpg
7ac00af86cbd0202eb6ad559d727970f
6300ac3331d9a2d62abafb389b611d95bc7a7ed8
1565 F20101111_AABWBK ruben_m_Page_55thm.jpg
fa1c82cc96e88d2253fb0c75d2a1b94a
cefd80e660e33767e820647a159b83418fba1de3
53229 F20101111_AABVWE ruben_m_Page_41.pro
5ff436e34e5a2577ffd1b79ee72f577e
6de8f07ab2e5218cce5022d61fb712d4efe32b52
24261 F20101111_AABWAV ruben_m_Page_86.QC.jpg
140b9d26d3d05a638018f94f892fab47
818937c3c625f448f81772fc402ed3a6ff8662ef
53710 F20101111_AABVVP ruben_m_Page_18.pro
decba78ad7f8c6f84745b5a922a1d6a1
a787f6a9ebb9cdd9d3b907b4f6319c3efaeaa76c
6343 F20101111_AABWBL ruben_m_Page_34thm.jpg
b9de30a9b5fa7af3348e486d4fa33ba1
dcbff25524b01fdffb3ee2fb1f5d91d32465f4e2
48876 F20101111_AABVWF ruben_m_Page_45.pro
10be8167f48bd666113bdcf684f698e2
9e72578913f8040e6eefa7be7774d25b0d3aefa3
3751 F20101111_AABWAW ruben_m_Page_77thm.jpg
e974cd9cb0fc22fdad58ccd0dd6db738
de83f416d1825bf161493a2ef37da59573addaf9
52362 F20101111_AABVVQ ruben_m_Page_19.pro
4ae0ad76fca38d5f62e69a6bc6b888f5
48dc31c315ac39a2d98f3a4402c59758498d4d13
28059 F20101111_AABWCA ruben_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
5fd126be39305a73c8817031dd7b8f80
b5fc515c9e45efb62ca4d560d0184978a92be4cc
31071 F20101111_AABWBM ruben_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
10e94b955ab6e4deb05e9de8ebd55e2a
f5fe9e0360a1e411b1b99194e3d99f214390a3ad
21154 F20101111_AABWAX ruben_m_Page_85.QC.jpg
94b989185cffec0113496a73b1a42e6f
999cb495bf20045854ddf67bf1ac865cbb075355
51943 F20101111_AABVVR ruben_m_Page_20.pro
67eba9f52076d059aa49847638beaf4f
2b488397969d60cc442a0bb779f82e12eeb3b006
6323 F20101111_AABWCB ruben_m_Page_45thm.jpg
a9de16b647cad33341620a777c5c3e8b
02ed48396508608823c1fe4a122596a202b4dce6
4673 F20101111_AABWBN ruben_m_Page_65thm.jpg
90b074d58f2e2daadd619eba741be7de
4fa0a12bf373f886272e66dc266ca2ebcc925922
50404 F20101111_AABVWG ruben_m_Page_46.pro
587971236337f6baf06a0eb1d300871b
bc97f6faa70707c98186f1696168ae5de5b2e04c
11754 F20101111_AABWAY ruben_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
fe66f8b3b6be5de104590b58fbd77ba3
454066445d956c2a3726864a46755d011fb2f035
54352 F20101111_AABVVS ruben_m_Page_21.pro
3bf26d17416750c6cb5edc5c4023539c
29287ab793855c1cedf9d5590ba0b3f0ea28ca3a
7278 F20101111_AABWCC ruben_m_Page_09thm.jpg
314342cc4509bc0ad611edf7fccb36ec
53cbe1b30f70ec134dd01633cd2ff39dd6d9d9bd
23303 F20101111_AABWBO ruben_m_Page_88.QC.jpg
5d2f1a0a87c72583505905d5245d6a71
2827a52e10f361f762e93bc848fd999bd015072d
51726 F20101111_AABVWH ruben_m_Page_49.pro
4ca462b712ec1ed7881cf69b851d304f
206a4669430e8e0b558e6ecfa4cd93fe88af6a8b
6713 F20101111_AABWAZ ruben_m_Page_47thm.jpg
c45a635bcf5e4bafb8f1907c4335c9fe
7cff1992b56b836daafca4855e9d15bcef5f2216
61021 F20101111_AABVVT ruben_m_Page_22.pro
3c08f6bcf7686f45dacbad4662e9b1b7
cf2d4cd0c5992e4919003e439133a8e6b82c3b12
27867 F20101111_AABWCD ruben_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
484de2e7bb46c704f5fe8f9c7f15341d
1f5bf83d24e7182a075dafa8add97f0bd6a92309
2081 F20101111_AABWBP ruben_m_Page_92thm.jpg
abdb9d7da15ccd857618ad2b3c7efba7
4063b17d171dd6cf8b726b202a4f84b2a1f53bcb
55336 F20101111_AABVWI ruben_m_Page_50.pro
377deb3bae1da0d341b3e4e5f409e3b6
1b4e7d997c46ce03870a7b82cc9682cfe705c1de
58089 F20101111_AABVVU ruben_m_Page_25.pro
596946fab13463a1da859255d5f25dc3
a9a798daddf7bf7a7afe6f68ac2cb7e57e776d70
23211 F20101111_AABWCE ruben_m_Page_72.QC.jpg
ce7567dd51418d6d3eae0131a3eea96a
e2a252b34ee0e52904cd2852bea453b08fd9b503
54085 F20101111_AABVWJ ruben_m_Page_51.pro
18ae1070c270c5b82846524455279bf8
7d1ccf322c1f9fda8fde2526f4333849735257d3
61883 F20101111_AABVVV ruben_m_Page_26.pro
b9e4e90487f42362c9e6a6b29211f47b
5f0f936e2745ff72f0e6bce4d23b49197e7037a7
29275 F20101111_AABWCF ruben_m_Page_89.QC.jpg
ae0607fd8b3b9040f71f85a4e456a04c
9211331e4dcee67b94cb9386c8e5aeba1482ab44
27959 F20101111_AABWBQ ruben_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
3379d26152783cc19461e5389ca959dd
773d02a9f0b2c32439b526733fc2aeceb60506d5
50552 F20101111_AABVWK ruben_m_Page_53.pro
0133ec55997fd77d943a676b0cd53c93
a81a1c40075d97215a0a3b3c7663336762cc5d9a
58608 F20101111_AABVVW ruben_m_Page_27.pro
578f99e9a8f1680c0036919fa810e231
34920d1e8afc248ea8caaa3d453c3e0df312f5ed
18581 F20101111_AABWCG ruben_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
e7d4d313e6665cd5b2a13261cec222f9
51274e1e664bc3cde24f46ce7344c812adc4414b
10014 F20101111_AABVXA ruben_m_Page_76.pro
4c7d026ec7a3b5d6162a5b8a2d73f625
511aa676197c9c14659f73e789ea33a6770fe6f6
5683 F20101111_AABWBR ruben_m_Page_88thm.jpg
a121f60e157b26656167193b4fa8ff46
5d48a1b594248833538f34a452f5a4b6c8c56771
51968 F20101111_AABVWL ruben_m_Page_54.pro
7568b50c4bcc95c314a3783d1e76809f
2fadca00c6fceb3511bb3fc90a07114fa1e71cb6
75045 F20101111_AABVVX ruben_m_Page_28.pro
2b7b46e1d2d593f4c96132bddb005a96
0fb90ab3d0ca33665f84c1e6985843af037c7bd7
5106 F20101111_AABWCH ruben_m_Page_32thm.jpg
76ba07b132d10445c4b89bdfc13eca77
2dc550a3c15539abcd7343469a0900c7cf9a9ccb
11773 F20101111_AABVXB ruben_m_Page_77.pro
d9c09dcae0eaaf6b5a505da0e2c07be7
faf11bd28e2136269133650e599dffdb7ef2ae4e
27519 F20101111_AABWBS ruben_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
ccac4e833e86b9e8c5eae58f1fdfd528
c08a3d31b754d343cb4f4dda50afddb0cdb4d987
47991 F20101111_AABVWM ruben_m_Page_56.pro
fa54ae16f99f90834dbdbddcff1a1786
3cf0d0278200fadb7d65296f802421ec3684497a
58538 F20101111_AABVVY ruben_m_Page_30.pro
d9d30ca3087b27fd191e104c9eb6a4e9
155a4c151e892b31c155af72790d2ea4e56bdf02
1371 F20101111_AABWCI ruben_m_Page_73thm.jpg
baf3a40723d43e2bd04dc9966fb5f8ad
e0014836cdd2d0ecf3e0ae8bd5d2a085a6b2e61b
10542 F20101111_AABVXC ruben_m_Page_78.pro
7dbdd28a1306bea1f3b16867c95bf120
0270e814cba1fe21dcd8420a193999e642762b56
7345 F20101111_AABWBT ruben_m_Page_91thm.jpg
7352bcb2d0d914429262978eefcf892c
d75e588c6a7c8ea956901398bccf91e05a3242c0
53138 F20101111_AABVWN ruben_m_Page_57.pro
5cf34b51974a03b45507244f08e91907
28d66114db184f417a256f9a46f8b797b84511fc
59687 F20101111_AABVVZ ruben_m_Page_31.pro
473e31436fa4d463ec487f8895d0f915
5dad57a21b7bb66df2b9c248082081adca587d8c
25571 F20101111_AABWCJ ruben_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
17acff16f7d3f972048374bc7ac7a1bd
6acf6ecd25bfa0eb0e8d728baf90ca0660fdcd3b
12981 F20101111_AABVXD ruben_m_Page_81.pro
d053a74089522010201d4db11d068ee7
2944e13dea353dcd7845d49be907dfe318b0838e
27544 F20101111_AABWBU ruben_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
7c7753a807eea49f282fddf579104f54
5bfff524c9d7ceb24b19a8e80f4c306e266ffcf0
55189 F20101111_AABVWO ruben_m_Page_58.pro
90901ace1b90a26f23261203ec029e83
363e300abf2f7249efe066358bb51cabc0f4f2e9
20948 F20101111_AABWCK ruben_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
1eaa98b60416525b89c983b3b381ff4d
e6a5a16de1c278f839ebcd0edc52e2144628ce4c
52654 F20101111_AABVXE ruben_m_Page_82.pro
f12f8ba15caee99b549a6ff5f1083dc5
36403943ac5f1cd1829dd79bd53f1e4d7035fb33
19568 F20101111_AABWBV ruben_m_Page_62.QC.jpg
c1de22f321cf6b47bc5490f904c121ee
b9dfb26136dbd0ce465b3d8be4337c6ec3354f81
45419 F20101111_AABVWP ruben_m_Page_60.pro
5ab4302140175c5315a6f8dc16d226e0
d5ff8639f106992b1e28f9bdf241126f8457ec5a
27347 F20101111_AABWCL ruben_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
bd3640fcbcecdc1ee57f99566f919c03
640b5444b5f8c6f7fedc5f69f588e151451427a2
51522 F20101111_AABVXF ruben_m_Page_84.pro
b067a1fdc2c29cd886451fab75c29b6f
c9a3d2defb491ed94fb3b06460fa84fe2003b624
26400 F20101111_AABWBW ruben_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
09be958cc7ba313c092bd2accc69118a
3cc5d8462c05df2a5425f29b821d7f5f3873c57a
43768 F20101111_AABVWQ ruben_m_Page_64.pro
240a8b0fb2e173761fff037b803a4655
23efe446da5ea6a6c0a3ba03ebc2ea828facda6e
21228 F20101111_AABWCM ruben_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
79714ff15ad2fce7b0f48f110fbfac82
be7d15805f11b08282fed8ace9694f10ba18af25
38694 F20101111_AABVXG ruben_m_Page_85.pro
a26fbd4909ddec2b70395736aab0845b
9905206f7974c266df89092922149639af6aca26
5342 F20101111_AABWBX ruben_m_Page_71thm.jpg
c4ae926e9f7ee235b7fe529767f3b28b
20dae86f60cf3e7c555a933ae513281cb436a91e
51722 F20101111_AABVWR ruben_m_Page_65.pro
2e83847948ba7496afdd93c6b57d98e3
ef49776ce026e7e71c7d154d83965ad6e28a5843
11321 F20101111_AABWDA ruben_m_Page_77.QC.jpg
4d1e7949ad232e1aeab788819c72b989
1ebf5eae10f82fca84d948761bbdb585d77168c2
469 F20101111_AABWBY ruben_m_Page_02thm.jpg
d07ac5e567eb87e5970e3af94c7e2136
d1556c743682e859c114d6f6b12030792b26459c
52633 F20101111_AABVWS ruben_m_Page_66.pro
84efd5d2bb3979dbba65836ad183522f
8f711e4fe0fd09ce145edc2f8c8b9b5a920d60a3
5400 F20101111_AABWDB ruben_m_Page_70thm.jpg
eda0e1a62c7ad3fb2e7b1ae48969cace
194516e233703fd3a5eecad6b48cd575cb584f6c
5246 F20101111_AABWCN ruben_m_Page_69thm.jpg
d0faaeda3ce9c1594a4db10fc699f3ab
72b716f4cb6a9db5af4fb7d67586403da85a3af0
45642 F20101111_AABVXH ruben_m_Page_86.pro
a045f67a755c6bc81240d0024c018e1c
15d2fbe764ec12e6f889a0d6a17e04cf2494738b
F20101111_AABWBZ ruben_m_Page_24thm.jpg
8290ee4f6ed93359c948146fbf5b97f2
0a42c491ab9c7f8d0faf3f5d3a5b1f8a6291b0fd
45838 F20101111_AABVWT ruben_m_Page_67.pro
0a140f2fd604fb879f1031ff433bcd00
ac0d1388b74d081041a917f1a7ce54f6cc0851d8
4001 F20101111_AABWDC ruben_m_Page_15thm.jpg
cb00cc94813089acc37e79ce0136d587
aa579e9679691130db6fc751ecc936df660800e2
6378 F20101111_AABWCO ruben_m_Page_49thm.jpg
beb9d2bfdfdc5912dbaf8461d50c4474
f4fba514a23258dd56973782cb9e51f85fe7304b
45372 F20101111_AABVXI ruben_m_Page_88.pro
c864d73baf0ea7a11ef395e0219640b0
9293001f2ab3e9d7134ddd09c905f06c94af06e3
50255 F20101111_AABVWU ruben_m_Page_68.pro
c6033febbdfb50c017e37cc62db14708
81888f182db120d5a02ed51af1e388b0ef5d58cc
26605 F20101111_AABWDD ruben_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
0298c95526d7de97169b02a353e5b8c1
4c959c6298c1c3ef194629d4da360a59b73ae7ec
4421 F20101111_AABWCP ruben_m_Page_56thm.jpg
899814c713e12761e835fdf175a91144
d8ac466202d0f7eaeb9a79bdbf7222a21dc86a83
65199 F20101111_AABVXJ ruben_m_Page_90.pro
98979d36da03b327fcd0c716a0890a77
ba0acfa2a9623671fdca75535369d906b9c721cc
46990 F20101111_AABVWV ruben_m_Page_70.pro
d27773bf36264d075685ab2dde737888
11134913609adb9e61650d1261a78d018493d8f2
26205 F20101111_AABWDE ruben_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
8e9ab7cb869b993b2c1b7fb466a0b45e
27ab9f2ecafd4e63b06f858d4d25139e78519d63
5738 F20101111_AABWCQ ruben_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
cb783554a068d98b6a032d42ae33c599
b655c36f4d35a3310d60bc42712db1a209bb58ac
13869 F20101111_AABVXK ruben_m_Page_92.pro
7c84fa8e39596aaeb10151ebed9b2836
db9a3a3d1a4dc57970495b2e4e17b030c102754a
54036 F20101111_AABVWW ruben_m_Page_71.pro
75a7f80458b5e3aa14fe3d212896da97
1b57a9db1ef09c256174ccbe7770e678c6274e3e
6496 F20101111_AABWDF ruben_m_Page_30thm.jpg
4a78ae69a896a7e7bf97e07727ed29dd
c75e3b01c663202d3076d7c9eb0d19d27d5948a1
93 F20101111_AABVXL ruben_m_Page_02.txt
b60a3b7286906befb2223e5b63ea8c83
aae0472a8cf3b7e5b96954f095f96b5fd63eeb10
53712 F20101111_AABVWX ruben_m_Page_72.pro
8f44aa08b5a313353283298352ea70d0
3c200a491555ebeabdf92f66654096c54ee4a56c
137812 F20101111_AABWDG UFE0021999_00001.xml
9170b0983fc5bdba07ed83ea23183d45
714958c07b9210ba16082fde58267f9bdefbc446
2458 F20101111_AABVYA ruben_m_Page_26.txt
1d90e4c0a171d970d701a0e9c057ae6f
ddc5fd8f6282baf64d75c4ae27c2ba1173bf198e
6285 F20101111_AABWCR ruben_m_Page_16thm.jpg
5a6fb0343e47cc4e4a4793d18981eaed
cb44ece0283556cb92a05445b78d4d6c211dca32
78 F20101111_AABVXM ruben_m_Page_03.txt
791e1833fd835bf33981ca070dc6adcc
dbc827e9c33670f44f83164e38e8e0570758af8a
9591 F20101111_AABVWY ruben_m_Page_73.pro
13c5e730242982a784c1f856fa31c3c7
47f5de64732ae1cc0fa6801d15c049601ed328a7
4783 F20101111_AABWDH ruben_m_Page_05thm.jpg
ac7523ebbca5482a5b59a8ca5b5908e8
edc89a7c4f83bc1ce589ea72a9085e8b8aa11ad5
2392 F20101111_AABVYB ruben_m_Page_27.txt
3615b2fa1206d62c6641c237209e872b
fccd0ff0391bb4d20f9522fae34c2400f18b4fb3
6842 F20101111_AABWCS ruben_m_Page_28thm.jpg
c31097de7723c772a6820bf00e1209b5
265e70d19d3a9851d4aa3b5a92ffa25d5f55bc9f
847 F20101111_AABVXN ruben_m_Page_04.txt
c4cc3c76bb629f5edaafe883a3af24d2
4df672dafd2d75ce4d9c2bf3525363b45f141fd9
14091 F20101111_AABVWZ ruben_m_Page_74.pro
083f6c16378a86a3f75ce618c8d65a74
ad2b83ca736db3c106fdfa133cf97af1bdc230e6
1888 F20101111_AABWDI ruben_m_Page_06thm.jpg
8615f16d91dcffeafe603631254159d1
e44e15e5b18906420e16f64dc4ec6beef6e57c32
3040 F20101111_AABVYC ruben_m_Page_28.txt
32c3f31e4e1ebd092849ff78b706f127
10e0ae070556c05a4bbaf45400a48f04fb801e8a
27728 F20101111_AABWCT ruben_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
0a930070ad67389e66d27eb9d219fe2f
d1234a2b31ccc02eae89b041b79ec7ce9b812131
3748 F20101111_AABVXO ruben_m_Page_05.txt
e6c3eacfeb312f00c2ebfbcb7b4c48e6
da5315f09641693f266ee88b171f014a2033cdb0
29349 F20101111_AABWDJ ruben_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
2565d30a84f9454c82b086d567c866fd
a9e22b076ffed8a3642b5d8200c4d96b10aaca48
2405 F20101111_AABVYD ruben_m_Page_29.txt
49e400ea74a0d6e8e1006cf4bbe5a97c
9f59df7d4984c9be09ff02d6f0d25642312340f1
29726 F20101111_AABWCU ruben_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
7dcf869ae5ff3cb239f5ac8bbf333695
d393811789dd6c3beb0245882994facf94aee116
1029 F20101111_AABVXP ruben_m_Page_06.txt
21735df8b9799ee5bfe647956e59eeec
4f295cc98b4284390b04c764aedd85490ce66623
27183 F20101111_AABWDK ruben_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
32d8d2083c36f480e3651b26cebe09b2
cb850b16816da44822920db94945e914c9ce5450
2363 F20101111_AABVYE ruben_m_Page_30.txt
c3fa53f8b72593f263fc3d241098e9cb
6aaab5fba41ec39c186ef589d2764a7af060e3bd
26350 F20101111_AABWCV ruben_m_Page_82.QC.jpg
a4da402cb143ea12276ee5bf3d8fada3
9d8cce2010216e17791c13922c24561a72231cc4
2710 F20101111_AABVXQ ruben_m_Page_10.txt
c0920f62a2924c3fc54e42e245d981c9
e91b3df48e621b70c572875abcc3c1753a04bf8d
6560 F20101111_AABWDL ruben_m_Page_39thm.jpg
b2d866ed21239e83e6e75d9820022bbc
d47f1c1bcc9a45f5ebb8202fe16f336bb10e67f0
2364 F20101111_AABVYF ruben_m_Page_31.txt
e25aaa34bac631c4435d8532a56a190b
3b8265408c82cdf8bd0f0ff1431002db20a4ec3e
4765 F20101111_AABWCW ruben_m_Page_63thm.jpg
3124af026193ca0bbc2298131647ba1a
0d7808802cc8123cc3856b240212e5b3bb0cb7ac
2566 F20101111_AABVXR ruben_m_Page_11.txt
1137e7350455b9984d2d82378a37f8fd
37449122bfaaf1480a4139129672245cedc63bd3
28296 F20101111_AABWDM ruben_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
1a2813f11511bc11f3a93b5268af0b13
c62cc2f8824b9aaa1aa206f2114aeb6c1cace1bf
1698 F20101111_AABVYG ruben_m_Page_32.txt
892db47c2ced93399a7f462446d7f893
0c58892d4c85093458b869aca7a86a802853b6cf
6273 F20101111_AABWCX ruben_m_Page_07thm.jpg
f2ff1b14c2235d8ccfbd7d6df0d671dd
31ef19ec85945c159e1bb5b2d56ad8cdcec28e80
1779 F20101111_AABVXS ruben_m_Page_13.txt
42ce43cddd9235c87100f1be4aaa1e01
ea07e400cca71da3aa5ec90a2678736d2fa600d0
25427 F20101111_AABWDN ruben_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
258e12fd01d7cdc4d9deeda856abe125
9b14d934eb6d7c9781da5653d5b73ca8b5947588
2113 F20101111_AABVYH ruben_m_Page_33.txt
dab06ece783cca1b657ec29faad88411
79276fb1884e0eb1fad5a96cb4f15f6592eb2b2f
28653 F20101111_AABWCY ruben_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
3a8666bc6832be225aec3606f6eb804c
e97fdb8a394f860c5d41d60612df5abc5b5912bd
1252 F20101111_AABVXT ruben_m_Page_15.txt
82658994dd56f9884681f191507ddd96
d65f7448224f730cda7f056beebd2e29b0fb9216
16532 F20101111_AABWDO ruben_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
81ad3d41e19b4b183bac172d41432deb
ae955c39ee97a5b51b868c0322677f21bc738cf6
31627 F20101111_AABWCZ ruben_m_Page_90.QC.jpg
e211f2735eaea9a2fed3dc611ea7db31
84c805bac2549e01ad5b8ebf57c41296eda120cd
2102 F20101111_AABVXU ruben_m_Page_16.txt
b45e1d06762cae02156c92686046b2ed
77b55a80ee1fe8b768c2342eeb0d458b16557340
4161 F20101111_AABWDP ruben_m_Page_60thm.jpg
cc8c0b76220afd7f788e9964044853de
b6cd937e5a5a7d662f44d9d57f3994cd98189b5f
2045 F20101111_AABVYI ruben_m_Page_35.txt
388fe5b063a9a5f4b6cc9746f62394a4
795349ae31218f4e46c09e8976c078eb4894a391
2506 F20101111_AABVXV ruben_m_Page_17.txt
647f4bd0d85663d36f94807ee56121c5
1c5d3a5e243af579cc790f0bf0a48c4d71d0efa9
5566 F20101111_AABWDQ ruben_m_Page_72thm.jpg
a9b46672ee56f283422110ab8f7cb3c4
21a4d66d77b72069659c22c9951ba6f678cd511b
2014 F20101111_AABVYJ ruben_m_Page_36.txt
c23a870727b40933539080bd8c56522b
89dce95ab41ccea0338ec07e3383703d2e5c6241
2465 F20101111_AABVXW ruben_m_Page_22.txt
000f03ad8f0973ef224006c208904389
af2c395d01c5c0f526843f2fcab8bb587669ed3d
10453 F20101111_AABWDR ruben_m_Page_78.QC.jpg
6160f238e534f09189382da19129a38b
dcc747a8271b62cda0c90f4c7c5a96d85ae9fb5a
2026 F20101111_AABVYK ruben_m_Page_37.txt
8c4bf7dc00d287f8addf4e9539a99616
b40af611e732ab863fa89024c5651e18f9f52838
2627 F20101111_AABVXX ruben_m_Page_23.txt
5cc9dc6a23b9bba0c75ab004099fd094
7ec55a0f01d9a956ad462977bc61ce2038d8e78a
2860 F20101111_AABVZA ruben_m_Page_66.txt
f4067a4f5a85a22eabe2a93c11272c86
d9d8f6415030629d59f2f8b57e3cdfaaead039fe
2098 F20101111_AABVYL ruben_m_Page_41.txt
a7c755a122abb071a101e889369c08a3
23a6722edb3f1af05c835aaf9e85a3698aff99d6
2339 F20101111_AABVXY ruben_m_Page_24.txt
3d41a3fca3ba4bb3fe52c365c754c882
f8aa2b7704fda293627a70a12cc3c872d1e0e5ee
2518 F20101111_AABVZB ruben_m_Page_67.txt
374b945cbc019fb10f1166d7e542d36e
9322f1ef3f7a02aeddbdf5f1db8b7d6f5bc13eee
3645 F20101111_AABWDS ruben_m_Page_79thm.jpg
c69c34ede04ae9ef95b7b8853012d69d
8493a3025293cddfb0f68a104c8cb95a8b0441ac
1955 F20101111_AABVYM ruben_m_Page_42.txt
84d242e6a25f2f9b76a78b29d6386c21
844506d83b483e87422e04434c98c7b3ba83715d
2353 F20101111_AABVXZ ruben_m_Page_25.txt
b1c5df98dbc3e1bdfdc267f9cfb574bc
6c9d2b1975bfa18895cdce8d8fc8ac482e7bfad4
2741 F20101111_AABVZC ruben_m_Page_68.txt
8ea8061985690c466756a0a07abb8620
14420c24f636414a39aa59eea157add2a2aa3d24
12703 F20101111_AABWDT ruben_m_Page_81.QC.jpg
0e639b3864c40b32cdba6a65302f570c
1eb82bc5c3611ac68c75b8e1a3297a3f4a3bb55e
2151 F20101111_AABVYN ruben_m_Page_44.txt
c7022b53e2335f419bf0dfcccaf5e9b7
308e71ec5b4327670902c510bc9d5114f6d14e5a
2334 F20101111_AABVZD ruben_m_Page_70.txt
0888fd8f651e394f96d8a1a3d6997666
be95b95ee84c99b5ff0e07343de594160ee4ccd3
6468 F20101111_AABWDU ruben_m_Page_84thm.jpg
cbbad51a89f52a2182c629f79fa36daa
c39c844c69444a202cb2671efc945d6e93db0818
1941 F20101111_AABVYO ruben_m_Page_45.txt
9140371bc9f3a799eced8b70dc113be5
adbf54b10b37a6634f4e348d15df79a0cffb232a
2866 F20101111_AABVZE ruben_m_Page_71.txt
e22302659cdbbaa29db99277a8e5c2a8
28bcc337bbdbba048881aa39591afafa355d2583
2018 F20101111_AABVYP ruben_m_Page_46.txt
7969120233dd03abbb6622c8c8bef9c4
9f80a00d056475a4b8d8c162e612b4baa8b64f4f
2783 F20101111_AABVZF ruben_m_Page_72.txt
31864e985946a1e21a8585c587be2382
abaa0f46d6d794d431ea27b85e474fdd33f996c0
2025 F20101111_AABVYQ ruben_m_Page_47.txt
b1f52d186f9e185f1ee0c428d578af01
1013e17ea9d1e6280bd507eb59b964439a50cb34
611 F20101111_AABVZG ruben_m_Page_76.txt
7b8ba6ae87d3cf448a2767021f5cd16a
e96e95591db8520e630e34b210ce58db92461306
F20101111_AABVYR ruben_m_Page_49.txt
d53cfd57252b064cdd77f9049f5e39c6
e7f4c71daea20237ee862755a7723adf670cbc87
839 F20101111_AABVZH ruben_m_Page_78.txt
05b0143d3a25a1390d1fc39f0c91b5a0
1caa3ac4a1abeb4b0433ec1167617223f9fadcb6
2123 F20101111_AABVYS ruben_m_Page_51.txt
e5ab76ce8e6a0870925d0f434bb3c761
7a10850ddd7988fcf8abce635d0b6067f8b28517
978 F20101111_AABVZI ruben_m_Page_79.txt
dbddaffdbf4fed8ab703c8176ed7960f
136c71794584da6b44d0796239d5776be2d5d05e
2146 F20101111_AABVYT ruben_m_Page_52.txt
3bb03d056c93436d8dbc78581f1646cb
a31a2118bd49a124d0e75320c63734e776fe7114
2055 F20101111_AABVYU ruben_m_Page_54.txt
14077b1c6871596e6c069150d9eb27ff
5fff9c9f57a03547589f343324719cb40c728e02
704 F20101111_AABVZJ ruben_m_Page_80.txt
0fce3ab4716443848f202dd9e2c974ea
1663269ac760b93abe26ea3651f6ce4700d608ab
357 F20101111_AABVYV ruben_m_Page_55.txt
ab330c0aee2242716e8d384b304c3c69
74d1738f23ab907878c1a9138ba05fa5caa070b1
703 F20101111_AABVZK ruben_m_Page_81.txt
ec2e4cde500d05c2f0d6bc369795ba10
13bf8cafd4b85a8a0ac09ada0f834eb85ee7bc75
2715 F20101111_AABVYW ruben_m_Page_56.txt
8e7591b6eaa1f77e103467bcafa137a3
d3f6b944aa953fa7ea8b67d6c43d859df6fe7c08
1423 F20101111_AABVZL ruben_m_Page_83.txt
d5269ab9f5b6d87a5dcacca22dc9899b
fdc90df3d4e61f95c1e969476f7c0f79de074acb
2526 F20101111_AABVYX ruben_m_Page_60.txt
a79648640ea0eb4a6cda391cfc18fa31
0616a4f478b2f2fce9950d439424503b6deb35a6
1984 F20101111_AABVZM ruben_m_Page_86.txt
a6a23c94406bc59fb34eeeabf7ebf0bb
012057ba6722465e3b394a97297519296dac617f
3145 F20101111_AABVYY ruben_m_Page_63.txt
b27bfd62fce7233214ff98a455c8f7fb
f344be016c8131c797f236c50d1351a03456ab33
F20101111_AABVZN ruben_m_Page_89.txt
68e5a0cc7e12847e54a9809eee6d1ab9
b670848e559b86de37e75bc2b00596116b69d9aa
2384 F20101111_AABVYZ ruben_m_Page_64.txt
6fc1c1c087fed9ee150e73290d69743a
0a20209a65413bacd04b84ef3d08efa6a815e6bc
590 F20101111_AABVZO ruben_m_Page_92.txt
03c4d3242b8dc58c776ff456e27e55f5
b082486e1ef171baf95217e369ff53c66d7be268
364751 F20101111_AABVZP ruben_m.pdf
097d7d75975c269d49d90bd38aba8a24
f028b3ec7bb58ada096f1ec788340045d3936768
27573 F20101111_AABVZQ ruben_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
994065a57c64721a896dc226f8df8942
de3b11d7f2cd57c7cf94f080b1ddc154b35b67f6
18866 F20101111_AABVZR ruben_m_Page_66.QC.jpg
e438eba02bf4d568f0b71da357154017
dccd99151eaa09811193d57077a95740bc77fa6e
11284 F20101111_AABVZS ruben_m_Page_79.QC.jpg
28a9b718a8c9f85f0d4b5747a4768af1
16a80b4899d6958f6fe37b9b58fe468c71fe8319
6228 F20101111_AABVZT ruben_m_Page_53thm.jpg
5439f48229de2c2aeb5bdedfb1b0529b
00d8a328894030949f8494ef71330827f87d3e30
27481 F20101111_AABVZU ruben_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
cd2221a062700a1080487e5c81d98fcd
c4a004d1203ead278ae912c987525c3b8343eb60
19108 F20101111_AABVZV ruben_m_Page_83.QC.jpg
54fbfaf3b2fde459a7d36bb8d6560486
6fcb26e984505a50cdb4d70f1e2211e6f67765d0
11036 F20101111_AABVZW ruben_m_Page_75.QC.jpg
97cadaa4374f304e3c5f5a807b8614a7
a617cc461f6e4d65016bc23e4bf6cb97f15ac6ad
5062 F20101111_AABVZX ruben_m_Page_85thm.jpg
915b3d696e6ae13ee9f560de8e2614e5
eeacd0da850263384cbb44da32f416b702767076
28140 F20101111_AABVZY ruben_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
af2904d607d1accb4f80f0a7b9ea6049
dd582923519d1a0f329c0aae12f4ea23ba946f96
31339 F20101111_AABVZZ ruben_m_Page_91.QC.jpg
05277f3237382c937c5762752c65e1b0
b7541730b46b91bc907c85e288737684086b901d







SUBCONTRACTOR SAFETY PRACTICES FOR HISPANIC WORKERS


By

MATTHEW ALLEN RUBEN


















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008

































2008 Matthew Allen Ruben

































To my family.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank those people who have helped me to accomplish my goal of

completing this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee: Dr. Jimmie

Hinze, Dr. Edward Minchin, Jr., and Dr. Svetlana Oblina. Dr. Hinze was an invaluable mentor

to me throughout this process. Without his help, direction, and friendship, this project would

have never been successful. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Hinze.

I would like to express my appreciation for the support of my parents, Glenn and Paula

Ruben, my brother, Jordan Ruben, and my grandparents Ansel and Helaine Baker. They

encouraged and endured my journey into the construction industry. I would also like to thank

my fiancee, Wendy Fahsholtz, for all of her help and patience.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES ......... ......................................................7

L IST O F FIG U R E S ............. ......... ......... ....................... .........................................11

L IST O F A B B R E V IA TIO N S ........................... .................. ..................................................... 12

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 13

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ............................ .............................. 14

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 16

General Contractors Effect on Subcontractors ............................................ ............... 16
Resource Constraints on Subcontractor Safety.................................. ....................... 18
Program s for Sm all Enterprises ......................................................................... .. 18
The H ispanic W orkforce............... .......................................... 22
O opportunities for H ispanics in Construction .................................. ..................................... 23
Higher Injury Rates for Hispanic W orkers..................................... ......................... ......... 24
The Language Barrier............ ... .. .... ................................ 25
Safety T raining in Spanish ........... ...... .......................................... .............. ......... ........ 27
U understanding H ispanic Culture.................................................. ............................... 29

3 METHODOLOGY ............................. ...................... ........33

In tro d u c tio n ....................................................................................................................... 3 3
Survey Q questions D esign........................ .... ........................ .... ............. ........34
Survey Dissemination......... .......... ..........................................37
Initial A naly sis P perform ed .................................................................... ... .........................37
L im itatio n s ................... ...................3...................7..........

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .............................................................................38

Introduction ................................................................................ 38
Com pany D em graphic Inform ation............................................. ............................. 38
C om pany Safety Inform action ...................................................... ............................... 39
Company Experiences with Hispanic Workers ................................ ........................ 43
Current State of the Subcontractor's Hispanic Workforce................. ............................44
C om pany Injury Inform action ......................................................................... ...................46
F findings C orrelated to R IR ........................................................................... ....................48









5 C O N C L U SIO N S ................. ......................................... ........ ........ ..... .... ...... .. 82

6 R E C O M M EN D A TIO N S............................................................................... ... ............84

Recom m endations for Subcontractors........................................................ ............... 84
R ecom m endations for Future R esearch...................................................................... ...... 84

APPENDIX

A CONTRACTOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ..................... ...............86

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .................................................................................... .....................89

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................92








































6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1. Number of Hispanic Minority Business Enterprises responding to the survey...................56

4-2. Number of fulltim e field em ployees................ ............................................. ............... 56

4-3. Percent of w ork that is subcontracted.......... ................. ......... ............... ............... 56

4-4. Number of firms with fulltime safety directors..... .......................................56

4-5. Percent of workday the safety director spends in the field ............................ ...............56

4-6. Does the firm have a drug-testing program ................................. ....................57

4-7. What type of drug tests does the firm conduct .............. ............................. 57

4-8. Number of full time field employees in firms that only perform post-accident drug-
testing ................... ........... ......................... ...........................57

4-9. Are all company employees required to wear hard hats............................................. 57

4-10. Are all company employees required to wear safety glasses ............................................57

4-11. Are weekly toolbox meetings conducted on project sites ............................... ...............57

4-12. Are pre-task planning meetings held before every task ....................................... .......... 58

4-13. Does the company prepare a project specific safety plan for each project...................... 58

4-14. Does the company provide orientation for all its employees on project sites...................58

4-15. How many hours are devoted to the orientation program for new employees....... ........ 58

4-16. How many hours of safety training are provided to employees each month .....................58

4-17. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish .......................... .........58

4-18. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firms with at least
one H ispanic w worker) .................................................................... .. ..... .. 59

4-19. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firms with at least
one Hispanic worker who cannot speak or understand English)................. ................59

4-20. What is the company's approximate annual expenditure for safety training .....................59

4-21. Company's computed safety training expense per worker............................. .............59









4-22. Company's computed safety training expense per worker (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w orker)................................................................. ..... ..........60

4-23. Company's computed safety training expense per worker (for firms with no Hispanic
w o rk e rs) ............................................................................... 6 0

4-24. Does the company have an incentive program based on safety achievements ..................60

4-25. Has the company implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote
sa fe ty ................... ............................................................ ................ 6 0

4-26. Listing of responses for those who answered "Yes" to the question has the company
implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote safety ....................61

4-27. Listing of about the most successful practice implemented to promote safety ....................61

4-28. Safety has a positive affect on productivity...................... .... .......................... 62

4-29. Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers...................62

4-30. Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning English .....................62

4-31. Our company encounters significant problems because workers don't speak English........62

4-32. Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic Workers ........................62

4-33. Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job ..................63

4-34. Non-Hispanic workers value their own safety more so than Hispanic workers...................63

4-35. Do Hispanic workers more regularly follow the company's safety procedures than
non-H ispanic w workers .................. ............................. .................... 63

4-36. What percent of the company's employee's primary language is Spanish..........................63

4-37. W hat percent of the company's managers are bilingual.....................................................63

4-38. What percent of the company's managers are bilingual (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)..................................... ................................ ........... 64

4-39. How has the number of Hispanic workers in your firm changed in the past two years.......64

4-40. Does the company require workers to speak and understand English in order to be
em played ................ ............. ............................... .............................. 64

4-41. Of Hispanic workers, what percent cannot speak or understand English ..........................64

4-42. What percent of the Hispanic workers have been employed for at least two years (for
firm s with at least one Hispanic w orker) ........................................ ........ ............... 65









4-43. Besides English, what languages are spoken on the jobsite..................... .............. 65

4-44. Does the company have a program in place to check employee's I-9 forms .....................65

4-45. Does the company have a program in place to check employee's I-9 forms (for firms
w ith at least one H ispanic w orker).......................................................... ............... 65

4-46. Has the company encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic
workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ............................................... 65

4-47. Listing of responses for those firms who encountered unique safety problems
associated w ith H ispanic w orkers......................................................... .............. 66

4-48. How many company employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor last year ..................66

4-49. Of injured employees, how many were Hispanic...................... ..................................66

4-50. D distribution of R IR values......... ................................... ....................... ............................66

4-51. Company's computed RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...........................67

4-52. Company's computed RIR (for firms with no Hispanic worker)................. ............. ...67

4-53. Company's computed Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)............67

4-54. Company's computed non-Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ....68

4-55. Company's computed RIR statistics (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ...........68

4-56. Characteristics as they correlate to the company's RIR (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w orker)................................................................. ..... ..........68

4-57. Characteristics as they correlate to the company's Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least
one Hispanic w worker) ............... ........................................... ............ 68

4-58. Characteristics as they correlate to the company's non-Hispanic RIR (for firms with at
least one H ispanic w orker)......................................................................... .................. 69

4-59. Characteristics as they correlate with the company size (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w orker)................................................................. ..... ..........69

4-60. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the company having implemented
an in centiv e program .......... .................................................. ................ ........ .............. 70

4-61. Number of full-time field employees and the firm's RIR (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w orker)................................................................. ..... ..........70

4-62. Company's computed RIR as a factor of their safety culture (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w orker)................................................................. ..... ..........70









4-63. Company safety culture as a factor of the company's workforce (for firms with at least
one H ispanic w worker) ............... .......................... ..................... ........... 70

4-64. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the firm's safety culture score (for
firm s with at least one Hispanic w orker) ................................................ ............... 70

4-65. Company's computed RIR as related to the safety tone score (for firms with at least
one Hispanic worker) ............................................................ ........ 71

4-66. Safety tone score as related to company size (measured by employees) (for firms with
at least one H ispanic w orker).................................................. ............................... 71

4-67. Safety practices that correlate with both the size of the company's workforce and the
company's RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)............... ...................71

4-68. Characteristics which do not correlate with the size of company but correlate with the
company's RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)............... ...................71

4-69. Recordable injury rate for companies that have no safety training available in Spanish
(for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ........................................ ............... 72

4-70. Recordable injury rate for companies that have at least 50% safety training available in
Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ............................................72

4-71. Percent of safety training available in Spanish as a factor of Hispanic RIR (for firms
w ith at least one H ispanic w orker).......................................................... ............... 72

4-72. Company responses to the statement "Spanish speaking workers can be
accommodated without learning English" and the associated RIR (for firms with at
least one H ispanic w orker)......................................................................... .................. 72

4-73. Percent of Hispanic employees who have been employed at least two years as a factor
of the firm's size (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................... .......... 72

4-74. Number of full-time field employees and the firm's RIR .................... .................72

4-75. Number of full-time field employees and the firm's RIR (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w orker)................................................................. ..... ..........73









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1. Z calculation for the differences between the mean injury rates related to Hispanic
workers and non-Hispanic workers. ............................................................................74

4-2. Firm RIR and pre-task planning (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...................74

4-3. Firm RIR and safety glasses (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...........................74

4-4. Firm RIR and project specific safety plans (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)....75

4-5. Firm RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)..............................75

4-6. Firm RIR and toolbox meetings (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ...................76

4-7. Firm RIR and safety culture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...........................76

4-8. Firm RIR and safety tone (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)..............................77

4-9. Firm RIR and unique problems experienced with Hispanic workers (for firms with at
least one H ispanic w orker)......................................................................... .................. 77

4-10. Hispanic RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)........................78

4-11. Hispanic RIR and pre-task planning (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ............78

4-12. Hispanic RIR and safety culture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ..................79

4-13. Hispanic RIR and safety tone (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker).....................79

4-14. Non-Hispanic RIR and orientation hours (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker).....80

4-15. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreement with the statement "Hispanic workers are
more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job" (for firms with at least one
H ispanic w worker) ........... ........................................ ........... ... ............ 80

4-16. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreement with the statement "Hispanic workers take
more risks on the job than do non-Hispanic workers" (for firms with at least one
H isp an ic w ork er) ........... ........................................................................... ... 8 1

4-17. RIR and the number of full time field employees. ........... ........ .................... 81









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


RIR Recordable Injury Rate. A ratio of the number of injuries to the number of
man hours worked. It is a computed number that essentially represents the
percentage of workers that were injured. A RIR of 9.0 signifies that 9
workers out of 100 experienced a recordable injury.

PPE Personal Protective Equipment. Any number of items that a worker might
use to protect themselves from injury. Examples of PPE include hard hats,
safety glasses, and lanyards.









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

SUBCONTRACTOR SAFETY PRACTICES FOR HISPANIC WORKERS
By

Matthew Allen Ruben

May 2008

Chair: Jimmie Hinze
Major: Building Construction

In today's construction industry, the workforces of subcontractors and specialty

contractors face greatest potential of injury. These contractors tend to be smaller firms with

limited budgets for safety. For the most part, these contractors implement very basic safety

practices when compared to larger firms. In developing firm safety practices, each company will

need to consider the make-up of their workforce. The number of Hispanic construction workers

is increasing, and these workers are more likely to suffer work-related injuries than the average

construction worker. The differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers are more than

just lingual, they are also cultural and educational Subcontractor safety practices need to be

tailored to reach the Hispanic workforce while still working within their means as a smaller firm.

Our study explored the safety practices ofFloridian roofing subcontractors. Our study also

explored the scope of the growing Hispanic construction workforce in order to observe the safety

efforts of subcontractors to keep them safe. Finally, this research generates a set of best safety

practices that can be applied to all subcontractors regardless of size.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

It is common for subcontractors to supply 80 to 90% of the work on a given construction

project, yet little research has been conducted about their best safety practices (Hinze and

Tracey, 1994). Instead, most construction safety research studies have been focused at the

general contractor level. Worker safety has become a subject of considerable interest in the

construction industry. General contractors have been in the process of implementing zero-

accident and incident and injury free programs across theirjobsites. The construction industry,

which once viewed injuries as a normal part of the job, no longer accepts them. Subcontractors

must react to the pressures to work safe that are placed upon them by the general contractors.

Large general contractors have a different approach to safety than smaller subcontractors.

For example, the general contractors have the ability to devote larger budgets and more

personnel to their projects than do their subcontractors. In many cases, it is ultimately the

subcontractor's personnel who are placed in dangerous situations, and it is up to them to

implement procedures to mitigate the risks.

The changing landscape of today's construction workforce has created its own workplace

safety challenges. These challenges arise from cultural, social, and communicative differences

between the Hispanic workforce and management. "As of the first quarter of 2004, the overall

Latino construction workforce was estimated to be 2.15 million" (Tinajero, 2005). While they

are becoming an increasing part of the labor force, little research has been conducted to

determine the best practices for ensuring the safety of Hispanic workers.

Jobsite injuries and fatalities remain an ever present concern of the construction industry.

Injury rates have declined in recent years, falling 4% from 2004 to 2005 (United States

Department of Labor, 2005); however, "in 2001 (the most recent year measured), the rate of









work-related deaths from construction injuries for Hispanics was 19.5 per 100,000 full-time

workers-62.5% higher than the rate of 12.0 for non-Hispanic construction workers" (NIOSH

Chartbook, 2004). Understanding the cause of the disproportionate number of Hispanic worker

injuries and addressing this phenomenon should be a goal of the construction industry because

every injury is an unacceptable occurrence. Increased efforts on the part of construction

companies and construction employees are needed to promote jobsite safety.

Objective of study. Very little is known about the safety practices of subcontractors.

The objective of this research is to explore the safety practices of subcontractors to identify their

best safety practices. A secondary objective of this research is to explore the scope of the

growing Hispanic workforce, and to observe the safety efforts of subcontractor's to protect them

from injury. The research systematically explores the current safety practices of subcontractors

including those directed towards Hispanic workers. The resulting information obtained from this

study could be used by subcontractors to improve their safety programs and performances.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

General Contractors Effect on Subcontractors

While most general contractors view safety as a goal, some general contractors are

exploring the benefits of developing safety as a core value. Bovis Lend Lease, for example, is

"committed to the belief that working incident & injury free is a choice and a basic human right"

(Illia, 2006). The concept is simple, all workers deserve the right to return home after work

unharmed to their families. The benefits of a strong safety culture are reflected in a firm's

OSHA recordable injury rate; some being below 2.0 compared to the 2005 industry average of

6.32. The fact that some general contractors are proactively embracing safety is a positive sign;

however, it is important to note that subcontractors often perform 80 to 90% of work for a given

contract and little research has been conducted concerning the best safety practices of

subcontractors in the construction industry (Hinze and Tracey, 1994).

General contractors who strive to attain the goal of zero injuries encourage their

subcontractors to also pursue that objective with them. For example, Bovis Lend Lease hosts a

two-part eight-hour Supervisor Skills Workshop for their subcontractors on every project. The

workshop is not designed to discuss safety equipment, but rather to discuss how to get employees

to be involved in ensuring their own safety. Pre-task planning and the incident and injury free

culture are both discussed at length, and Remember Charlie, a video about a worker who was

severely inured in an accident, is shown (Dan Danner, personal communication, June 14, 2007).

General contractors can help to ensure the safety of their projects by choosing safety

conscience subcontractors. For example, Bovis Lend Lease requires a safety prequalification

form to be turned in with each subcontractor's bid outlining their intended selection of safety









personnel, information about OSHA citations, current incident rates, and other key safety

characteristics. Owners or general contractors can also

ask for copies of companies' general safety programs and other specific safety programs
(e.g., fall protection program, hazard communication program, confined space program)
for important hazards relevant to the upcoming project. Even more importantly, owners
can request information on job hazard or job safety analyses that show company pre-
planning for safety on the jobs. Documentation of safety training programs can also be
requested. If the contractor is going to subcontract parts of the job, it should be asked what
it plans to do to make sure all the subcontractors have an equivalent safety program
(Schneider, 2005).

This type of contracting is called best value contracting. In best value contracting,

owners set a past and predicted performance floor for bids and, then, check into the
background of the bidders so that inept, unscrupulous contractors with low bids do not win
contracts. Instead, projects are awarded to bidders that have good records, including
performance on issues of safety and health (Schneider, 2005).

Subcontractor safety is a more critical factor on projects that have owner controlled insurance

programs (OCIPs) because of the potential cost savings to the owner.

After the contract is awarded, Bovis Lend Lease requires the subcontractor to submit an

original site specific safety plan outlining the job and site risks and how the subcontractor plans

to mitigate them. Other "general contractors are now requiring all subcontractors who work on

their jobsites to have an accident-prevention plan and to enforce it or be labeled a company that

doesn't recognize the importance of a safety program" (Lipoma, 1997). These efforts reveal the

importance that general contractors are placing on safety, and their expectations from their

subcontractors. Construction managers are now choosing their subcontractors on safety as well

as cost. Crudely, safety and cost are synonymous, as injuries increase a variety of costs

including workers' compensation and the cost of shutting down the job. "The lowest bidding

subcontractor no longer wins if its incidence ofj obsite accidents is high" (Lipoma, 1997).

Subcontractors in their efforts to win jobs must become safer.









According to the National Census ofFatal Occupational Injuries in 2005, the number of

construction fatalities dropped 4% compared to 2004. A large percentage of this decrease was

attributed to specialty contractors. In 2005, the fatality rate of specialty contractors fell 11%

from 759 in 2004 to 675 in 2005. Roofing contractors accounted for almost half of this decrease,

falling from 116 in 2004 to 75 in 2005 (United States Department of Labor, 2005).

Resource Constraints on Subcontractor Safety

There are of course noticeable differences between the resources that a small

subcontractor can invest in safety and those of a large general contractor. One could make the

argument that larger companies have more money to spend on safety training, incentives, and

safety equipment; however, a 2004 study by Samant refutes the belief that it is economic

resources that make small businesses less safe. "This study found no relationship between

extrinsic organizational characteristics, total annual sales, or credit rating and their influences on

the composite shop score" (Samant et .al, 2007). Champoux and Brun in 2003 reported similar

findings in "that most small business owners do not think that resources are significant barriers

to their improvement of health and safety measures. Only 37% of 223 owners of small

businesses (fewer than 50 employees) thought cost was an important barrier to health and safety"

(Samant et .al, 2007). Finally, in 2003, Hinze and Gambatese found that firms with less than 20

employees were safer than firms with more than 20 employees, likewise for firms that did less

than $2 million in annual revenues verses those that did more than $2 million (Hinze &

Gambatese, 2003).

Programs for Small Enterprises

Regardless of whether or not a company's revenues are correlated to safety, there are

inexpensive methods that can be employed to keep workers safe. OSHA, NIOSH, and other

agencies and organizations have created a set of best safety practices that can be instituted in any









size firm at little cost. OSHA, for example, has developed a broad safety program from small

businesses that can be adapted for any size company. The safety program contains four major

tenants: management leadership and employee involvement, worksite analysis, hazard

prevention and control, and training (OSHA Small Business, 2007). Examples of management

leadership and employee involvement include a communicated worksite policy on safety, and the

inclusion of safety items in employees' performance evaluations. Worksite analysis can contain

anything from site safety inspections to accident investigations. Some obvious examples of

hazard prevention and control are requiring the appropriate personal protective equipment and

lockout tagout procedures. Finally, an example of training would consist of a firm having yearly

training classes (OSHA Small Business, 2007).

The recommendations of NIOSH were developed as a direct result of an investigation

into a small Kansas roofing company's fatality. The interesting feature of their program is that

there is little or no cost to employers, but rather a time and effort commitment. Their

recommendations are of particular benefit to small companies who do not have a safety staff or

large sums of money to spend on outside training. The first recommendation is that "employers

should ensure that appropriate fall protection equipment is available and correctly used when

working where there is danger of falling" (NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). It is important

for companies to not just supply the appropriate equipment, but to also train their workers on its

proper use. Workers should be tied off when at heights above six feet and harnesses should be

snug. Falls accounted for 33% of all construction fatalities in 2005, and 35% of all fatalities

experienced by specialty contractors (United States Department of Labor, 2005). Other

important PPE includes hardhats, safety glasses, hearing protection, and gloves.









The second recommendation states that "employers should develop, implement, and

enforce a comprehensive written safety program that includes provisions for training workers in

hazard identification, avoidance and abatement" (NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). A safety

program can be a relatively inexpensive way of guarding against jobsite hazards. The program

should include amongst other things: a drug testing and abuse policy, procedures to follow in

case of an emergency, detail the role of the competent person, and a hazard communication

program. The program should also detail the procedures for correcting employee behavior, be it

by written citation or other means. The safety program should be communicated effectively to

all workers so that they know how to work safely.

The third recommendation asserts that "employers should routinely conduct scheduled

and unscheduled workplace safety inspections" NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). These

inspections are important for finding faulty equipment and violations of the safety procedures.

However, these inspections are also very important because they display the firm's commitment

to safety to their employees.

The final recommendation serves to create a culture of safety. It states "employers

should encourage workers to actively participate in workplace safety" (NIOSH FACE Program

98-16, 1998). When workers are encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety, they are

more likely to wear the appropriate safety equipment and take the appropriate safety precautions.

There are simple and inexpensive ways to institute this recommendation; these include a safety

incentive program and pre-task planning.

Pre-task planning is one of the most effective means of keeping workers safe. In one

study conducted by the Construction Industry Institute, firms who conducted pre-task planning

had an average recordable incident rate of 1.04 verses 2.67 for those firms who did not (Mathis,









2001). Pre-task planning is a proactive approach to safety. Before each work task, the foreman

and crew will come together to identify the potential risks and dangers of performing the task at

hand and how to mitigate them. Free thought from the workers is encouraged on what

procedures are to be followed, personal protective equipment that is necessary, and possible

training that is needed. In this way, workers feel involved in their own safety, and are more

likely to follow safe practices. Pre-task planning is an important step to developing a culture of

safety.

In recent years, subcontractors have come under the scrutiny of OSHA. "According to

OSHA's database of inspected construction companies, in 2005 83% of OSHA's construction

inspections were of non-union, small, specialty, or residential contractors" (Thomas, 2006). In

fact, OSHA is now targeting subcontractors now that their "Multi-Employer Citation Policy" has

been reversed. This policy allows OSHA to fine general contractors for violations of their

subcontractors "for a safety or health violation if such employers create the hazard, if they

control the work site or if they have the authority to correct the hazard to which another's

employee is exposed" (Yohay and Walsh, 2007). Legally, subcontractors are now fully and

solely responsible for their OSHA violations, and while this ruling might prove to be damaging

to construction safety because it no longer attached general contractors to their subcontractors'

citations, it places great onus on the subcontractors to operate by the rules (Pallack, 2007).

When subcontractors violate OSHA standards, it can prove to be very costly. For

instance, three subcontractors were issued citations and penalties totaling $539,800 in a fatal

Milwaukee crane collapse (OSHA Miller Park, 2000). When the affects of the lawsuits are

added in, these errors prove to be very costly. The devastating effects and consequences of

OSHA citations, be it monetary or to the firm's reputation, caused 46% of the small or specialty









contractors mentioned above to close their doors and go out of business (Schneider, 2005).

However, a good safety program over time can positively affect a subcontractor's profit by

lowering their workers' compensation and experience modification rate (EMR). Arizona roofers

have been able to bring their workers' compensation expense down from $30 (per $100 payroll)

ten years ago to a rate that is around $11 (SCF Arizona, 2004). However, Hinze "has argued that

the limits placed on EMR reductions for small businesses (they generally do not go below 0.8)

reduces the impact of this incentive for them" (Schneider, 2005).

The Hispanic Workforce

The Hispanic population residing in America has increased dramatically, more than

doubling in the ten year span from 1990 to 2000. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the

Latino population numbered 41.3 million persons as of July 1, 2004" (Tinajero, 2005).

Immigration occurs from many different countries.

Mexicans constitute the majority of Hispanics (64%), and Puerto Ricans are the next
identifiable subgroup in terms of proportion of the overall Hispanic population
(approximately 10%). The population also includes about 3% each of those of Cuban,
Salvadoran, and Dominican origins, while the remainder are of Central American, South
American, or other Hispanic/Latino origin (Tinajero, 2005).

While Hispanics can be found throughout the country, there are certain states with higher

populations than others. The states along the Mexican border have a very sizable Hispanic

population.

New Mexico has the highest proportion of Hispanics (43%) in comparison to the total state
population and California has the largest number of Latinos (12.44 million). Other states
not traditionally associated with the Hispanic community are now home to large numbers
of Latinos. States with the most robust Latino growth rates between 1990 and 2002 were
North Carolina (544%), Georgia (410%), Arkansas (396%), Tennessee (350%), South
Carolina (286%), Nevada (281%), Alabama (266%), Kentucky (238%), Minnesota
(220%), and Nebraska (195%) (Tinajero, 2005).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 20.2% of the Florida residents and overall 14.8% of the

United States' 300 Million people are Hispanic in origin (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007).









Opportunities for Hispanics in Construction

It is difficult to pinpoint all of the reasons why they come to America, though it can be

generalized that they seek the higher wages in the United States compared to their home

countries (Durand and Massey, 2004). Many come for these jobs in order to send their wages

back to their country of origin to help support their families. "The Hispanic civilian labor force

is projected to increase 32.6% over the ten-year period reaching 23.8 million in 2012. Hispanics

are the largest source of labor among minority groups in 8 out of 13 industry divisions in the

Nation" (Jaselskis, 2005). Agriculture employs the largest percentage of Hispanics at 37% and

construction is next at 17%.

Latinos experienced a 150% increase in construction employment, compared to 120% for
the overall Hispanic labor force. Recent research shows that jobs in the construction field
generated more than half of the total increase in employment for Hispanic workers in 2003.
As of the first quarter of 2004, the overall Latino construction workforce was estimated to
be 2.15 million (Tinajero, 2005).

Construction is a growth industry for the Hispanic population, and there is opportunity

for an even increased presence. The United States is currently experiencing a construction labor

shortage. Parents are placing greater emphasis on college and higher education. In addition the

lack of a union presence in some areas creates a drought of young apprentices.

"You don't find the average drywaller telling his kid to go into hanging sheet rock," says
Tony Calvis, president of Calvis Wyant Luxury Homes in Scottsdale, Ariz. "In the old
days you'd have a finish carpenter showing his son how to take the shop over. I don't think
that works well anymore." The U.S. Department of Labor projects that between 2004-
2014, jobs for carpenters will increase at a rate of 9-17 percent (McCausland, 2006).

Calvis goes on to say that the reason for this trend is that this is the computer generation and kids

"aren't as attracted as previous generations to working with their backs" (McCausland, 2006).

The opportunity is there for Hispanic workers,

Recent information suggests that in the next five years, Hispanics may represent almost
one-half of construction industry employees. In particular, the share of workers nearing
retirement may represent an opportunity for Latino workers to fill these positions.









Occupational areas in crafts in which there may be the largest need for human resource
replacements are boilermakers, bricklayers, equipment operators, and pipe fitters/plumbers
(Tinajero, 2005).

Though there is need for skilled craftspeople in the United States, most Hispanics are employed

in less skilled entry level trades as "more than a third of construction laborers are Hispanic

(470,000); the highest number of any construction occupation" (Jaselskis, 2005).

Higher Injury Rates for Hispanic Workers

Worker safety is a major issue in today's business sector. All workers should be able to

return home to their families at the end of the day. In the construction industry, injury rates are

dropping, however, injury rates amongst Hispanic workers are on the rise. "Recent data show

that U.S. injury/illness rates for all occupations dropped 31% from 1992 to 2000 and fatality

rates decreased by 2%. However, for the same period, Hispanic fatality rates increased 11.6%"

(Tinajero 2005). The differences are magnified even greater in the construction industry where

"In 2000, Hispanic deaths were 23.5% of deaths in construction, which was disproportionately

high, considering that Hispanic workers were less than 16% of the construction workforce in the

same year" (Dong and Platner, 2004). A trend analysis between 1992 and 2000 shows that there

were 9,957 construction worker deaths from occupational injuries in the United States, of these

1,501 deceased were identified as being of Hispanic origin. Of those deceased, 47.8% of their

deaths occurred from 1998 to 2000 (Dong and Platner, 2004). These figures can be compared

with increases in Hispanic construction workers, to find that as more and more Hispanic workers

enter the workforce, they should be represented by an increasing percentage of worker injuries.

However, once it is understood that "since 1992, Hispanic construction workers have had

markedly higher fatal occupational injury rates than their non-Hispanic counterparts" a serious

problem is noted (NIOSH Chartbook, 2004). "In 2001 (the most recent year measured), the rate

of work-related deaths from construction injuries for Hispanics was 19.5 per 100,000 full-time









workers-62.5% higher than the rate of 12.0 for non-Hispanic construction workers" (NIOSH

Chartbook, 2004). Hispanic construction workers are 1.6 times as likely to be hurt on the job,

and in the year 2000, they were nearly twice as likely to be killed (Dong and Platner, 2004). It is

startling that Hispanic injury rates have remained stagnant, and have not begun to normalize with

those of non-Hispanic workers. It is also interesting to note that

the leading nature of fatal injuries differs for Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers, with
nearly one-third (336) of 1,022 Hispanic deaths, resulting from intracranial injuries (i.e.,
head injuries) between 1996 and 2000 compared to a quarter (1,147) of 4,465 non-
Hispanic construction fatalities (Dong & Platner, 2004).

Falls and fall protection are a major issue for Hispanic workers and the construction

industry, especially considering that roofing is a very popular trade amongst Hispanics. The

difference in injury rates will have to be explained through a variety of factors.

The Language Barrier

One possible reason that can be used to explain the higher injury rates among Hispanic

workers is that often Hispanic workers cannot speak or understand English. Lack of proficiency

in English can be expected from Hispanic workers as "seventy percent of the 1.4 million

Hispanic construction workers in the U.S. in 2000 were born outside the United States, and fifty

seven percent were not U.S. citizens" (Nissen, 2004). Most Hispanic workers were not brought

up in the United States and therefore were not raised with English as their primary language, and

this fact does not just hold true for the construction industry. According to the 2000 U.S. Census

Bureau,

26.7 million American residents (5 years and older) spoke Spanish at home, and about half
of them (46.6%) said they speak English less than 'very well.' In the same year, 452,840,
or nearly one-third of Hispanic construction workers speak only Spanish (Dong and
Platner, 2004).

Language barriers create unsafe conditions because the Hispanic workers are unable to

understand instructions in English, unlike their non-Hispanic counterparts. Some non-English









speakers are unable to understand emergency and distress calls such as "watch-out" and "move."

Even construction firms that do all the best practices safety procedures for their English

speaking workers will need to alter their approach to accommodate to their Hispanic workers. In

2002, "OSHA reported that 25% of fatal workplace incidents in the U.S. involved either workers

who did not speak English or a supervisor unable to communicate with employees" (Tinajero,

2005). Time is money on the jobsite, and managers would prefer to not spend a long time

explaining to workers how to do a task safely. Similarly, Hispanic workers who are being paid

piece rate often prefer to get their tasks started and may even regard instruction provided in

English as being a waste of time.

A 35-year old U.S.-born glazier from Texas explained some of the safety and health
problems that occur when construction workers do not know English: "Foremen get
frustrated trying to explain to workers what to do or how to do it safely, because they
haven't been trained or maybe they didn't understand English so they didn't learn how to
do it. So the foreman gets frustrated and just tells them to skip that part because they don't
understand. They just do it without safety equipment or procedures" (Ruttenberg and
Lazlo, 2004).

As a way to bridge the communications gap, some construction companies have begun

bilingual training programs. There are two trains of thought on the language education, train the

managers or train the workers. It might be easier and more effective to train the managers to

become bilingual because there are less of them, and they are more likely to stay with one

company long enough to justify the costs and efforts involved in training managers to learn

Spanish. Hispanic workers can be migratory, and perhaps follow work to other areas. "'Overall,

supervisors today need better knowledge of work force issues and bilingual communications

skills are critical.' The introduction of bilingual supervisors and foremen at work sites has

helped to improve the dialog and open channels of communication" (Quackenbush, 2007).

Managers do not need to be fluent in Spanish, but they need to be able to communicate items that

are important to the job tasks. "El Nuevo Contructor, a Spanish-language magazine for the









construction industry, found 44 percent of companies had no Spanish-speaking supervisors, and

54 percent said immigrant workers require more supervision" (Quackenbush, 2007). Many

classes are now being taught in functional Spanish. Some companies are training their

employees.

Florida Power & Light (FPL) is providing voluntary English classes for Hispanic
construction employees at its Sanford power plant. Says Oscar Paredes, project safety
manager for Black & Veatch, which operates the site for FPL: "Government studies show
that Florida has one of the highest injury and fatality rates in the construction area. Many
of these events are attributed to language barriers" (BLR, 2007).

Still, some firms are bringing language teachers to the jobsite as "certified instructors from

Seminole Community College come to the job site to teach an English class twice a week"

(BLR, 2007).

Safety Training in Spanish

The language barrier does not just affect conversational communications, it also affects

safety training. "The vast majority of training is done in English, and a majority of that majority

was provided without translation" (Nissen, 2004). A toolbox meeting is a very basic type of

safety training; however, it can be rendered useless if the workers cannot understand the safety

information. In one study,

Twenty five of the respondents (50%) indicated that their employer conducted weekly
safety meetings, while 24 (48%) indicated that they either didn't know or the employer did
not. One (2%) stated 'it depends.' Of the twenty five holding safety meetings, 20 were held
in English, with seven of those twenty providing translation. Five were conducted in the
respondent's original language (Nissen, 2004).

Construction firms need to start to cater their safety training to their Hispanic workers; they

cannot simply use the same training procedures and materials that they use with their non-

Hispanic workers. For example,

A roofer said lack of training as well as limited English led to a serious injury. "One
Mexican who was working on the roof fell through a hole. They covered a hole with a 3-
inch plywood 4-by-8. The worker noticed it and kept walking. The plywood moved and









the worker fell through it... He broke many bones and was not able to work for two
months... The company gave him instructions but not safety training, and maybe he did
not understand it because of his limited English" (Ruttenberg and Lazlo, 2004).

To promote safety training for their Hispanic workers, firms need to understand the

educational background of their employees. This understanding, along with Spanish training,

could help connect a firm's Hispanic employees to their safety program. One study reveals

that Hispanic construction workers, on average, have fewer years of schooling. This
reveals a need to add training and education programs for Hispanic construction workers.
The construction industry needs to develop safety and skills training programs for a
growing Hispanic community and these programs may need to be offered in Spanish
because many Hispanic craft workers speak little or no English (Goodrum, 2004).

OSHA has translated its materials into Spanish, as have some construction firms. This is a good

start; however, it is often overlooked that "a small, but significant, portion of Hispanic workers

are illiterate in their own language (Brunette, 2004)."

Safety training does have an effect on worker behaviors. Hispanic workers are being

injured performing tasks that have known safety controls. Their

deaths are not the result of unknown hazards which require complex engineering controls.
They are, for the most part, common construction hazards with well recognized and
accepted controls like guard rails, ground fault circuits, or fall arrest systems. Our
challenge is to increase the use of these simple controls in the face of a complex web of
economic, social, cultural, and perhaps language barriers. Research to improve our
understanding of those barriers, in the context of moving specific interventions, should be
a priority. To succeed we must go beyond simple translation into Spanish, and improve our
understanding of the context within which the message is received and potentially acted
upon, or ignored (Dong and Platner, 2004).

When done correctly, safety training is making inroads with the Hispanic workforce. For

example,

A 29-year old roofer from Wisconsin said, "I follow all the safety tips I learned in training.
I was taught also how to build scaffolds and where to place them. I always check all the
tool cables." He went on to say, "Before the training, I had some safety instruction but I
could not understand everything.... Before the training I used to carry things on ladders:
paper rolls, tools, lunch box, insulation, etc. I used to place them on my shoulder and
climb. Now I know that I should never carry things on ladders; now I use ropes. Also,
before the training I used to think what a waste of time it was to place the safety flags, but









now I know the importance of doing it." This individual had become so safety conscious
that he complained: "If we do not wear a hard hat the safety people suspend the worker for
3 days, but fall protection equipment is not controlled as much as hard hats. It is an irony"
(Ruttenberg and Lazo, 2004).

In another case,

A 60-year-old Cuban-born electrician in Florida who had worked in the U.S. for 23 years
said, "After the training, I am more responsible and careful. I make sure that workers with
not much experience know how to deal with dangers. I make them use PPE" (Ruttenberg
and Lazo, 2004).

Understanding Hispanic Culture

The language barrier is definitely a reason why Hispanic construction workers are at risk

for injuries, however, it is not the only reason. The industry must consider the workers

themselves; their beliefs, customs, culture, and upbringing are all relevant safety issues.

Understanding their way of life just might lead to the means to keep them safe. Initially,

consideration needs to be given to the fact that the majority of these workers are immigrants. As

mentioned earlier 70% of Hispanic construction workers were not born in the United States, and

while almost 50% are United States citizens, a portion are illegal (Nissen, 2004). These workers

are constantly living with the fear of deportation, documented or undocumented. Consequently,

this fear leads to workers underreporting injuries for fear that the authorities will deport them.

Also,

Serious underreporting levels of both fatal and non-fatal injuries might occur in an attempt
to keep positive relationships with employers. As stated by the National Research Council,
Hispanic workers are "less likely to report violations of their working rights or
occupational injuries because they might lose their pay or their job" (Brunette, 2004).

For these reasons, Hispanic workers are likely to not seek treatment for their injuries and also

work injured. Compounding this issue is the fact that culturally "this population has been raised

to follow their supervisors' instructions without question, often increasing their risk of injury,

illness, or death on the job" (Santiago 2004). Combined with a fear of deportation, not









questioning supervisors may result in Hispanic workers accepting very dangerous tasks which

put them at a higher risk for injury.

Many studies have been done relating immigration status to worker injuries. One study,

though not in the United States "found that immigrant workers in Taiwan faced no higher risk of

occupational injury than native-born workers" (Nissen, 2004). Another study found that neither

length of residence in the United States nor length of time in the construction industry had an

effect on worker safety. The same study did conclude that unionization and documented legal

status correlate positively with worker safety (Nissen, 2004). In any event, this furthers the

notion that a proper understanding of Hispanic culture is needed to improve their safety.

Firms should also consider the construction environment of the Hispanic worker's home

country. It is often taken for granted just how advanced the construction industry is in the United

States. In most of their home countries, there is no powerful safety regulating authority as

OSHA and workers generally do not have ready access to the appropriate personal protective

equipment.

Work related experiences in their countries of origin are key determinants of these
workers' level of safety awareness. These include working under poor physical
environments, little or no safety and health training, being exposed to dangerous tools,
machines and equipment, abusive supervisors, and lack of appropriate personal protective
equipment, among others (Brunette, 2004).

For example,

a 52-year-old roofer, born in Mexico, said he didn't use any PPE in Mexico and was not
aware of the importance of safety. He used to work in bare feet with cement [which can be
caustic]. Here, he said, "everything is different." A Florida electrician, born in Colombia
said, "In Colombia...they only care about production. There are not many safety
regulations" (Ruttenberg and Lazlo, 2004).

One significant aspect of Hispanic culture is the concept of machismo.

Machismo is a term that reflects a concept of masculinity among Hispanics. In many
ways, machismo is strength in Hispanic families. Despite the popular conception of macho









Hispanic men as violent or animalistic, machismo can mean a nurturing, protective man
(Marin, 2003).

In affect, machismo is a drive to be the manliest man one can be. It can be portrayed as one

wanting to be the best father, provider, lover, toughest, strongest, most self-sufficient, or most

fearless. Machismo can be of particular concern in the construction industry because,

"sometimes it is necessary to wear protective gear to prevent injuries, but Hispanics may think it

is not manly to wear protective gear. Hispanics may think work should be performed without any

regard for safety" (Marin, 2003). That said however, Machismo can also be a positive force for

worker safety. If management can connect to the nurturing and family oriented part of

machismo, then they might be able to keep their workers safe. For example, a constant reminder

that if a worker is hurt or killed, that the worker would not be able to provide for their family

might prompt the worker to be more safety conscience.

Another aspect linked to Hispanic culture is the concept of fatalism. Fatalism can be best

compared to the idea of predetermination. People, who believe in fatalism, believe that things

are going to happen regardless of any measures taken to avoid the consequences. Hispanic

fatalism can best be revealed thru medicine. For example,

because of the Latino/Hispanic concept of 'fatalismo' (fatalism), some Latinos/Hispanics
might accept the inevitability of diabetic complications as part of the nature of the disease
and their fate. This concept could also lead to skepticism and lack of trust in prevention
measures (National Eye Health Education Program, 1994).

Fatalism is a feeling that "there are things in the world which we have no control over" (Bowdy,

1997). It is a concept that is being used to explain the escalation of HIV infections amongst

Hispanic men (Bowdy, 1997). Fatalism affects construction in a major way. It is quite hard to

convince someone to take the proper safety measures when they believe that they are going to be

injured regardless. The fact that some Hispanic construction workers view injuries as a normal

or routine part of the job is very discouraging, and steps should be taken to combat that notion.









Machismo and fatalism combine to make the Hispanic culture one that has a propensity towards

risk. If someone believes they cannot prevent an injury, what is to keep them from acting

reckless?

Safety directors need to adapt their training to the Hispanic culture and the Hispanic

lifestyle. Gonzalez notes,

a lot of Hispanic workers have gone through the danger of crossing the border, not once,
but several times. This is dangerous. To many of these people, it just doesn't make sense to
build scaffolding just because they are higher than six feet off the ground (Gonzalez,
2007).

Programs that have linked Hispanic culture and jobsite safety have been quite

successful. In the Dallas area, a group of contractors teamed with OSHA to develop Hispanic

specific safety training. What they found was that "information on what safety equipment to use

and how to follow safety procedures was readily available, but what wasn't was a culturally

meaningful explanation of why safety was important" (Delaney, 2002). Workers were presented

with a list of the names of the 81 local Hispanic construction workers who had been killed on the

job and details of their deaths. The group also had booths at local Cinco de Mayo festivals,

where workers were with their families.

The critical indicator of improvement was the substantial decrease in fatal accidents. By
December 2001, construction fatalities in Northeast Texas had fallen nearly 50 percent, to
13 for the year. And the percent involving Hispanic and Latino workers dropped from 60
percent to 40 percent (Delaney, 2002).









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The objective of this research was twofold. The first objective was to explore the safety

procedures of subcontractors in the construction industry. The second objective was to explore

issues related to Hispanic workers employed by subcontractors. The research systematically

explored subcontracting from the subcontractor's point of view. The genesis of this study came

from the fact that little research had been conducted concerning subcontractor safety; an idea that

was first introduced by Dr. Jimmie Hinze in his Advanced Construction Safety class.

This research began with a literature review to examine relevant material related to the

practice of subcontracting. The literature review provided a good basis to develop the

foundation for this research. The literature references included numerous studies by Dr. Hinze

and the work of past graduate students including Josh Markowitz, Marcelo Marin, and Tom

Feronti. These past surveys and the recommendations for future research from their studies were

examined to formulate this study.

From the sources listed above, the first version of the survey was drafted and presented to

Dr. Hinze. Dr. Hinze helped to identify key questions to include in the survey. He also

identified the Hispanic workforce as a group that needed exploration. From Dr. Hinze's input a

second version of this study was drafted. This version of the study included many general

questions concerning the subcontractor respondent's dealings experiences with Hispanic

workers. Two roofing subcontractors were chosen to take a trial version of this survey. They

were also asked to critique the survey and offer any information that they thought might be

helpful to this study. One question that was altered was a question that asked about the

responding firm's RIR. It was found from the trial surveys that some subcontractors did not









know this information. A second question concerning the magnitude of the responding firm's

annual revenue was eliminated because it was felt the information was not needed. After

examining data obtained from a study of Hispanic culture by Dr. Hinze and Ray Godfrey,

questions were added or altered in the survey to gauge the subcontractor's views of Hispanic

culture. These questions asked for a response based on a Likert Scale, and dealt with fatalism

and risk aversion.

Survey Questions Design

The Safety Survey of Specialty Contractors was designed to determine the safety practices

of subcontractors. This survey is included as an appendix. The first three questions of the

survey were designed to obtain basic background information on the responding company.

These questions were either fill-in the blank or check box questions. Question 1, which asked

whether or not the company is an Hispanic Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) was included to

find out if there is a difference between MBE and non-MBE companies in their safety

procedures and experiences with Hispanic workers. Question 2, which asked how many fulltime

field workers were employed by the subcontractor, was included to gauge the size of the firm.

Question 3, which asked what percentage of the work is subcontracted to others, was included to

see if the subcontractor actually performs the work or if it passed it along to a second-tier

subcontractor.

The next 14 questions were designed to obtain basic information on the responding

subcontractors' current safety practices. These questions were either fill-in the blank or check

box questions. Question 4 asked if the subcontractor employed a fulltime safety director.

Question 5 asked whether or not and what kind of drug testing program the firm utilized.

Questions 6 thru 10 were designed to determine what basic safety practices the subcontractors'

utilized, including the use of hardhats, safety glasses, toolbox meetings, pre-task planning









meetings, and whether or not the company prepares project specific safety programs for all

projects. Question 11 asked whether or not the company provided orientation for all its

employees on project sites, and if so, what was the duration of the training for new employees.

Question 12 asked how many hours of safety training were provided to employees each month.

Question 13 asked what percentage of safety training was available in Spanish. Question 14

asked for the company's approximate annual expenditure of safety training. Question 15 asked if

the subcontractor utilized any safety incentive programs. Questions 16 and 17 asked whether or

not the subcontractor had introduced any new programs designed to promote safety, and if so

which were the most effective.

The second half of the survey was designed to obtain information on the subcontractor's

experiences with Hispanic workers. Questions 18 thru 25 were formatted with a Likert Scale

response. Each question asked participants to circle the extent of their agreement or

disagreement with provided statements. An answer of one meant that the respondent "strongly

disagreed" while an answer of five meant the respondent "strongly agreed." Question 18 asked

the respondent if safety has a positive affect on productivity. Question 19 asked the respondent

if they thought Hispanic workers were equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers.

Question 20 asked respondents if Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without

learning English. Question 22 asked if the respondent's company encounters significant

problems because workers do not speak English. Question 23 asked respondents if Hispanic

workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers. Question 24 asked respondents if

Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job. Question 25 asked

respondents if they felt non-Hispanic workers value their own safety more than Hispanic workers









do. Question 26 asked respondents if they felt Hispanic workers more regularly follow the

company's safety procedures than non-Hispanic workers.

The next eight questions were designed to analyze the current state of the subcontractor's

Hispanic workforce. These questions were either fill-in the blank or check box questions.

Question 27 was designed to find out how many Hispanic workers the company employed. It

asked what percent of the subcontractor's employee's primary language was Spanish. Question

28 asked respondents what percent of the firm's managers were bilingual. Question 29 inquired

how the number of Hispanic workers employed by the firm had changed within the last five

years. Question 30 asked respondents to indicate if their company required workers to be able to

speak and understand English in order to be employed. Question 31 asked respondents what

percent of the Hispanic workers employed could not speak or understand English. Question 32

asked respondents what percent of the subcontractor's Hispanic workers had been employed for

at least two years. Question 33 asked respondents what other languages besides English are

spoken on the jobsite. Question 34 asked respondents if their firm has a program in place to

check I-9 forms. Question 35 asked respondents to indicate and then describe whether their

firms had encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers.

The final question of the survey was designed to calculate each respondent's RIR. A two

part fill in the blank question, Question 36 asked respondents to indicate how many company

employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor during the last year, and of those employees, how

many were Hispanic workers, Responses to this question were combined with responses to

Question 2, that asked about the number of full time field employed by the subcontractor, to

determine the subcontractor's approximate RIR.









Survey Dissemination

Once the survey was finalized, a population to complete the survey was sought. The

Executive Director of the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal, & Air Conditioning Contractors

Association (FRSA), Steve Munnell, was approached to see if his organization was willing to

assist in this study. The FRSA expressed a willingness to help and offered to distribute the

survey in exchange for a promise that a brief article on the findings that would be appropriate for

a month trade publication. Mr. Munnell made suggestions for changes to the survey which were

incorporated. The FRSA then conducted a "fax blast" by faxing the survey to all their roofing

contractor members, around 500, on the 19th of June 2007. A total of 71 surveys were returned,

of which 3 did not provide full information and were not included in the data.

Initial Analysis Performed

After the survey responses were received, the results were first input into Microsoft Excel

2002. After the data set was created, the file was converted into SPSS version 12 for further

analyses. The surveys were analyzed by calculating the mean, median, and frequency of

responses. Next, the firms' RIR values were calculated and compared against the other questions

to find statistically significant differences.

Limitations

The research instrument was limited in scope to roofing contractor members of the

FRSA. Since the respondents are members of a trade organization, it is possible that they have a

greater propensity towards working safely. Additionally, though there were 68 completed survey

responses, not every question was answered by each participant, if there was no answer, the

survey was not used in the calculations for that item. Because of this fact, some of the

calculations that deal with RIR are based on a small number of responses.









CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Introduction

Data collected from the survey were used as the basis of the analysis. Sixty-eight

complete survey responses were received from the sample population.

Company Demographic Information

Basic demographic information was asked at the beginning of the survey to characterize

the subcontractors. The first question asked the subcontractors whether they were an Hispanic

MBE or if any portion of the company was owned by an Hispanic person. The question was

asked to investigate whether firms with Hispanic ownership have a lower RIR for Hispanic

workers than firms owned by non-Hispanics. Table 4-1 shows that only one respondent

indicated that their firm was an Hispanic MBE.

Respondents were asked about the number of full time field employees they employed.

This question was asked to gauge the size of the firm. The responses to this question were later

used to compute the number of Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers each firm employed, as well

as to calculate each firm's RIR. The data were quite varied. Table 4-2 shows that most firms

employed no more than 20 workers. Note the median firm employed 19 workers and the largest

firm employed 650 workers.

Finally, respondents were asked to indicate what percentage of their work was

subcontracted to others. This question was asked to help determine how much work the

subcontractor actually self performed. Table 4-3 shows that the majority of respondents (75.0%)

either subcontracted out zero or less than five percent of their work. Note the largest amount of

work any one firm subcontracted out was 50%.









Company Safety Information

The second part of the survey was designed to obtain basic information on the responding

subcontractor's current safety practices. Respondents were asked if they employ a fulltime

safety director. This question was asked to determine whether firms with safety directors are

safer than firms without them. Table 4-4 shows the results to be nearly split, with 52.9% of

respondents saying that they employed a fulltime safety director. Respondents who employed

fulltime safety directors were then asked to indicate what percentage of the workday the

company safety director spent in the field. Responses were varied. Table 4-5 shows that 45.4%

of the company safety directors spend between 26 and 50% of their time in the field.

The next question asked respondents to indicate whether their firms had a drug-testing

program. This question was asked to determine whether firms with drug-testing programs were

safer than firms without them. Table 4-6 shows that the overwhelming majority of firms, 85.3%,

employ some sort of drug-testing program. Respondents who employ a drug-testing program

were then asked to indicate what type of drug tests the company conducted. They were given

four choices and told to check all that apply. The choices were: pre-hire, random, for cause, and

post-accident. Responses were varied. Table 4-7 shows that most (75.8%) drug-testing

programs utilize a combination of drug-tests. Pre-hire and post-accident drug tests are included

in 74.0% and 84.5% of the programs, respectively. The sizes of the firms who only perform

post-accident or for cause drug testing are depicted in Table 4-8, indicating that these firms are

predominantly small.

The next question asked respondents to indicate whether or not all their field employees

were required to wear hard hats. Table 4-9 shows that nearly two-thirds of firms did not require

their field employees to wear hard hats. Respondents were then asked to indicate whether or not









all their field employees were required to wear safety glasses. Table 4-10 shows that 55.2% of

respondents require their field employees to wear safety glasses.

The next question asked respondents to indicate whether or not their company conducted

weekly toolbox meetings. Normally held once a week, toolbox meetings last anywhere from 10

to 20 minutes and are designed to make employees aware of potential job related hazards or

injuries. Table 4-11 shows that two-thirds of the firms conducted weekly toolbox meetings.

Respondents were then asked to indicate if their company held pre-task planning meetings

before every task. Table 4-12 shows that 53.8% of respondents indicated that their firms do hold

these meetings.

The next question asked respondents to indicate whether or not the company prepared

project specific safety programs for each individual project. These programs are created because

each project and jobsite poses its own unique hazards. Table 4-13 shows that 45.5% of the

respondents indicated that they prepared these safety plans.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not the company provided orientation for

all its employees on project sites. These orientation programs typically include topics related to

safety practices. Table 4-14 shows that 53.0% of the responding firms provided orientation to all

their field employees on their project sites. Respondents who provided orientation to all its

employees on project sites were then asked to indicate how many hours were devoted to the

orientation program for new employees. Table 4-15 shows that the majority of these orientation

sessions (54.8%) last two hours or less, and that most of these sessions (80.8%) last four hours or

less. Note that one respondent indicated that their company's new employee orientation program

was 40 hours, or one full work week in duration.









The next question asked respondents to indicate how many hours of safety training were

provided to employees each month. Table 4-16 shows that the majority of the responding

companies (54.1%) spend two hours or less each month on safety training. Note that only two

companies spend more than eight hours per month on safety training, the largest response was 25

hours.

Respondents were then asked what percentage of the safety training they offer is available

in Spanish. The responses to this question vary, as some firms who took the survey do not

employ Hispanic workers or persons who do not speak and understand English, and therefore do

not have Spanish safety training. Table 4-17 shows the answers received from all survey

respondents, while Table 4-18 shows the answers received from companies that employ at least

one Hispanic worker. Table 4-19 shows the answers received from companies that employ at

least one Hispanic worker who cannot speak of understand English. For this latter case, 8.3% of

these firms do not provide any safety training in Spanish while 58.3% of these firms have all of

their safety training available in Spanish. All 12 respondents who do not employ Hispanic

workers provide no safety training in Spanish. Of the respondents who have at least one

Hispanic worker, 19.2% of them offer no safety training in Spanish.

The next question asked respondents to input their company's approximate annual

expenditure for safety training. Table 4-20 shows that the majority of companies (60.8%) spent

approximately $5,000 or less on safety training. Note that one respondent wrote that they did all

their safety training in house and therefore could not attach a dollar figure to it. Table 4-21

shows the responding companies' computed safety training expense per worker. The majority of

the firms (74.5%) spend $300 or less per employee on safety training. Table 4-22 shows the

company's computed safety training expense per worker, but only for firms with at least one









Hispanic worker. The majority of the firms (77.5%) spend $300 or less per employee on safety

training. Table 4-23 shows the respondents' computed safety training expense per worker, for

firms who do not employ any Hispanic workers. There were not sufficient responses for firms

who do not employ Hispanic workers to make any comparisons; however, the amount of safety

training expense per worker does not correlate to the firm's RIR.

Respondents were then asked to indicate whether or not their company had an incentive

program based on safety achievements. An incentive program would provide workers with

prizes or cash considerations for working a period of time without injury. These programs have

come under fire for not being an efficient use of money that would be better put towards safety

gear or training. Table 4-24. shows that the majority of responding companies (58.5%) do not

have an incentive program.

The next question asked respondents to indicate whether or not the company had

implemented any new programs within the past five years to promote safety. Table 4-25 shows

that the majority of responding firms (61.5%) have implemented new programs to promote

safety within the past five years. Respondents who answered "Yes" to this question were then

asked to describe the program, as shown in the responses in Table 4-26. The most popular

responses included creating incentive programs, introducing safety meetings, introducing

toolbox meetings, having FRSA come to the jobsite, and increasing safety equipment training.

Respondents were then asked to indicate their most successful practice to promote safety.

Table 4-27 shows their responses. The most common responses included toolbox meetings,

incentive programs, FRSA safety management and inspections, having monthly safety meetings,

and increasing fall protection and safety equipment.









Company Experiences with Hispanic Workers

The third part of the survey was designed to obtain information on the subcontractor's

experiences with Hispanic workers. The responses were formatted as a Likert Scale, ranging

from 1 for "strongly disagree" to 5 for "strongly agree." Participants were asked to select the

extent of their agreement or disagreement with the various statements.

The first statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "safety has a positive

effect on productivity." Table 4-28 shows that the overwhelming majority of respondents

(81.6%) either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with this statement.

The second statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "Hispanic workers are

equally or more productive than non-Hispanic workers." Table 4-29 shows that the majority of

respondents, 60.9%, either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with this statement.

The third statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "Spanish speaking

workers can be accommodated without learning English." Table 4-30 shows that the results

were mixed where 34.4% of the respondents either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" while

37.5% "agreed" or "strongly agreed."

The fourth statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "our company

encounters significant problems because workers don't speak English." Table 4-31 shows that

the results were mixed as 34.4% of the respondents either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed"

while 21.8% "agreed" or "strongly agreed." A large portion of respondents (43.8%) "neither

agreed nor disagreed."

The fifth statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "Hispanic workers take

more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers." Table 4-32 shows that these results were also

mixed where 37.4% of the respondents either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" while 28.3%









"agreed" or "strongly agreed." A portion of the respondents (34.3%) "neither agreed nor

disagreed."

The sixth statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "Hispanic workers are

more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job." Table 4-33 shows that the results were

mixed where 39.7% of the respondents either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" while 30.2%

"agreed" or "strongly agreed." A portion of respondents (30.1%) "neither agreed nor disagreed."

The seventh statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was "non-Hispanic workers

value their own safety more so than Hispanic workers do." Table 4-34 shows that 40.6% of the

respondents either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" while only 21.9% "agreed" or "strongly

agreed." A portion of respondents (30.1%) "neither agreed nor disagreed."

Finally, respondents were asked whether or not Hispanic workers more regularly follow

the company's safety procedures than their non-Hispanic counterparts. To answer the question,

there were three boxes to check and the results are presented in Table 4-35. The results show

that the majority of the respondents (68.3%) felt that both Hispanics and non-Hispanics followed

safety procedures equally. However, a portion of respondents (26.7%) felt that Hispanic workers

followed safety procedures less frequently than their non-Hispanic counterparts.

Current State of the Subcontractor's Hispanic Workforce

The fourth part of the survey was designed to obtain information to characterize the current

state of the responding subcontractor's Hispanic workforce. The first question asked

respondents about the percentage of their company's workforce whose primary language is

Spanish (Table 4-36). The majority of respondent's workforces (76.5%) were made up of 50%

or fewer Hispanic workers. It is important to note that the percent of the workforce that is

Hispanic is directly related to the magnitude of the company's workforce with a correlation

coefficient of 0.229 and a level of significance of 0.004.









The next question asked respondents about the percent of their company's managers that

are bilingual. Table 4-37 shows that for all survey respondent's, 62.2% employ 10% or fewer

bilingual managers. Table 4-38 shows that for survey respondent's with at least one Hispanic

worker, 56.3% of the firms also employ 10% or fewer bilingual managers. Note that the firms

with at least one Hispanic worker employ a higher percentage of bilingual managers than when

all the firms are taken as a whole.

Respondents were then asked to characterize how the number of Hispanic workers in their

firms has changed in the past five years. Table 4-39 shows that the results were varied, however,

the most common responses indicate that the firms either had no change in the amount of

Hispanic workers employed (34.9%) or they employ slightly more Hispanic workers now verses

five years ago (31.8%).

Next, respondents were asked whether or not their company has a requirement that workers

must be able to speak and understand English in order to become employed. Table 4-40 shows

that the majority of the firms (78.8%) do not have this requirement as a condition of

employment.

Respondents were then asked to input the percent of their Hispanic workers that cannot

speak or understand English. Not being able to speak or understand English is a primary concern

when distress calls such as "watch out" and "help" are exclaimed. The results were mixed, and

Table 4-41 shows 56.9% of firms noted that 10% or fewer of their Hispanic workers could not

speak or understand English.

The next question asked respondents to indicate what percent of their Hispanic workers

had been employed for at least two years. This question was designed to characterize the job

stability and/or transient nature of the Hispanic workforce. It was also hypothesized that time









served at a one job with one employer would correlate with safety, but this study did not support

that. Table 4-42 shows the results were mixed across the board.

Next, respondents were asked to provide the languages, besides English that are spoken on

theirjobsites. Table 4-43 shows that on the majority ofjobsites (63.3%) Spanish is spoken,

while English is the solely spoken language on 36.2% ofjobsites. Also note that various other

languages are spoken on jobsites, including Tongan, Fijian, Portuguese, and various European

languages.

The next question asked respondents whether or not they had a program in place to check

their employee's 19 forms. Interestingly, there is no real perceived difference in the percentage

of firms that have 19 programs between all firms and those firms that employ Hispanic workers

(see Tables 4-44 and 4-45).

Respondents were asked whether or not their companies had encountered any unique

safety problems associated with Hispanic Workers. The majority of respondents, 82.4%, had not

encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers (see Table 4-46).

Respondents who had experienced specific problems were then asked to describe the unique

safety problems. Responses were varied, but most had to do with the language barrier or other

communication problems (see Table 4-47).

Company Injury Information

The final portion of the survey was designed to calculate the respondents RIR values.

Respondents were first asked how many company employees suffered injuries treated by a

doctor in the previous year. The majority of companies (77%) suffered three or fewer injuries

(see Table 4-48). The second part of the question asked respondents to denote how many of

those injuries were incurred by Hispanic workers (see Table 4-49). Note, Table 4-49 is not

related to Table 4-48, rather it is merely a tabulation of responses.









Because of company size differences, comparisons of safety performances could not be

made on the basis of the number of injuries. Therefore, the data were converted into individual

company RIR, Hispanic RIR, and non-Hispanic RIR values which can be used to compare

company safety performances. To do so, each company's response to the question about the

number of company employees that suffered injuries treated by a doctor in the previous year was

divided by the corresponding company's response regarding the number of fulltime field

employees the company employed. This figure was then multiplied by 100 to derive the firm's

RIR. The 56.9% of respondents had an RIR of five or less (see Table 4-50). Note that the

largest RIR was 50.0.

For comparison purposes, only companies who employed at least one Hispanic worker

were included in the following calculations. First, the RIR was recalculated for all the

companies who employed at least one Hispanic worker, as presented in Table 4-51. The RIR

distribution of the responding companies that do not employ any Hispanic workers is presented

in Table 4-52 for comparison purposes. There were insufficient responses from firms who did

not employ Hispanic workers to make any statistically significant conclusions; one can note that

these firms have a smaller average RIR than firms who employ Hispanic workers, 4.1 and 10.5,

respectively.

To compute each company's Hispanic RIR and non-Hispanic RIR, the number of Hispanic

employees was first computed and the remainder of the employees was assumed to be non-

Hispanic. To calculate the Hispanic RIR, the number of Hispanic workers who experienced

injuries in the past year was divided by the number of Hispanic workers. This figure was then

multiplied by 100 to derive the firm's Hispanic RIR, as shown in Table 4-53. A similar process

was used to determine the responding company's non-Hispanic RIR, as shown in Table 4-54.









Those companies with at least one Hispanic worker experienced an average Hispanic RIR

that was higher than the average non-Hispanic RIR, 14.9 and 9.2, respectively (Table 4-55). A

Test of two means was conducted to determine if the Hispanic RIR and Non-Hispanic RIR were

statistically different. It was determined that their difference was statistically significant with a

score of 2.218 (see Figure 4-1).

Findings Correlated to RIR

One of this study's primary goals was to identify a set of best safety practices for

subcontractors. To do so, the responses to the various questions were compared with the three

types of RIR in a one-tailed Kendall's bivariate correlation using SPSS version 12.0.

The characteristics of the subcontractors that correlated with the company's RIR were

identified (see Table 4-56, Figures 4-2 to 4-9). There exists a statistically significant correlation

between RIR and both safety glasses and pre-task planning meetings with correlation coefficients

of 0.206 and 0.281, respectively. The correlation between RIR and "hard hats" and holding

toolbox meetings had a tendency towards significance with correlation coefficients of 0.173 and

0.171, respectively. Respondents who said that they have experienced "unique safety problems

associated with Hispanic workers" experienced a higher RIR than those firms who did not.

A combination of safety practices was identified and these were combined to form a single

variable. This composite variable was correlated with the RIR. This was done to determine if a

combination of safety practices improved the firm's RIR more than just one practice alone. Two

combinations of variables are listed in Table 4-56 as safety culture and safety tone. Safety

culture is a combination of hard hats, safety glasses, pre-task planning meetings, project specific

safety planning, and new worker orientation. Safety tone is a combination of hard hats, safety

glasses, toolbox meetings, pre-task planning meetings. A strong correlation with the RIR was









achieved from the scores of both of the combinations, 0.508 and 0.309, respectively. The scores

are explained in depth later in this chapter.

The characteristics of the subcontractors that correlate significantly with the company's

Hispanic RIR were identified (Table 4-57, Figures 4-10 to 4-13). The correlations between

Hispanic RIR and the requirement for the workers to wear hard hats and pre-task planning

meetings have a tendency towards significance with correlation coefficients of 0.199 and 0.209,

respectively. Both combination scores correlate with the firm's Hispanic RIR; however, each

has a weaker correlation coefficient than the combinations experienced when correlated to the

firms total RIR.

Table 4-58 displays the characteristics of the subcontractors that correlate significantly

with the company's non-Hispanic RIR. There exists a significant correlation between the non-

Hispanic RIR and practices related to safety glasses, pre-task planning meetings, and project

specific safety plans with correlation coefficients of 0.224, 0.280, and 0.238, respectively.

Additionally, the number of hours spent on new employee orientation has a tendency towards

significance with a correlation coefficient of-0.250. That is, the more hours a firm spends on

orientation, the lower their RIR (see Figure 4-14). Both combination scores, safety culture and

safety tone, correlate with the firm's non-Hispanic RIR and each has a stronger correlation

coefficient than the combinations experience when correlated to the firms' Hispanic RIR. There

is a tendency towards significance that firms who said that they have experienced "unique safety

problems associated with Hispanic workers" experienced a higher non-Hispanic RIR than those

firms who did not.

There is a significant correlation coefficient of 0.283 between non-Hispanic RIR and the

perception that "Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job."









Firms who "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the statement have a higher RIR than those who

either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" (see Figure 4-15). There is a tendency towards

significance between the non-Hispanic RIR and the firm's perception that "Hispanic workers

take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers." The correlation coefficient is -0.181,

meaning firms who "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" with the statement have a higher RIR

than those who either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" (see Figure 4-16).

The percentage of the work that is subcontracted correlates with the company's size (see

Table 4-59). There exists a significant relationship between the company size and the

requirement to wear of hard hats, the hours of safety training workers receive each month, and

the percentage of safety training that is available in Spanish with correlation coefficients of -

0.405, 0.227, and 0.189, respectively. Additionally, there is a tendency towards significance

between firm size and the requirement to wear safety glasses, hold toolbox meetings, and

implement safety incentive programs with correlation coefficients of -0.160, -0.187, and -0.188.

The combination score of safety tone also has a significant correlation coefficient with firm size

of -0.283. Additionally, there is a significant correlation coefficient between firm size and

implementing new safety programs within the last five years of-0.207.

The data reveals that larger companies are more likely to have safety incentive programs

(Table 4-60). Safety incentive programs reward workers with a small gift for achieving a

specified accident rate, e.g. no accidents over a specified period of time, such as a month.

However, the data analysis reveals that these incentive programs are not correlated to the RIR.

There are many characteristics closely associated with firms that have Hispanic workers

that correlate with company size (see Table 4-59). There is a tendency towards significance

between firm size and the percentage of employees whose primary language is Spanish with a









correlation coefficient of 0.150. Also, there is a significant correlation between firm size and the

percentage of bilingual managers, the percentage of Hispanic workers who cannot speak or

understand English, and firms having a program to check I-9 forms of 0.193, 0.253, and -0.240,

respectively.

Finally, firm size correlates significantly with the subcontractors' level of agreement with

three Likert scale statements (Table 4-59). In all three cases, the correlation coefficient indicates

that firms who "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the statement have a larger workforce than

those who either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed." First, there is a tendency toward

significance between firm size and the level of agreement with the statement "safety has a

positive affect on productivity" with a correlation coefficient of 0.186. Second, there is a

significant correlation between firm size and the level of agreement with the statement "Hispanic

workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic workers" with a correlation

coefficient of 0.197. Finally, there is a significant correlation between firm size and the level of

agreement with the statement "Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without

speaking English" with a correlation coefficient of 0.187. Larger firms seemingly have a more

positive view of both safety and Hispanic workers.

One of the research goals was to come up with a set of best safety practices for the

subcontracting profession. Correlations were run to find a grouping of practices that had the

greatest effect on RIR; this grouping would be referred to as the safety culture score. For this

study, RIR was best correlated with a group of five practices: hard hats, safety glasses, pre-task

planning meetings, project specific safety plan, and the number of orientation hours per new

employee. A correlation of 0.508 was calculated with a level of significance less than 0.001.

For the first four practices, a "yes" response received a score of one, while a "no" received a









score of two. To weigh orientation hours around the same level as the others, the number of

orientation hours per new employee was divided by a factor of 10 and then subtracted from the

sum of the other questions. For example, a subcontractor that that required hard hats, safety

glasses, and provided new employees with 4 hours of orientation, but did not implement pre-task

planning meetings or create a project specific safety plan earned a score of 5.6 (Figure 4-17).

Companies that performed all four practices and had at least a half an hour of new employee

orientation would earn a score under four. Companies who performed none of the four safety

practices and provided no orientation would earn a score of 8.

It was determined that firms who performed at least four of the five listed practices would

earn a score of five or less (see Table 4-61). Firms with a score of five or less had a much lower

overall RIR than those who did not, 7.17 and 18.37, respectively. This trend was also observed

for the Hispanic RIR and non-Hispanic RIR. Thus, it was concluded that the firm's safety

culture has a positive effect on RIR.

Computations were made to see if the safety culture variable was related to the size of the

firm. These variables were found to not be correlated. For this analysis, the cutoff number to

define small firms was set at 20 employees because it was hypothesized that at this level, firm

owners move from working in the field to working in the office. Results show that the firm's

safety culture is independent of the firm's size. That is, small and large firms alike can

implement these safety practices to enhance safety performances (see Table 4-62).

A chi-square analysis was conducted to examine company size (as measured by the

number of employees) in relation to the associated safety culture score (see Table 4-63). This

test was run to evaluate the relationships that the correlation test might have missed. The data

shows that at extreme sizes, from 1-10 and more than 76 employees, the firm's safety culture









score is related to firm size. Larger firms perform more of the safety practices than do small

firms.

Computations were run to see whether the RIR correlated significantly to a combination of

safety practices known as safety tone which included hard hats, safety glasses, toolbox meetings,

and pre-task planning meetings. For each response a "yes" earned a score of one, while a "no"

earned a score of two. Firms who performed all four safety practices would earn a score of 4,

while firms who performed none of these safety practices would earn a score of 8. Firms who

performed at least three of the four listed practices would earn a score of five or less (see Table

4-64). Firms who earned a score of five or less had a lower overall RIR than those with higher

scores 7.22 and 13.47, respectively. This combination of safety practices was found to be

positively correlated with the RIR. This relationship was observed for both the Hispanic RIR

and the non-Hispanic RIR. Thus, it was concluded that safety tone has a positive effect on RIR,

and its effect is less than that of the combination of safety practices that make up safety culture.

Computations show that safety tone scores are related to company size. The safety tone

score was found to be correlated to workforce size with a correlation of -0.283 and a level of

significance of 0.006. Thus, firms are more likely to implement those practices included in the

safety tone score as the size of the firm increases. For this analysis, 20 employees or less was

designated as the cutoff number to define small firms. For firms with 20 or fewer workers,

27.8% earned a score of five or less, compared to 56.5% of the firms with more than 20 workers

(see Table 4-65).

Computations were performed to determine if any safety practices were significantly

correlated with the size of the firm's workforce or the firm's RIR (Table 4-66). It was noted that









some safety practices correlate to RIR but do not correlate significantly with size, (see Table 4-

67).

The RIR for firms who have no safety training available in Spanish was compared against

the RIR, Hispanic RIR, and non-Hispanic RIR of all firms with Hispanic workers and those

firms who have at least 50% of their safety training available in Spanish (Tables 4-68 and 4-69).

Despite the apparent influence of safety training in Spanish on Hispanic RIR a chi-squared

analysis showed the relationship between Hispanic RIR and the percentage of safety training

available in Spanish is not significant (Table 4-70).

A chi-squared test was run between Hispanic RIR and the level of agreement with the

following statement, "Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning

English." Companies who checked that they either "strongly agree" or "agree" with the

statement have a lower RIR than those firms who "strongly disagree" (Table 4-71).

Also, a chi-squared test was run between firm size and the length of employment of

Hispanic workers. Large firms, with more than 75 employees, had a greater percentage of

Hispanic employees that had been employed for at least two years (Table 4-72).

The data revealed that the size of the company did not correlate with the firm's RIR. Table

4-73 and Table 4-74 display the number of full time field employees and the associated RIR.

Small firms with 10 or fewer employees, who can be tight knit operations, have a low RIR. It is

presumed that these firms can be family businesses, where the employees have been working

together for many years, often with the president of the company working in the field. As the

company's workforce increases to 20 employees, the RIR increases. This occurs until a point

where the workforce is greater than 20 employees but less than 75, where the company RIR

values start to decrease. It is assumed that perhaps at this point, the firm's workforce is so large









that they start investing in safety measures, buying better equipment, and employing more safety

managers. Finally, for companies with a workforce that is larger still, over 75 employees, the

RIR drops even further (Figure 4-3). It is assumed that those companies put a greater focus on

working safely as their workforce increases.









Table 4-1. Number of Hispanic Minority Business Enterprises responding to the survey
Hispanic MBE Number of firms Percent
Yes 1 1.5
No 66 98.5
Total 67 100.0

Table 4-2. Number of fulltime field employees
Number of fulltime field employees Number of firms Percent

1-10 23 33.8
11-20 17 25.0
21-40 14 20.6
41-75 7 10.3
76-100 3 4.4
101-200 3 4.4
201-650 1 1.5
Total 68 100.0

Table 4-3. Percent of work that is subcontracted
Percent of work subcontracted Number of firms Percent
0-5 51 75.0
6-10 8 11.8
11-20 2 2.9
21-35 5 7.4
36-50 2 2.9
Total 68 100.0

Table 4-4. Number of firms with fulltime safety directors
Fulltime safety director Number of firms Percent
Yes 36 52.9
No 32 47.1
Total 68 100.0

Table 4-5. Percent of workday the safety director spends in the field
Percent of workday Number of firms Percent
1-10 7 21.2
11-25 3 9.1
26-50 15 45.4
51-75 2 6.1
76-100 6 18.2
Total 33 100.0









Table 4-6. Does the firm have a drug-testing program
Drug testing program Number of firms Percent
Yes 58 85.3
No 10 14.7
Total 68 100.0

Table 4-7. What type of drug tests does the firm conduct
Type Number of firms Percent
Pre-hire 4 7.0
Random 2 3.5
Post accident 9 15.4
All four 13 22.4
Pre-hire and post accident 7 12.1
Pre-hire, for cause and post accident 10 17.2
Random and post accident 2 3.5
Pre-hire, random, and post accident 9 15.4
Random, for cause, and post accident 2 3.5
Total 58 100.0

Table 4-8. Number of full time field employees in firms that only perform post-accident drug-
testing
Number of field employees Number of firms Percent
1-10 5 55.6
11-20 3 33.3
21-40 1 11.1
Total 9 100.0

Table 4-9. Are all company employees required to wear hard hats
Hard hats Number of firms Percent
Yes 24 35.8
No 43 64.2
Total 67 100.0

Table 4-10. Are all company employees required to wear safety glasses
Safety glasses Number of firms Percent
Yes 37 55.2
No 30 44.8
Total 67 100.0

Table 4-11. Are weekly toolbox meetings conducted on project sites
Toolbox meetings Number of firms Percent
Yes 44 66.7
No 22 33.3
Total 66 100.0









Table 4-12. Are pre-task planning meetings held before every task
Pre-task planning meetings Number of firms Percent
Yes 35 53.8
No 30 46.2
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-13. Does the company prepare a project specific safety plan for each project
Project specific safety plan Number of firms Percent
Yes 30 45.5
No 36 54.5
Total 66 100.0

Table 4-14. Does the company provide orientation for all its employees on project sites
Project site orientation Number of firms Percent
Yes 35 53.0
No 31 47.0
Total 66 100.0

Table 4-15. How many hours are devoted to the orientation program for new employees
Hours of orientation Number of firms Percent
.5-2 17 54.8
2.5-4 8 26.0
4.5-8 1 3.2
8.5-16 3 9.6
16-40 2 6.4
Total 31 100.0

Table 4-16. How many hours of safety training are provided to employees each month
Hours of training Number of firms Percent
.5-2 33 54.1
2.5-4 19 31.1
4.5-8 7 11.5
8.5-25 2 3.3
Total 61 100.0

Table 4-17. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish
Percent available in Spanish Number of firms Percent
0 22 34.4
1-25 6 9.4
26-50 8 12.5
51-75 1 1.6
76-99 1 1.6
100 26 40.5
Total 64 100.0









Table 4-18. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firms with at least
one Hispanic worker)
Percent available in Spanish Number of firms Percent
0 10 19.2
1-25 6 11.6
26-50 8 15.4
51-75 1 1.9
76-99 1 1.9
100 26 50.0
Total 52 100.0

Table 4-19. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firms with at least
one Hispanic worker who cannot speak or understand English)
Percent available in Spanish Number of firms Percent
0 3 8.3
1-25 4 11.1
26-50 6 16.7
51-75 1 2.8
76-99 1 2.8
100 21 58.3
Total 36 100.0

Table 4-20. What is the company's approximate annual expenditure for safety training
Approximate annual expenditure Number of firms Percent
0 5 9.8
1-1000 8 15.7
1001-2500 8 15.7
2501-5000 10 19.6
5001-10000 7 13.7
10001-20000 9 17.7
20001-100000 4 7.8
Total 51 100.0

Table 4-21. Company's computed safety training expense per worker
Expense per worker Number of firms Percent
0 5 9.8
1-100 10 19.6
101-200 10 19.6
201-300 13 25.5
301-500 4 7.8
501-750 3 5.9
751-1000 1 2.0
1001-1850 5 9.8
Total 51 100.0









Table 4-22. Company's computed safety training expense per worker (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)
Expense per worker Number of firms Percent
0 5 12.5
1-100 7 17.5
101-200 7 17.5
201-300 12 30.0
301-500 2 5.0
501-750 3 7.5
751-1000 1 2.5
1001-1850 3 7.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 4-23. Company's computed safety training expense per worker (for firms with no Hispanic
workers)
Expense per worker Number of firms Percent
0 0 0.00
1-100 1 12.5
101-200 2 25.0
201-300 1 12.5
301-500 2 25.0
501-750 0 0.00
751-1000 0 0.00
1001-1850 1 12.5
Total 8 100.0

Table 4-24. Does the company have an incentive program based on safety achievements
Incentive program Number of firms Percent
Yes 27 41.5
No 38 58.5
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-25. Has the company implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote
safety
New programs Number of firms Percent
Yes 40 61.5
No 25 38.5
Total 65 100.0









Table 4-26. Listing of responses for those who answered "Yes" to the question has the company
implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote safety


Response
Creating incentive programs
Introduction of safety meetings
Introduction of toolbox meetings
Having FRSA come to the jobsite
Increasing safety or equipment training
Having jobsite inspections
Increasing fall protection and safety equipment
Updating safety materials to NRCA standards
Showing videos and posters in Spanish and English
Conducting driver safety classes
Creating a safety committee or hiring a safety consultant
Introduction of new safety rules or equipment
Instituting and documenting lock-out tag-out procedures
Reviewing and rating individual employee safety procedures
Introduction of a chemical safety program
Introduction of a site clean up program
Introduction of equipment inspection
Introduction of weekly meetings in Spanish
Introduction of a written safety test in Spanish
Total


Number of firms


Table 4-27. Listing of about the most successful practice implemented to promote safety
Response Number of firms
Toolbox meetings 10
Incentive programs 5
FRSA safety manager and inspections 4
Monthly safety meeting 4
Increasing fall protection and safety equipment 4
Showing videos and posters in Spanish and English 3
Talking safety daily and at every meeting 3
Retraining workers on fall protection 3
Ladder tie-off procedures and training 2
Training on slip hazards and pinch points 2
Site clean up program 1
Behavior based programs to change safety culture 1
Limiting the size of the workforce to below 10 employees 1
Having a safety training day each quarter 1
Total 44









Table 4-28. Safety has a positive affect on productivity
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 1 1.6
Disagree 2 3.1
Neither agree or disagree 9 13.8
Agree 34 52.3
Strongly agree 19 29.2
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-29. Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 3 4.7
Disagree 2 3.1
Neither agree or disagree 20 31.3
Agree 26 40.6
Strongly agree 13 20.3
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-30. Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning English
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 8 12.5
Disagree 14 21.9
Neither agree or disagree 18 28.1
Agree 23 35.9
Strongly agree 1 1.6
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-31. Our company encounters significant problems because workers don't speak English
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 3 4.7
Disagree 19 29.7
Neither agree or disagree 28 43.8
Agree 12 18.7
Strongly agree 2 3.1
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-32. Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic Workers
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 2 3.1
Disagree 22 34.3
Neither agree or disagree 22 34.3
Agree 13 20.4
Strongly agree 5 7.9
Total 64 100.0









Table 4-33. Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 8 12.7
Disagree 17 27.0
Neither agree or disagree 19 30.1
Agree 18 28.6
Strongly agree 1 1.6
Total 63 100.0

Table 4-34. Non-Hispanic workers value their own safety more so than Hispanic workers
Response Number of firms Percent
Strongly disagree 7 10.9
Disagree 19 29.7
Neither agree or disagree 24 37.5
Agree 10 15.6
Strongly agree 4 6.3
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-35. Do Hispanic workers more regularly follow the company's safety procedures than
non-Hispanic workers
Response Number of firms Percent
Yes 3 5.0
They follow procedures equally 41 68.3
No 16 26.7
Total 60 100.0

Table 4-36. What percent of the company's employee's primary language is Spanish
Percent of workers Number of firms Percent
0 12 17.6
1-10 11 16.2
11-25 11 16.2
26-50 18 26.5
51-75 9 13.2
76-100 7 10.3
Total 68 100.0

Table 4-37. What percent of the company's managers are bilingual
Percent of workers Number of firms Percent
0 28 42.5
1-10 13 19.7
11-25 12 18.2
26-50 7 10.6
51-75 3 4.5
76-100 3 4.5
Total 66 100.0









Table 4-38. What percent of the company's managers are bilingual (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)
Percent of managers Number of firms Percent


0 19 34.5
1-10 12 21.8
11-25 11 20.0
26-50 7 12.7
51-75 3 5.5
76-100 3 5.5
Total 55 100.0

Table 4-39. How has the number of Hispanic workers in your firm changed in the past two years


Change in Hispanic workers Number of firms Percent
No Change 23 34.9
Slightly More Hispanic Workers 21 31.8
Today
Less Hispanic Workers Today 9 13.6
A Lot More Hispanic Workers 13 19.7
Today
Total 66 100.0

Table 4-40. Does the company require workers to speak and understand English in order to be
employed
English required Number of firms Percent
Yes 14 21.2
No 52 78.8
Total 66 100.0

Table 4-41. Of Hispanic workers, what percent cannot speak or understand English
Response in percent Number of firms Percent
0 14 21.5
1-10 23 35.4
11-25 6 9.2
26-50 14 21.5
51-75 7 10.9
76-90 1 1.5
Total 65 100.0









Table 4-42. What percent of the Hispanic workers have been employed for at least two years (for
firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Response in percent Number of firms Percent
0 7 12.5
1-25 13 23.2
26-50 14 25.0
51-75 8 14.7
76-100 14 25.0
Total 56 100.0

Table 4-43. Besides English, what languages are spoken on the jobsite
Language Number of firms Percent
None 22 36.2
Spanish 34 55.8
Tongan and Fijian 1 1.6
Spanish and Central American 1 1.6
Indian
Spanish and Serbian 1 1.6
Spanish and Portuguese 1 1.6
Spanish, Romanian, Lithuanian, 1 1.6
and Russian
Total 61 100.0

Table 4-44. Does the company have a program in place to check employee's I-9 forms
Program in place Number of firms Percent
Yes 48 78.6
No 13 21.3
Total 61 100.0

Table 4-45. Does the company have a program in place to check employee's I-9 forms (for firms
with at least one Hispanic worker)
Program in place Number of firms Percent
Yes 42 79.2
No 11 20.8
Total 53 100.0

Table 4-46. Has the company encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic
workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Unique safety problems Number of firms Percent
Yes 9 17.6
No 42 82.4
Total 51 100.0









Table 4-47. Listing of responses for those firms who encountered unique safety problems
associated with Hispanic workers
Response Number of firms
General language barrier 4
Communication problems when injuries occur 1
Communication gaps even when speaking in Spanish 1
Language a barrier for prompting quick movements 1
Miscommunications with use of equipment 1
Hispanic workers waiting to report injuries 1
Incurring OSHA fines 1
Expectation company will take care of their non-work related illnesses 1
Total 11

Table 4-48. How many company employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor last year
Number of injuries Number of firms Percent
0 25 38.5
1-3 25 38.5
4-6 11 16.8
7-10 2 3.1
11-20 2 3.1
Total 65 100.0

Table 4-49. Of injured employees, how many were Hispanic
Number of injuries Number of firms Percent
0 37 57.8
1-3 24 37.5
4-6 0 0.0
7-10 2 3.1
11-20 1 1.6
Total 64 100.0

Table 4-50. Distribution of RIR values
RIR Number of firms Percent
0 25 38.5
0.01-5.00 12 18.4
5.01-10.00 7 10.8
10.01-15.00 5 7.7
15.01-20.00 7 10.8
20.01-25.00 3 4.6
25.01-50.00 6 9.2
Total 65 100.0
Note: The average RIR was 9.0.









Table 4-51. Company's computed RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
RIR Number of firms Percent
0 14 27.5
0.01-5.00 11 21.5
5.01-10.00 7 13.7
10.01-15.00 5 9.8
15.01-20.00 7 13.7
20.01-25.00 1 2.0
25.01-50.00 6 11.8
50.01-100.00 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0
Note: The average RIR was 10.5

Table 4-52. Company's computed RIR (for firms with no Hispanic worker)
RIR Number of firms Percent
0 9 75.0
0.01-5.00 1 8.3
5.01-10.00 0 0.0
10.01-15.00 0 0.0
15.01-20.00 0 0.0
20.01-25.00 2 16.7
25.01-50.00 0 0.0
50.01-100.00 0 0.0
Total 12 100.0
Note: The average RIR was 4.1

Table 4-53. Company's computed Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
RIR Number of firms Percent
0 23 45.1
0.01-5.00 4 7.8
5.01-10.00 8 15.7
10.01-15.00 2 3.9
15.01-20.00 1 2.0
20.01-25.00 0 0.0
25.01-50.00 10 19.6
50.01-100.00 3 5.9
Total 51 100.0
Note: the average Hispanic RIR was 14.9.









Table 4-54. Company's computed non-Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic
worker)
RIR Number of firms Percent
0 22 43.1
0.01-5.00 6 11.8
5.01-10.00 8 15.7
10.01-15.00 2 3.9
15.01-20.00 5 9.8
20.01-25.00 3 5.9
25.01-50.00 5 9.8
50.01-100.00 0 0.0
Total 51 100.0
Note: the average non-Hispanic RIR was 9.2.

Table 4-55. Company's computed RIR statistics (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Statistic RIR Hispanic RIR Non-Hispanic RIR
Mean 10.5 14.9 9.2
Median 6.1 4.8 4.6

Table 4-56. Characteristics as they correlate to the company's RIR (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)
Characteristic Correlation Significance
Pre-task planning meetings 0.281 0.012
Safety glasses 0.206 0.043
Project specific safety plan 0.197 0.051
Hard hats 0.173 0.078
Toolbox meetings 0.171 0.082
Safety culture 0.508 < 0.001
Safety tone 0.309 0.004
Unique problems with Hispanic workers -0.203 0.046

Table 4-57. Characteristics as they correlate to the company's Hispanic RIR (for firms with at
least one Hispanic worker)
Characteristic Correlation Significance
Hard hats 0.199 0.058
Pre-task planning meetings 0.209 0.053
Safety tone 0.204 0.043
Safety culture 0.392 0.005









Table 4-58. Characteristics as they correlate to the company's non-Hispanic RIR (for firms with
at least one Hispanic worker)


Characteristic
Safety glasses
Pre-task planning meetings
Project specific safety plan
Orientation hours
Safety tone
Safety culture
Unique problems with Hispanic workers
Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than
do non-Hispanic workers
Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries
as a normal part of the iob


Correlation
0.224
0.280
0.238
-0.250
0.278
0.501
-0.201
-0.181

0.283


Significance
0.035
0.014
0.027
0.057
0.009
0.001
0.052
0.062

0.008


Table 4-59. Characteristics as they correlate with the company size (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)


Characteristic
Percentage of work subcontracted
Hard hats
Safety glasses
Toolbox meetings
Hours of safety training per month
Percentage of safety training available in Spanish
Safety incentive program
Implemented new safety program within the last
five years
Safety has a positive affect on productivity
Hispanic workers are equally or more productive
than non-Hispanic workers
Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated
without speaking English
Percentage of the employees whose primary
language is Spanish
Percentage of bilingual managers
Percentage of Hispanic workers who cannot speak
or understand English
Checks I-9 forms
Hard hats, safety glasses, toolbox meetings,
pre-task planning meetings


Correlation
0.229
-0.405
-0.160
-0.187
0.227
0.189
-0.188
-0.207

0.186
0.197

0.187

0.150

0.193
0.253

-0.240
-0.283


Significance
0.016
0.000
0.088
0.061
0.019
0.046
0.062
0.043

0.051
0.041

0.048

0.067

0.033
0.008

0.024
0.006









Table 4-60. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the company having implemented
an incentive program
Number of field employees Yes No


1-20 12 28
41+ 10 3
Chi Square 8.897 Significant to 0.01

Table 4-61. Number of full-time field employees and the firm's RIR (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)
Hard hats Safety glasses Pre-task planning Project specific Orientation hours
safety plan
Yes Yes No Yes 4
1 1 2 2 0.4
Score = 1+1+2+2-0.4 = 5.6

Table 4-62. Company's computed RIR as a factor of their safety culture (for firms with at least
one Hispanic worker)


Statistic
Number of firms
RIR
Mean
Median
Hispanic RIR
Mean
Median
Non-Hispanic RIR
Mean
Median


Score < 5


Score > 5


13 11


7.17
3.33

7.99
0.66

3.88
0.00


18.37
16.67

33.00
28.57

15.22
7.50


Table 4-63. Company safety culture as a factor of the company's workforce (for firms with at
least one Hispanic worker)
Workforce of firm Score < 5, (%) Score > 5 (%)
< 20 employees 5, (45.5%) 6, (54.5%)
> 20 employees 8 (61.5%) 5 (38.5%)
Total 13 (54.2%) 11 (45.8%)


Chi square


0.621


Not significant > 0.10


Table 4-64. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the firm's safety culture score (for
firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Number of field employees Score < 5 Score > 5
1-10 0 2
76+ 4 1
Chi square 3.733 Significant to 0.10









Table 4-65. Company's computed RIR as related to the safety tone score (for firms with at least
one Hispanic worker)
Statistic Score < 5 Score > 5
Number of firms 18 28
RIR
Mean 7.22 13.47
Median 4.17 10.91
RIR Hispanic
Mean 8.07 19.97
Median 0.33 9.54
RIR Non-Hispanic
Mean 7.38 11.54
Median 2.24 7.32

Table 4-66. Safety tone score as related to company size (measured by employees) (for firms
with at least one Hispanic worker)
Workforce of firm Score 5 (%) Score > 5, (%)
< 20 employees 5, (27.8%) 18, (72.2%)
> 20 employees 13 (56.5%) 10, (43.5%)
Total 18,(39.1%) 28, (60.9%)
Chi square 5.841 Significant to 0.02

Table 4-67. Safety practices that correlate with both the size of the company's workforce and the
company's RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Characteristic Correlation Level of Correlation Level of
coefficient significance coefficient to significance to
to size to size safety (RIR) safety (RIR)
Hard hats -.405 .000 .173 .078
Safety glasses -.160 .088 .206 .043
Toolbox meetings -.187 .061 .171 .082
Safety tone -.283 .006 .309 .004

Table 4-68. Characteristics which do not correlate with the size of company but correlate with
the company's RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Characteristic Correlation Level of Correlation Level of
coefficient to significance coefficient to significance to
size to size safety (RIR) safety (RIR)
Safety culture -.135 .185 .463 .001
Pre-task planning meetings -.100 .207 .281 .012
Project specific safety -.136 .125 .197 .051
plan









Table 4-69. Recordable injury rate for companies that have no safety training available in
Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
RIR Hispanic RIR Non-Hispanic RIR
Mean 11.96 23.57 7.87
Median 2.86 14.28 0.00

Table 4-70. Recordable injury rate for companies that have at least 50% safety training available
in Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
RIR Hispanic RIR Non-Hispanic RIR
Mean 10.15 11.29 9.95
Median 5.00 3.57 3.70

Table 4-71. Percent of safety training available in Spanish as a factor of Hispanic RIR (for firms
with at least one Hispanic worker)
Percent available in Spanish Hispanic RIR < 10 Hispanic RIR > 10
0 4 4
>50% 24 9
Chi square 1.536 Not Significant

Table 4-72. Company responses to the statement "Spanish speaking workers can be
accommodated without learning English" and the associated RIR (for firms with at
least one Hispanic worker)
Response Hispanic RIR < 6.11 Hispanic RIR > 6.11
Strongly disagree 0 4
Strongly agree or agree 12 8
Chi square 4.800 Significant to 0.05

Table 4-73. Percent of Hispanic employees who have been employed at least two years as a
factor of the firm's size (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)
Percent employed 2 years Employees 1-10 Employees 76+
0 4 0
50+ 6 6
Chi square 3.200 Significant to 0.10

Table 4-74. Number of full-time field employees and the firm's RIR
Number of field employees Mean RIR Median RIR
1-10 8.30 0.00
11-20 12.85 10.55
21-75 8.21 4.77
76+ 4.46 5.00









Table 4-75. Number of full-time field employees and the firm's RIR (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)
Number of field employees Mean RIR Median RIR
1-10 13.13 7.14
11-20 14.04 11.11
21-75 8.57 5.00
76+ 4.46 5.00










S RIRa RIRN
Z-
VARH VAR7
NH NN


Figure 4-1. Z calculation for the differences between the mean injury rates related to Hispanic
workers and non-Hispanic workers.


14
12
10
8
RIR
6
4-
2
0


I


r


iie71


Yes


Pre-Task Planning


Figure 4-2. Firm RIR and pre-task planning (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)


16
14
12
10
RIR 8-
6
4-
2-
0


4


iie7
M Median


Yes


Safety Glasses


Figure 4-3. Firm RIR and safety glasses (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)









14
12
10
8
RIR
6
4-
2-
0


1


I


I


Yes No
Project Specific Safety Plan

Figure 4-4. Firm RIR and project specific safety plans (for firms with at least one Hispanic
worker)


14
12
10
8
RIR
6
4-
2-
0


4


iie7
M Median


Yes


Hard Hats

Figure 4-5. Firm RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)


=


Nlean
Nledian










16
14
12
10
RIR 8-
6
4-
2-
0


f


Yes No
Toolbox Meetings


Figure 4-6. Firm RIR and toolbox meetings (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)


20

15

RIR 10


T


iie71


Score 5 5 Score > 5
Safety Culture


Figure 4-7. Firm RIR and safety culture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)


=


=


v


5

0


* Mean
0 Median










16
14
12-
10-
RIR 8-
6-
4-
2-
0-


f


SiMean
E Median


Score 5 5 Score > 5
Safety Tone


Figure 4-8. Firm RIR and safety tone (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)


15 --


RIR 10 --


-


iie71


Yes No
Experienced Unique Problems with
Hispanic Workers


Figure 4-9. Firm RIR and unique problems experienced with Hispanic workers (for firms with at
least one Hispanic worker)


=


5
0 -










25

20

RIR5 Mean
10 -Median

5-
M0.3
0 _E
Yes No
Hard Hats


Figure 4-10. Hispanic RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)



25

20

RIR15 Mean
10 Median

50

0 0
Yes No
Pre-Task Planning


Figure 4-11. Hispanic RIR and pre-task planning (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)











35
30
25
R 20 S Mean
RIR ii
15 -- Median
10
0.7
0
Score 5 5 Score > 5
Safety Culture


Figure 4-12. Hispanic RIR and safety culture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)




25

20

RIR15 0 Mean
10 0 Median




Score 5 5 Score > 5
Safety Tone


Figure 4-13. Hispanic RIR and safety tone (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)










16
14 -
12 -
10 -
RIR 8-
6
4-
2
0


4.5+


Orientation Hours


Figure 4-14. Non-Hispanic RIR and orientation hours (for firms with at least one Hispanic
worker)


RIR


1le7


Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree or
or Disagree Agree
View Injuries as a Normal Part of the
Job


Figure 4-15. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreement with the statement "Hispanic workers are
more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job" (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)


Tm


0


* Mean
0 Median


1"-


0.5-2.0


" --


2.5-4.0











12
10
8
RIR 6
4
2
0.0
0
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree or
or Disagree Agree
Take More Risks on the Job


Figure 4-16. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreement with the statement "Hispanic workers
take more risks on the job than do non-Hispanic workers" (for firms with at least one
Hispanic worker)


14
12
10
8
RIR
6
4
2
0
1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 75 76+
Number of employees


Figure 4-17. RIR and the number of full time field employees.


0 Mean
0 Median









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

The safety practices of small subcontractors have not been examined at length in prior

research studies. The majority of the research studies on construction safety have focused

mainly on determining the effective safety practices of large general contractors. However, most

construction projects involve a significant number of subcontracting firms, many of which are

small firms. Additionally, little research has been conducted relating safety practices to the

Hispanic workforce. The Hispanic workforce in the construction industry is steadily increasing,

and these workers have experienced a disproportionate number of injuries. The results of this

study can be beneficial to subcontractors who want to improve their safety performances.

One goal of this research was to perform an exploratory examination of small

subcontractor safety practices. The majority of the subcontracting firms view safety as having a

positive effect on productivity. To this end, the majority of the firms implement a variety of

safety practices including but not limited to drug testing programs, weekly toolbox meetings, and

requirements for wearing safety glasses. Also, the majority of the firms said that they had

implemented a new program within the past five years to promote safety. It shows that some

firms are continuing in the right direction towards improving their safety programs; however, it

also shows that there is room for improvement. Additionally, the average RIR for all firms

surveyed was 8.98, which is above but near the national average of 7.3 for roofing contractors

(EHSO, 2006).

The research supported the fact that each individual safety practice reinforces the

necessity of the other practices, and together they send a positive message that worker safety is

important to the firm. It was hypothesized that subcontractors have fewer available resources

than general contractors to invest in safety training and equipment, and that smaller









subcontractors would have fewer resources to invest than larger subcontractors. Despite this

difference in available resources, safety culture was not correlated with firm size except at the

absolute extremes. Thus, smaller firms have also shown that these safety programs can be

successfully implemented. It should be noted that these safety practices are not dependent on

company size in order to be successful. These safety practices can be implemented by all firms

regardless of size. Most importantly, the implementation of these safety programs can be

accomplished at a relatively low cost.

The second goal of this study was to observe the integration of the Hispanic workforce

into the subcontracting industry. This research concludes that the number of Hispanic

construction workers is increasing and it was found that many firms have adjusted their safety

practices to address the special needs of Hispanic workers. The study also concluded that

Hispanic workers have their own unique safety issues that need to be addressed. Most of these

issues are a result of language and cultural differences. Combating these differences is difficult

when only a small percentage of supervisory personnel are bilingual. The translation of safety

materials into Spanish is a start, but more action is needed to slow the injury rate in the Hispanic

workforce.









CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Subcontractors

Subcontractor's, regardless of size, should place more emphasis on their safety programs.

This study outlined some simple procedures that all subcontractors can perform regardless of

their resources or income level. These procedures include the wearing of hard hats and safety

glasses, the creation of project specific safety plans, the implementation of pre-task planning

meetings, and conducting new worker orientation. Additionally, firms should be proactive in

their approach to safety for all workers. Hispanic workers should be treated with the same duty

of care that is placed on non-Hispanic workers. Employers should take steps to understand the

culture and background of their Hispanic workforce so that when dealing with them they can

adjust their approach accordingly. The Hispanic workforce is growing, particularly in the

construction industry. Employers have a responsibility to not only check I-9 forms when hiring

workers, but also to help assimilate them into their workforces and protect them from injury.

Recommendations for Future Research

Additional research is needed on subcontractor safety. A study, similar to this one, should

be conducted with other subcontracting trades. The results should be compared to see if the

benefit of any particular safety practices correlate with specific trades. If this were to occur, a set

of best safety practices by trade could be developed.

A case study should be conducted with three subcontractors of different sizes, with

employees numbering under 10, between 20 and 40, and over 50. It would be best to select firms

that do not currently utilize many safety practices. The study would take place over a period of

time to examine how these subcontractors initiate and follow through with the implementation of

a new safety program. Safety programs to be implemented include the wearing of hard hats and









safety glasses, the creation of project specific safety plans, conduct pre-task planning meetings,

and conduct new worker orientation. The firms' RIRs would be monitored, but the true benefit

of the study would be in seeing the roadblocks and breakthroughs involved in safety programs

implementation.

Additionally, more research needs to be done concerning Hispanic construction workers.

This research should be conducted utilizing personal interviews of Hispanic workers and their

employers. The interviews with Hispanic workers should inquire about their experiences on the

jobsite. The interviews would address their feelings on safety, experiences in their home country,

ability to identify risks, and obtain their thoughts and feelings about how safety programs can be

adjusted to make them feel protected and part of the team. Next, interviews should be conducted

with their employers to see what their perceptions are of their Hispanic workforce. Topics

discussed should include how they perceive the Hispanic culture, their ability to instruct in

Spanish, and how they think Hispanic workers identify and deal with jobsite risks. Results of

these interviews could be used to formulate a program that could teach Hispanic workers to

identify and mitigate risks. The results could also instruct employers on understanding the

perception of their Hispanic workers so that they can communicate both and share jobsite safety

information with their Hispanic workers.









APPENDIX A
CONTRACTOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Safety Survey of Specialty Contractors
The following questionnaire can befinished ithii five minutes. Please answer only the
questions you are comfortable in answering.


1. Is the company a Hispanic MBE (Minority Business Enterprise) or is any portion of the
company owned by a Hispanic person?
[ ] Hispanic MBE [ ] Hispanic Person Ownership (non MBE) [ ] No

2. How many full time field employees does the company employ? (average)

3. What percentage of the work is subcontracted to others? %

4. Does the company have a full-time safety director on staff? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If "yes", what percentage of the workday does the company safety director spend
in the field? %

5. Does the company have a drug-testing program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If "yes", what type of drug tests does the company conduct? (Check all that apply)
[ ] Pre-hire [ ] Random [ ] For Cause [ ] Post-Accident

6. Are all company field employees required to wear hard hats? [ ] Yes [ ] No

7. Are all company field employees required to wear safety glasses? [ ] Yes [ ] No

8. Are weekly "Tool Box Meetings" conducted on project sites? [ ] Yes [ ] No

9. Are "Pre-Task Planning Meetings" held before every task? [ ] Yes [ ] No

10. Does the company prepare project specific safety programs for all projects?
[ ] Yes [ ]No

11. Does the company provide orientation for all its employees on project sites?
[ ] Yes [ ]No

If yes, how many hours are devoted to the orientation program for new employees?
hours per worker

12. How many hours of safety training are provided to employees each month? hours

13. What percentage of safety training is available in Spanish? %









14. What is your company's approximate annual expenditure on safety training?
$ thousand

15. Does the company have an incentive program based on safety achievements?
[ ]Yes [ ]No

16. Has the company implemented any new programs within the past five years to promote
safety?
[ ] Yes [ ]No

If yes, please describe the programs.


17. Of the practices implemented by the company to promote safety, which has been the most
successful?

For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or
disagreement by circling the one appropriate answer.

18. Safety has a positive affect on productivity?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

19. Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

20. Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning English?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

22. Our company encounters significant problems because workers don't speak English?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

23. Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

24. Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

25. Non-Hispanic workers value their own safety more so than Hispanic Workers do?
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree










26. Do Hispanic workers more regularly follow the company's safety procedures than
non-Hispanic workers?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] They follow the procedures equally

27. What percent of the company employee's primary language is Spanish? %

28. What percent of the company managers are bilingual? %

29. How has the number of Hispanic workers in your firm changed in the past 5 years?
[ ] No change [ ] Slightly more Hispanic workers today
[ ] Less Hispanic workers today [ ] A lot more Hispanic workers today

30. Does the company have any requirement that workers must be able to speak and understand
English in order to be employed? [ ] Yes [ ] No

31. Of Hispanic workers, what percent cannot speak or understand English? %

32. What percent of the Hispanic workers have been employed for
at least two years? %

33. Besides English, what languages are spoken on the jobsite?

34. Do you have a program in place to check employee's I-9 forms? [ ] Yes [ ] No

35. Have you encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

If "yes", please explain



36. How many company employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor last year?

Of these employees, how many were Hispanic workers?


Optional
A summary of this research study will be prepared. If you would like to receive a copy of a
summary report as soon as it is available, you may include your name and address below and one
will be provided to you. Note that your firm's identity will not be used in any way other than to
get a report to you. Thank you for your participation in this research study..
Name:
Firm:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:









LIST OF REFERENCES


BLR. (2002). "The Impact of Language and Culture on Job Safety." Business & Legal Reports,
Connecticut, Old Saybrook,
http://safety.blr.com/display.cfm/id/88020 (May 15, 2007).

Bowdy, M. A. (1997). "Como Se Dice HIV? Adapting Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Prevention Messages to Reach Homosexual and Bisexual Hispanic Men: The Importance
of Hispanic Cultural and Health Beliefs." ERIC Document Reproduction Service
ED416548.

Brunette, M.J. (2004). "Construction Safety and Health Research and the Hispanic Workforce in
the U.S.: The Need for a Research Agenda." Inj. Prev., 10, 244-248.

Delaney, K. (2002). "Hispanic Outreach: Delivering the Safety and Health Message." Job and
Safety Health Quarterly, 13(4), 24, 25.

Dong, X., Platner, J. (2004). "Occupational Fatalities of Hispanic Construction Workers from
1992 to 2000." Am. J Ind. Med. 45(1), 46,49,51,53.

Durand, J., and Massey, D. S. (2004). Crossing the Boarder: Research from the Mexican
Migration Project, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

EHSO. (2006). "Table 1. Incidence rates of nonfatal occupation injuries and illnesses by industry
and case types, 2006." Environmental, Health and Safety Online, Georgia, Atlanta,
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb 765.pdf (Sept. 21, 2007).

Gonzalez, R. (2006). "Five Critical Training Needs with Your Hispanic Employees." National
Driller, Illinois, Bensenville,
http://www.nationaldriller.com/CDA/Archives/0a2d813a2678c010VgnVCM100000f932a
8c0 (May 19, 2007).

Goodrum, P. M. (2004). "Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Wage Differentials: Implications for
United States Construction Industry." J. Constr. Eng. andManage., 130(4), 557.

Hinze, J., Gambatese, J. (2003). "Factors That Influence Safety Performance of Specialty
Contractors." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(2), 160.

Hinze, J., Tracey, A. (1994). "The Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship: The Subcontractor's
View." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 120(2), 274.

Illia, T. (2006). "Incident and Injury-free: Making it Personal." Constructor, McGraw-Hill
Construction, Colorado, Denver,
http://constructor.construction.com/features/issuesTrends/archives/2006-01safety.asp (July
12, 2007).









Jaselskis, E. (2005). "Developing an Effective Construction Training Program for American
Supervisors with Hispanic Craft Workers" Center for Transportation Research and
Education Project 04-132, Iowa State University, 14.

Lipoma, S. (1997). "Contractors Cooperate to Improve Safety." The Seattle Daily Journal of
Commerce, Washington, Seattle,
http://www.djc.com/special/const97/10023894.htm (July 24, 2007).

Marin, M. (2003). "Training Hispanic Construction Workers in Florida." [Master's Thesis]
University of Florida M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, 17.

Mathis, J. (2001). "CII: Construction Occupational Safety and Health." Electronic Library of
Construction Occupational Safety and Health, Georgia, Atlanta,
http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0500/d000518/d000518.html (July 17, 2007).

McCausland, C. (2006). "Labor Shortage Solutions Combatting the Lack of Skilled
Craftsmen." Builder News Magazine, Washington, Vancouver,
http://www.builderewsmag.com/viewnews.pl?id=428 (May 20, 2007).

National Eye Health Education Program. (1994). "Latino/Hispanic Communication Plan:
Reaching Latinos/Hispanics at Risk." National Eye Institute, Maryland, Bethesda,
http://www.nei.nih.gov/nehep/plans/latinplan.asp (May 14, 2007).

NIOSH FACE Program: In-House Report 98-16. (1998). "Roofer Helper Dies After Falling 16.5
Feet From Roof to Concrete Basement Way Kansas." The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Ohio, Cincinnati,
http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/face/In-house/full9816.html (July 2, 2007).

NIOSH Publication No. 2004-146. (2004). "Worker Health Chartbook 2004." The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Ohio, Cincinnati,
http://www2a.cdc.gov/niosh-Chartbook/imagedetail.asp?imgid=305 (July 2, 2007).

Nissen, B. (2004). "Construction Safety Practices and Immigrant Workers: A Pilot Study." The
Center to Protect Workers'Rights, Florida International University, April, iii,1,3,17.

OSHA. (2000). "OSHA Cites Subcontractors in Miller Park Fatal Crane Collapse, Milwaukee."
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Washington
D.C.,
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp. showdocument?ptable=NEWS RELEASES
&p_id=764 (July 14, 2007).

OSHA. (2007). "Sample Safety and Health Program for Small Business." U.S. Department of
Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Washington D.C.,
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/safetyhealth/mod2_sample_sh_program.html(July 2,
2007).









Pallack, B. (2007). "OSHA Ruling Puts Onus on Subcontractors." Arizona Daily Star, Arizona,
Tucson,
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/business/183858.php (July 14, 2007).

Quackenbush, G. (2007). "Latinos Rank High in Construction Fatalities." North Bay Business
Journal, California, Santa Rosa,
http://www.busjrnl.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/BUSINESSJOURNAL/704
15034/1207/BUSINESSJOURNAL02 (July 16, 2007)

Ruttenberg, R., Lazlo, M. (2004). "Spanish-Speaking Construction Workers Discuss Their
Safety Needs and Experiences, Residential Construction." Center to Protect Workers
Rights, Silver Spring, MD, 2,4,6,7.

Santiago, L. (2002). "Hispanic Outreach: Making Inroads in Ft. Lauderdale." Job and Safety
Health Quarterly, Washington D.C., 13(4), 27.

SCF Arizona. (2004). "Raising the Roof Higher Safety Standards Lower Costs." SCF Arizona,
Phoenix,
http://www.scfaz.com/publish/article_490.shtml (July 14, 2007).

Schneider, S. P. (2005). "Economics of Health and Safety in Construction." Laborers' Health
and Safety Fund of North America, Washington D.C.,
http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm? obj ectID= 191C9D75-D56F-E6FA-
937CCB7AA94CD088 (July 2, 2007).

Thomas, R. (2006). "Safe Profits: Adopt Best Practices and Safety Compliance Will Take Care
of Itself." Remodeling Magazine, Hanley Wood, Washington D.C.,
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/ industry-news.asp? sectionID=298&articleID=265598
(July 27, 2007).

Tinajero, L. (2005). "Latinos in Construction: Breaking Barriers, Building Hope." National
Council ofLa Raza, Washington D.C., 2, 4-7.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2007). "Florida QuickFacts."
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html (May 20, 2007).

U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). "National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2005."
Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S.Department of Labor 06-1364, 3,8.

Yogindra, S., Parker, D., Brosseau, L., Pan, W., Xi, M., Haugan, D., Williams, Q. (2007).
"Organizational Characteristics of Small Metal-fabricating Businesses in Minnesota." Int.
J. Occup. Environ. Health., 13(2), 164.

Yohay, S. C., Walsh, E. M. (2007). "OSHA's Ability to Cite General Contractors for
Subcontractors' Safety Violations Now in Doubt." Construction Weblinks, Washington
D.C.,
http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry ReportsNewsletters/May 21
2007/osha.html (July 14, 2007).









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Matthew Ruben received his Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Master of Accounting

from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, in May 2006. After graduation, he enrolled

in the graduate program in the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the

University of Florida to pursuer a Master of Science in Building Construction. Matthew was

born in Fairfield, California and grew up Tampa, Florida. Upon graduation, he will move to

Atlanta, Georgia to work as a Project Engineer.





PAGE 1

1 SUBCONTRACTOR SAFETY PRACTI CES FOR HISPANIC WORKERS By MATTHEW ALLEN RUBEN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Matthew Allen Ruben

PAGE 3

3 To my family.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would lik e to thank those people who ha ve helped me to accomplish my goal of completing this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee: Dr. Jimmie Hinze, Dr. Edward Minchin, Jr., and Dr. Svetlana Oblina. Dr. Hinze was an invaluable mentor to me throughout this process. Without his hel p, direction, and friendshi p, this project would have never been successful. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Hinze. I would like to express my a ppreciation for the support of my parents, Glenn and Paula Ruben, my brother, Jordan Ruben, and my grandparents Ansel and Helaine Baker. They encouraged and endured my journe y into the construction industr y. I would also like to thank my fiance, Wendy Fahsholtz, for all of her help and patience.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 12 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................13 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................16 General Contractors Effect on Subcontractors....................................................................... 16 Resource Constraints on Subcontractor Safety....................................................................... 18 Programs for Small Enterprises.............................................................................................. 18 The Hispanic Workforce......................................................................................................... 22 Opportunities for Hispanics in Construction.......................................................................... 23 Higher Injury Rates for Hispanic Workers............................................................................. 24 The Language Barrier........................................................................................................... ..25 Safety Training in Spanish..................................................................................................... .27 Understanding Hispanic Culture............................................................................................. 29 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 33 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........33 Survey Questions Design........................................................................................................34 Survey Dissemination........................................................................................................... ..37 Initial Analysis Performed......................................................................................................37 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........37 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.................................................................................... 38 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........38 Company Demographic Information...................................................................................... 38 Company Safety Information................................................................................................. 39 Company Experiences with Hispanic W orkers...................................................................... 43 Current State of the Subcontra ctors Hispanic Workforce ..................................................... 44 Company Injury Information.................................................................................................. 46 Findings Correlated to RIR..................................................................................................... 48

PAGE 6

6 5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 82 6 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 84 Recommendations for Subcontractors....................................................................................84 Recommendations for Future Research..................................................................................84 APPENDIX A CONTRACTOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................... 86 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................89 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................92

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Number of Hispanic Minority Busine ss Enterprises respo nding to the survey ...................... 56 4-2. Number of fulltim e field em ployees....................................................................................... 56 4-3. Percent of work that is subcontracted..................................................................................... 56 4-4. Number of firms with fulltime safety directors...................................................................... 56 4-5. Percent of workday the safety director spends in the field .....................................................56 4-6. Does the firm have a drug-testing program............................................................................ 57 4-7. What type of drug te sts does the firm conduct....................................................................... 57 4-8. Number of full time field employees in firm s that only perform post-accident drugtesting.................................................................................................................................57 4-9. Are all company employees required to wear hard hats .........................................................57 4-10. Are all company employees requi red to wear safety glasses ............................................... 57 4-11. Are weekly toolbox meetings conducted on project sites ....................................................57 4-12. Are pre-task planning meeti ngs held before every task .......................................................58 4-13. Does the company prepare a project specific safety plan for each project........................... 58 4-14. Does the company provide orientation for all its em ployees on project sites...................... 58 4-15. How many hours are devoted to the or ientation program for new e mployees..................... 58 4-16. How many hours of safety training are provided to em ployees each month....................... 58 4-17. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish ............................................ 58 4-18. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker).........................................................................................................59 4-19. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker who cannot speak or understand English).......................................59 4-20. What is the companys approximate annual expenditure for safety training ....................... 59 4-21. Companys computed safety training expense per worker ................................................... 59

PAGE 8

8 4-22. Companys computed safety training expense per worker (f or firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................60 4-23. Companys computed safety training expense per worker (for firm s with no Hispanic workers).............................................................................................................................60 4-24. Does the company have an incentive program based on safety achievem ents....................60 4-25. Has the company implemented any new progr am s within the past 5 years to promote safety..................................................................................................................................60 4-26. Listing of responses for those who answ ered Yes to the question has the com pany implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote safety...................... 61 4-27. Listing of about the most successful practice implemented to promote safety.................... 61 4-28. Safety has a positive affect on productivity.......................................................................... 62 4-29. Hispanic workers are equally or mo re productive than non-Hispanic W orkers...................62 4-30. Spanish speaking workers can be accomm odated without learning English....................... 62 4-31. Our company encounters significant problems because workers dont speak English........ 62 4-32. Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic Workers.......................... 62 4-33. Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a norm al part of the job.................... 63 4-34. Non-Hispanic workers value their own sa fety m ore so than Hispanic workers...................63 4-35. Do Hispanic workers more regularly follow the com panys safety procedures than non-Hispanic workers........................................................................................................63 4-36. What percent of the companys empl oyees prim ary language is Spanish.......................... 63 4-37. What percent of the comp anys m anagers are bilingual....................................................... 63 4-38. What percent of the companys managers are bilingual (for fir m s with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................64 4-39. How has the number of Hispanic workers in your firm changed in the past two years....... 64 4-40. Does the company require workers to sp eak and understand English in order to be em ployed............................................................................................................................64 4-41. Of Hispanic workers, what percen t cannot speak or understand English ............................ 64 4-42. What percent of the Hispanic workers have been em ployed for at least two years (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...........................................................................65

PAGE 9

9 4-43. Besides English, what languages are spoken on the jobsite................................................. 65 4-44. Does the company have a program in place to check em ployees I-9 forms....................... 65 4-45. Does the company have a program in pl ace to check em ployees I-9 forms (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker).....................................................................................65 4-46. Has the company encountered any unique sa fety problem s associated with Hispanic workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...................................................... 65 4-47. Listing of responses for those firm s who encountered unique safety problem s associated with Hispanic workers......................................................................................66 4-48. How many company employees suffered in juries treated by a doctor last year .................. 66 4-49. Of injured employees, how many were Hispanic................................................................. 66 4-50. Distribution of RIR values....................................................................................................66 4-51. Companys computed RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) ...........................67 4-52. Companys computed RIR (for firm s with no Hispanic worker)......................................... 67 4-53. Companys computed Hispanic RIR (for fi rm s with at least one Hispanic worker)............ 67 4-54. Companys computed non-Hispanic RIR (for fi r ms with at least one Hispanic worker).... 68 4-55. Companys computed RIR sta tistics (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)............ 68 4-56. Characteristics as they correlate to the companys RIR (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................68 4-57. Characteristics as they correlate to the co mpanys Hispanic RIR (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker).........................................................................................................68 4-58. Characteristics as they correlate to the companys non-Hispanic RIR (for fir ms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................. 69 4-59. Characteristics as they correlate with th e com pany size (for fi rms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................69 4-60. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the com pany having implemented an incentive program.......................................................................................................... 70 4-61. Number of full-time field em ployees and the firm s RIR (f or firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................70 4-62. Companys computed RIR as a factor of their safety culture (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................70

PAGE 10

10 4-63. Company safety culture as a factor of the com panys workforce (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker).........................................................................................................70 4-64. Number of full time field employees as a fact or of the firm s safety culture score (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)...........................................................................70 4-65. Companys computed RIR as related to the safety tone sc ore (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker).........................................................................................................71 4-66. Safety tone score as related to company size (m easured by employees) (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)............................................................................................. 71 4-67. Safety practices that corr elate with both the size of th e com panys workforce and the companys RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker).......................................... 71 4-68. Characteristics which do not correlate with the size of com pany but correlate with the companys RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker).......................................... 71 4-69. Recordable injury rate for companies that have no safety training available in Spanish (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker).................................................................... 72 4-70. Recordable injury rate for companies that have at least 50% safety training available in Spanish (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)...................................................... 72 4-71. Percent of safety training available in Span ish as a factor of Hispanic RIR (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)..................................................................................... 72 4-72. Company responses to the statemen t Spanish speaking workers can be accomm odated without learning English and th e associated RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................. 72 4-73. Percent of Hispanic employees who have b een em ployed at least tw o years as a factor of the firms size (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)........................................ 72 4-74. Number of full-time field em ployees and the firm s RIR.................................................... 72 4-75. Number of full-time field em ployees and the firm s RIR (f or firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................73

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1. Z calculation for the differences between th e m ean injury rates related to Hispanic workers and non-Hispanic workers...................................................................................74 4-2. Firm RIR and pre-task pl anning (for firm s with at l east one Hispanic worker)..................... 74 4-3. Firm RIR and safety gla sses (for firm s with at l east one Hispanic worker)...........................74 4-4. Firm RIR and project specific safety plans (f or firm s with at least one Hispanic worker).... 75 4-5. Firm RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) .................................. 75 4-6. Firm RIR and toolbox meetings (for firm s with at l east one Hispanic worker)..................... 76 4-7. Firm RIR and safety culture (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker) ...........................76 4-8. Firm RIR and safety tone (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker) ............................... 77 4-9. Firm RIR and unique problems experienced w ith Hispan ic workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................. 77 4-10. Hispanic RIR and hard ha ts (for firm s with at le ast one Hispanic worker).......................... 78 4-11. Hispanic RIR and pre-task planning (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)............ 78 4-12. Hispanic RIR and safety culture (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker).................. 79 4-13. Hispanic RIR and safety tone (for fir ms with at le ast one Hispanic worker)....................... 79 4-14. Non-Hispanic RIR and orient ation hours (for firm s with at least one Hispanic worker)..... 80 4-15. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreemen t with the statem ent Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................80 4-16. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreement with the statem ent Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than do non-Hispanic workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)................................................................................................................81 4-17. RIR and the number of full time field employees................................................................ 81

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS RIR Recordable Injury Rate. A ratio of the number of injuries to the number of man hours worked. It is a computed nu mber that essentially represents the percentage of workers that were in jured. A RIR of 9.0 signifies that 9 workers out of 100 experienced a recordable injury. PPE Personal Protective Equipment. Any number of items that a worker might use to protect themselves from injury. Examples of PPE include hard hats, safety glasses, and lanyards.

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction SUBCONTRACTOR SAFETY PRACTI CES FOR HISPANIC WORKERS By Matthew Allen Ruben May 2008 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Building Construction In todays construction i ndustry, the workforces of s ubcontractors and specialty contractors face greatest potential of injury. These contractors tend to be smaller firms with limited budgets for safety. For the most part, th ese contractors implement very basic safety practices when compared to larger firms. In developing firm safety practices, each company will need to consider the make-up of their workfor ce. The number of Hispanic construction workers is increasing, and these workers are more likely to suffer work-related injuries than the average construction worker. The differences between Hi spanic and non-Hispanic workers are more than just lingual, they are also cultu ral and educational Subcontractor safety practices need to be tailored to reach the Hispanic workforce while sti ll working within their means as a smaller firm. Our study explored the safety pr actices of Floridian roofing s ubcontractors. Our study also explored the scope of the growi ng Hispanic construction workforce in order to observe the safety efforts of subcontractors to keep them safe. Fina lly, this research generate s a set of best safety practices that can be applied to a ll subcontractors regardless of size.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It is common for subcontractors to supply 80 to 90% of the work on a given construction project, yet little research has been conducte d about their best safety practices (Hinze and Tracey, 1994). Instead, most construction safety research studies have been focused at the general contractor level. Worker safety has become a subject of consid erable interest in the construction industry. General contractors have been in the process of implementing zeroaccident and incident and injury free programs acr oss their jobsites. The construction industry, which once viewed injuries as a normal part of the job, no longer accepts them. Subcontractors must react to the pressures to work safe that are placed upon them by the general contractors. Large general contractors have a different approach to safety than smaller subcontractors. For example, the general contractors have th e ability to devote larger budgets and more personnel to their projects than do their subcontr actors. In many cases, it is ultimately the subcontractors personnel who are placed in dang erous situations, and it is up to them to implement procedures to mitigate the risks. The changing landscape of toda ys construction workforce ha s created its own workplace safety challenges. These challenges arise from cultural, social, and communicative differences between the Hispanic workforce and management. As of the first quarter of 2004, the overall Latino construction workforce was estimated to be 2.15 million (Tinajero, 2005). While they are becoming an increasing part of the labor force, little research has been conducted to determine the best practices for ensuring the safety of Hispanic workers. Jobsite injuries and fatalities remain an ever present concer n of the construction industry. Injury rates have declined in recent years, falling 4% from 2004 to 2005 (United States Department of Labor, 2005); however, i n 2001 (the most recent year measured), the rate of

PAGE 15

15 work-related deaths from construction inju ries for Hispanics was 19.5 per 100,000 full-time workers.5% higher than the rate of 12.0 fo r non-Hispanic construc tion workers (NIOSH Chartbook, 2004). Understanding the cause of the disproportionate number of Hispanic worker injuries and addressing this phenomenon shoul d be a goal of the construction industry because every injury is an unacceptable occurrence. Increased efforts on the part of construction companies and construction employees are needed to promote jobsite safety. Objective of study. Very little is known about the sa fety practices of subcontractors. The objective of this research is to explore the sa fety practices of subcont ractors to identify their best safety practices. A secondary objective of this research is to explore the scope of the growing Hispanic workforce, and to observe the safety efforts of subcontractors to protect them from injury. The research systematically explor es the current safety practices of subcontractors including those directed towards Hispanic workers. The resulting information obtained from this study could be used by subcontractors to impr ove their safety programs and performances.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW General Contractors Effect on Subcontractors While m ost general contractors view safety as a goal, some general contractors are exploring the benefits of developing safety as a core value. Bovis Lend Lease, for example, is committed to the belief that working incident & in jury free is a choice and a basic human right (Illia, 2006). The concept is simple, all workers deserve the right to return home after work unharmed to their families. The benefits of a strong safety culture are reflected in a firms OSHA recordable injury rate; some being below 2.0 compared to the 2005 industry average of 6.32. The fact that some general contractors are proactively embracing safe ty is a positive sign; however, it is important to note that subcontractor s often perform 80 to 90% of work for a given contract and little research has been conducted concerning th e best safety practices of subcontractors in the construction in dustry (Hinze and Tracey, 1994). General contractors who strive to attain the goal of zero injuries encourage their subcontractors to also pursue th at objective with them. For ex ample, Bovis Lend Lease hosts a two-part eight-hour Supervisor Skills Workshop for their subcont ractors on every project. The workshop is not designed to discuss safety equipment, but rather to discuss how to get employees to be involved in ensuring their own safety. Pretask planning and the incident and injury free culture are both disc ussed at length, and Remember Charlie a video about a worker who was severely inured in an accident, is shown (Dan Danner, personal communication, June 14, 2007). General contractors can help to ensure the safety of their projects by choosing safety conscience subcontractors. For example, Bovis Lend Lease requi res a safety prequalification form to be turned in with each subcontractors bid outlining their intended selection of safety

PAGE 17

17 personnel, information about OSHA citations, curre nt incident rates, and other key safety characteristics. Owners or general contractors can also ask for copies of companies general safety programs and other sp ecific safety programs (e.g., fall protection program, hazard communication program, confined space program) for important hazards relevant to the upcom ing project. Even more importantly, owners can request information on job hazard or j ob safety analyses that show company preplanning for safety on the jobs. Documentati on of safety training programs can also be requested. If the contractor is going to subcont ract parts of the job, it should be asked what it plans to do to make sure all the subcont ractors have an equivalent safety program (Schneider, 2005). This type of contracting is called best value contracting. In best value contracting, owners set a past and predicted performan ce floor for bids and, then, check into the background of the bidders so that inept, unscr upulous contractors with low bids do not win contracts. Instead, projects are awarded to bidders that have good records, including performance on issues of safety and health (Schneider, 2005). Subcontractor safety is a more critical factor on projects that have owner controlled insurance programs (OCIPs) because of the poten tial cost savings to the owner. After the contract is awarded, Bovis Lend Lease requires the subcontractor to submit an original site specific safety plan outlining the j ob and site risks and how the subcontractor plans to mitigate them. Other general contractors are now requiring all subcontractors who work on their jobsites to have an accident-prevention plan and to enforce it or be labeled a company that doesn't recognize the importance of a safety program (Lipoma, 1997). These efforts reveal the importance that general contract ors are placing on safety, and their expectations from their subcontractors. Construction managers are now choosing their subcontractors on safety as well as cost. Crudely, safety and cost are synonymous, as injuries increase a variety of costs including workers compensation and the cost of shutting down the job. The lowest bidding subcontractor no longer wins if its incidence of jobsite accidents is high (Lipoma, 1997). Subcontractors in their efforts to win jobs must become safer.

PAGE 18

18 According to the National Census of Fatal O ccupational Injuries in 2005 the number of construction fatalities dropped 4% compared to 2004. A large percen tage of this decrease was attributed to specialty contract ors. In 2005, the fatality rate of specialty contractors fell 11% from 759 in 2004 to 675 in 2005. Roofing contractors accounted for almost half of this decrease, falling from 116 in 2004 to 75 in 2005 (United States Department of Labor, 2005). Resource Constraints on Subcontractor Safety There are of course noticeable d ifferen ces between the resources that a small subcontractor can invest in safe ty and those of a large general contractor. One could make the argument that larger companies have more mone y to spend on safety training, incentives, and safety equipment; however, a 2004 study by Samant refutes the belief that it is economic resources that make small businesses less safe. This study found no relationship between extrinsic organizational characteristics, total annual sales, or credit rati ng and their influences on the composite shop score (Samant et .al, 2007 ). Champoux and Brun in 2003 reported similar findings in that most small business owners do not think that resources are significant barriers to their improvement of health and safety measures. Only 37% of 223 owners of small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) thought cost wa s an important barrier to health and safety (Samant et .al, 2007). Finally, in 2003, Hinze and Gambatese found that firms with less than 20 employees were safer than firms with more than 20 employees, likewise for firms that did less than $2 million in annual revenues verses those that did more than $2 million (Hinze & Gambatese, 2003). Programs for Small Enterprises Regardless of whether or not a com panys reve nues are correlated to safety, there are inexpensive methods that can be employed to keep workers safe. OSHA, NIOSH, and other agencies and organizations have created a set of be st safety practices that can be instituted in any

PAGE 19

19 size firm at little cost. OSHA, for example, has developed a broad safety program from small businesses that can be adapted for any size comp any. The safety program contains four major tenants: management leadership and employee involvement, worksite analysis, hazard prevention and control, and training (OSHA Smal l Business, 2007). Examples of management leadership and employee involvement include a communicated worksite policy on safety, and the inclusion of safety items in em ployees performance evaluations. Worksite analysis can contain anything from site safety insp ections to accident investigations. Some obvious examples of hazard prevention and control are requiring the appropriate personal protective equipment and lockout tagout procedures. Fina lly, an example of training would consist of a firm having yearly training classes (OSHA Sm all Business, 2007). The recommendations of NIOSH were developed as a direct result of an investigation into a small Kansas roofing companys fatality. The interesting feature of their program is that there is little or no cost to employers, but rather a time and effort commitment. Their recommendations are of particular benefit to sm all companies who do not have a safety staff or large sums of money to spend on outside traini ng. The first recommendation is that employers should ensure that appropriate fall protection equipment is available and correctly used when working where there is danger of falling (NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). It is important for companies to not just supply the appropriate equipment, but to also train their workers on its proper use. Workers should be tied off when at heights above six feet and harnesses should be snug. Falls accounted for 33% of all construction fatalities in 2005, and 35% of all fatalities experienced by specialty contra ctors (United States Depart ment of Labor, 2005). Other important PPE includes hardhats, safety glasses, hearing protection, and gloves.

PAGE 20

20 The second recommendation states that employers should develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive written safety program that includes provisions for training workers in hazard identification, avoidance and abatement (NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). A safety program can be a relatively inexpensive way of guarding against jobsite hazards. The program should include amongst other things: a drug testi ng and abuse policy, procedures to follow in case of an emergency, detail the role of th e competent person, and a hazard communication program. The program should also detail the pr ocedures for correcting employee behavior, be it by written citation or other means. The safety program should be communicated effectively to all workers so that they know how to work safely. The third recommendation asserts that empl oyers should routinel y conduct scheduled and unscheduled workplace safety inspecti ons NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). These inspections are important for findi ng faulty equipment and violations of the safety procedures. However, these inspections are also very importa nt because they display the firms commitment to safety to their employees. The final recommendation serves to create a culture of safety. It states employers should encourage workers to actively participat e in workplace safety (NIOSH FACE Program 98-16, 1998). When workers are encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety, they are more likely to wear the appropriate safety equipment and take the appropriate safety precautions. There are simple and inexpensive ways to institute this recommendation; these include a safety incentive program and pre-task planning. Pre-task planning is one of th e most effective means of keeping workers safe. In one study conducted by the Construction Industry Ins titute, firms who conducted pre-task planning had an average recordable incident rate of 1.04 verses 2.67 for those firms who did not (Mathis,

PAGE 21

21 2001). Pre-task planning is a proactive approach to safety. Before each work task, the foreman and crew will come together to identify the poten tial risks and dangers of performing the task at hand and how to mitigate them. Free thought from the workers is encouraged on what procedures are to be followed, personal protect ive equipment that is necessary, and possible training that is needed. In th is way, workers feel involved in their own safety, and are more likely to follow safe practices. Pre-task planning is an important step to developing a culture of safety. In recent years, subcontractors have come under the scrutiny of OSHA. According to OSHA's database of inspected construction co mpanies, in 2005 83% of OSHA's construction inspections were of non-union, small, specialty, or residential contractor s (Thomas, 2006). In fact, OSHA is now targeting subc ontractors now that their Multi -Employer Citation Policy has been reversed. This policy allows OSHA to fi ne general contractors for violations of their subcontractors for a safety or health violation if such employe rs create the hazard, if they control the work site or if they have the au thority to correct the hazard to which anothers employee is exposed (Yohay and Walsh, 2007). Legally, subcontractors are now fully and solely responsible for their OS HA violations, and while this ru ling might prove to be damaging to construction safety because it no longer attach ed general contractors to their subcontractors citations, it places great onus on th e subcontractors to operate by the rules (Pallack, 2007). When subcontractors violate OSHA standards, it can prove to be very costly. For instance, three subcontractors were issued citations and penalties totaling $539,800 in a fatal Milwaukee crane collapse (OSHA Miller Park, 2000). When the affects of the lawsuits are added in, these errors prove to be very costly. The devastating effects and consequences of OSHA citations, be it monetary or to the firms reputation, caused 46% of the small or specialty

PAGE 22

22 contractors mentioned above to close their doors and go out of business (Schneider, 2005). However, a good safety program over time can positively affect a subcontractors profit by lowering their workers compensa tion and experience modification ra te (EMR). Arizona roofers have been able to bring their workers comp ensation expense down from $30 (per $100 payroll) ten years ago to a rate that is around $11 (SCF Arizona, 2004). Ho wever, Hinze has argued that the limits placed on EMR reductions for small businesses (they generally do not go below 0.8) reduces the impact of this incentive for them (Schneider, 2005). The Hispanic Workforce The Hispanic population residing in Ameri ca has increased dramatically, more than doubling in the ten year span from 1990 to 2000. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Latino population numbered 41.3 million persons as of July 1, 2004 (Tinajero, 2005). Immigration occurs from many different countries. Mexicans constitute the majority of Hispanic s (64%), and Puerto Ricans are the next identifiable subgroup in terms of pro portion of the overall Hispanic population (approximately 10%). The population also incl udes about 3% each of those of Cuban, Salvadoran, and Dominican origins, while th e remainder are of Central American, South American, or other Hispanic/L atino origin (Tinajero, 2005). While Hispanics can be found throughout the coun try, there are certain states with higher populations than others. The states along the Mexican border have a ve ry sizable Hispanic population. New Mexico has the highest proportion of Hisp anics (43%) in comparison to the total state population and California has the largest numbe r of Latinos (12.44 million). Other states not traditionally associated w ith the Hispanic community are now home to large numbers of Latinos. States with the most robust La tino growth rates between 1990 and 2002 were North Carolina (544%), Georgia (410%), Ar kansas (396%), Tennessee (350%), South Carolina (286%), Nevada (281%), Alabam a (266%), Kentucky (238%), Minnesota (220%), and Nebraska (195%) (Tinajero, 2005). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 20.2% of the Florida residents and overall 14.8% of the United States 300 Million people ar e Hispanic in origin (U.S. Bu reau of the Census, 2007).

PAGE 23

23 Opportunities for Hispanics in Construction It is difficult to pinpoint a ll of the reasons why they com e to America, though it can be generalized that they seek the higher wages in the United States compared to their home countries (Durand and Massey, 2004). Many come fo r these jobs in orde r to send their wages back to their country of origin to help support th eir families. The Hispanic civilian labor force is projected to increase 32.6% over the ten-year period reaching 23.8 million in 2012. Hispanics are the largest source of labor among minority gr oups in 8 out of 13 industry divisions in the Nation (Jaselskis, 2005). Agriculture employs th e largest percentage of Hispanics at 37% and construction is next at 17%. Latinos experienced a 150% increase in cons truction employment, compared to 120% for the overall Hispanic labor force. Recent resear ch shows that jobs in the construction field generated more than half of the total increas e in employment for Hispanic workers in 2003. As of the first quarter of 2004, the overall La tino construction workforce was estimated to be 2.15 million (Tinajero, 2005 ). Construction is a growth industry for the Hispanic population, and there is opportunity for an even increased presence. The United Stat es is currently experiencing a construction labor shortage. Parents are placing greater emphasis on college and higher education. In addition the lack of a union presence in some ar eas creates a drought of young apprentices. You dont find the average drywaller telling hi s kid to go into hanging sheet rock, says Tony Calvis, president of Calvis Wyant Luxur y Homes in Scottsdale, Ariz. In the old days youd have a finish carpent er showing his son how to take the shop over. I dont think that works well anymore. The U.S. Depart ment of Labor projects that between 20042014, jobs for carpenters will increase at a rate of 9-17 percent (McCausland, 2006). Calvis goes on to say that the reas on for this trend is that this is the computer generation and kids arent as attracted as previous generations to working with their backs (McCausland, 2006). The opportunity is there for Hispanic workers, Recent information suggests that in the next five years, Hispanics may represent almost one-half of construction industry employees. In particular, the share of workers nearing retirement may represent an opportunity fo r Latino workers to fill these positions.

PAGE 24

24 Occupational areas in crafts in which there may be the largest need for human resource replacements are boilermakers, bricklayers, equipment operators, and pipe fitters/plumbers (Tinajero, 2005). Though there is need for skilled craftspeople in the United States, most Hispanics are employed in less skilled entry level trades as m ore than a third of construc tion laborers are Hispanic (470,000); the highest number of any construction occupation (Jaselskis, 2005). Higher Injury Rates for Hispanic Workers W orker safety is a major issue in todays busin ess sector. All workers should be able to return home to their families at the end of the da y. In the construction in dustry, injury rates are dropping, however, injury rates amongst Hispanic workers are on the rise. Recent data show that U.S. injury/illness rates for all occupa tions dropped 31% from 1992 to 2000 and fatality rates decreased by 2%. However, for the same period, Hispanic fatality rates increased 11.6% (Tinajero 2005). The differences are magnified even greater in the c onstruction industry where In 2000, Hispanic deaths were 23.5% of deaths in construction, which was disproportionately high, considering that Hispanic wo rkers were less than 16% of th e construction workforce in the same year (Dong and Platner, 2004). A trend analysis between 1992 and 2000 shows that there were 9,957 construction worker deaths from occupa tional injuries in the United States, of these 1,501 deceased were identified as being of Hispan ic origin. Of those deceased, 47.8% of their deaths occurred from 1998 to 2000 (Dong and Platner, 2004). These figures can be compared with increases in Hispanic construction workers, to find that as more and more Hispanic workers enter the workforce, they should be represented by an increasing pe rcentage of worker injuries. However, once it is understood that s ince 1992, Hispanic construction workers have had markedly higher fatal occupational injury rates th an their non-Hispanic counterparts a serious problem is noted (NIOSH Chartbook, 2004). In 2001 (the most recent year measured), the rate of work-related deaths from construction in juries for Hispanics was 19.5 per 100,000 full-time

PAGE 25

25 workers.5% higher than the rate of 12.0 fo r non-Hispanic construc tion workers (NIOSH Chartbook, 2004). Hispanic construction workers ar e 1.6 times as likely to be hurt on the job, and in the year 2000, they were nearly twice as likely to be killed (Dong and Platner, 2004). I t is startling that Hispanic injury rates have remain ed stagnant, and have not begun to normalize with those of non-Hispanic workers. It is also interesting to note that the leading nature of fatal in juries differs for Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers, with nearly one-third (336) of 1,022 Hispanic deaths, resulting from intracranial injuries (i.e., head injuries) between 1996 and 2000 co mpared to a quarter (1,147) of 4,465 nonHispanic construction fatalities (Dong & Platner, 2004). Falls and fall protection are a major issu e for Hispanic workers and the construction industry, especially considering that roofing is a very popular trade amongst Hispanics. The difference in injury rates will have to be explained through a variety of factors. The Language Barrier One possible reason that can be used to e xplain the higher injury rates among Hispanic workers is that often Hispanic workers cannot sp eak or understand English. Lack of proficiency in English can be expected from Hispanic workers as s eventy percent of the 1.4 million Hispanic construction workers in the U.S. in 2000 were born outside the United States, and fifty seven percent were not U.S. c itizens (Nissen, 2004). Most Hi spanic workers were not brought up in the United States and therefore were not raised with Englis h as their primary language, and this fact does not just hold true for the cons truction industry. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, 26.7 million American residents (5 years and older) spoke Spanish at home, and about half of them (46.6%) said they speak English le ss than very well. In the same year, 452,840, or nearly one-third of Hispanic constr uction workers speak only Spanish (Dong and Platner, 2004). Language barriers create unsafe conditions b ecause the Hispanic workers are unable to understand instructions in English, unlike their non-Hispanic counterparts. Some non-English

PAGE 26

26 speakers are unable to understand emergency and distress calls such as watch-out and move. Even construction firms that do all the best practices safety procedures for their English speaking workers will need to alter their approach to accommodate to their Hispanic workers. In 2002, OSHA reported that 25% of fatal workplace in cidents in the U.S. involved either workers who did not speak English or a supervisor unable to communicate with employees (Tinajero, 2005). Time is money on the jobsite, and mana gers would prefer to not spend a long time explaining to workers how to do a task safely. Similarly, Hispanic workers who are being paid piece rate often prefer to get their tasks starte d and may even regard instruction provided in English as being a waste of time. A 35-year old U.S.-born glazier from Texas explained some of the safety and health problems that occur when construction wo rkers do not know English: Foremen get frustrated trying to explain to workers what to do or how to do it safely, because they havent been trained or maybe they didnt und erstand English so they didnt learn how to do it. So the foreman gets frustrated and just tells them to skip that part because they dont understand. They just do it without safety equipment or procedures (Ruttenberg and Lazlo, 2004). As a way to bridge the communications ga p, some construction companies have begun bilingual training programs. Th ere are two trains of thought on the language education, train the managers or train the workers. It might be eas ier and more effective to train the managers to become bilingual because there are less of them, and they are more likely to stay with one company long enough to justify the costs and effort s involved in training managers to learn Spanish. Hispanic workers can be migratory, and pe rhaps follow work to other areas. Overall, supervisors today need better knowledge of wo rk force issues and bilingual communications skills are critical. The intr oduction of bilingual supervisors a nd foremen at work sites has helped to improve the dialog and open channe ls of communication (Quackenbush, 2007). Managers do not need to be fluent in Spanish, bu t they need to be able to communicate items that are important to the job tasks. El Nuevo C ontructor, a Spanish-langua ge magazine for the

PAGE 27

27 construction industry, found 44 percent of companie s had no Spanish-speaking supervisors, and 54 percent said immigrant workers require mo re supervision (Quackenbush, 2007). Many classes are now being taught in functional Sp anish. Some companie s are training their employees. Florida Power & Light (FPL) is providing voluntary English classes for Hispanic construction employees at its Sanford power pl ant. Says Oscar Paredes, project safety manager for Black & Veatch, which operates th e site for FPL: Government studies show that Florida has one of the highest injury a nd fatality rates in the construction area. Many of these events are attributed to language barriers (BLR, 2007). Still, some firms are bringing language teachers to the jobsite as certified instructors from Seminole Community College come to the job s ite to teach an English class twice a week (BLR, 2007). Safety Training in Spanish The language barrier does not just affect c onversational communicati ons, it also affects safety training. The vast m ajor ity of training is done in English, and a majority of that majority was provided without translation (Nissen, 2004). A toolbox meeting is a very basic type of safety training; however, it can be rendered usel ess if the workers canno t understand the safety information. In one study, Twenty five of the respondents (50%) indi cated that their employer conducted weekly safety meetings, while 24 (48%) indicated that they either didnt know or the employer did not. One (2%) stated it depends. Of the twenty five holding safety me etings, 20 were held in English, with seven of those twenty provi ding translation. Five were conducted in the respondents original language (Nissen, 2004). Construction firms need to start to cater their safety training to their Hispanic workers; they cannot simply use the same training procedures and materials that they use with their nonHispanic workers. For example, A roofer said lack of traini ng as well as limited English le d to a serious injury. One Mexican who was working on the roof fell thro ugh a hole. They covered a hole with a 3inch plywood 4-by-8. The worker noticed it and kept walking. The plywood moved and

PAGE 28

28 the worker fell through it He broke many bones and was not able to work for two months The company gave him instructions but not safety training, and maybe he did not understand it because of his limited E nglish (Ruttenberg and Lazlo, 2004). To promote safety training for their Hispan ic workers, firms need to understand the educational background of their employees. Th is understanding, along wi th Spanish training, could help connect a firms Hispanic employees to their safety program. One study reveals that Hispanic construction workers, on averag e, have fewer years of schooling. This reveals a need to add training and education pr ograms for Hispanic construction workers. The construction industry needs to develop sa fety and skills training programs for a growing Hispanic community and these progr ams may need to be offered in Spanish because many Hispanic craft workers sp eak little or no English (Goodrum, 2004). OSHA has translated its material s into Spanish, as have some construction firms. This is a good start; however, it is often overlooked that a small, but significant, portion of Hispanic workers are illiterate in their ow n language (Brunette, 2004). Safety training does have an effect on worker behaviors. Hispanic workers are being injured performing tasks that have known safety controls. Their deaths are not the result of unknown hazards wh ich require complex engineering controls. They are, for the most part, common c onstruction hazards with well recognized and accepted controls like guard rails, ground fault ci rcuits, or fall arrest systems. Our challenge is to increase the use of these simp le controls in the f ace of a complex web of economic, social, cultural, and perhaps langua ge barriers. Research to improve our understanding of those barriers, in the contex t of moving specific interventions, should be a priority. To succeed we must go beyond simple translation into Spanish, and improve our understanding of the context within which the message is received and potentially acted upon, or ignored (Dong and Platner, 2004). When done correctly, safety training is making inroads with the Hispanic workforce. For example, A 29-year old roofer from Wisconsin said, I follow all the safety tips I learned in training. I was taught also how to build scaffolds and where to place them. I always check all the tool cables. He went on to say, Before the training, I had some safety instruction but I could not understand everything.... Before the tr aining I used to carry things on ladders: paper rolls, tools, lunch box, in sulation, etc. I used to pl ace them on my shoulder and climb. Now I know that I should never carry things on ladders; now I use ropes. Also, before the training I used to think what a wast e of time it was to place the safety flags, but

PAGE 29

29 now I know the importance of doing it. This individual had become so safety conscious that he complained: If we do not wear a hard hat the safety people suspend the worker for 3 days, but fall protection equipment is not contro lled as much as hard hats. It is an irony (Ruttenberg and Lazo, 2004). In another case, A 60-year-old Cuban-born electrician in Flor ida who had worked in the U.S. for 23 years said, After the training, I am mo re responsible and careful. I make sure that workers with not much experience know how to deal with dangers. I make them use PPE (Ruttenberg and Lazo, 2004). Understanding Hispanic Culture The language barrier is definitely a reason w hy Hispanic construction workers are at risk for injuries, however, it is not the only reas on. T he industry must consider the workers themselves; their beliefs, customs, culture, a nd upbringing are all rele vant safety issues. Understanding their way of life ju st might lead to the means to keep them safe. Initially, consideration needs to be given to the fact that the majority of these workers are immigrants. As mentioned earlier 70% of Hispanic construction workers were not born in the United States, and while almost 50% are United States citizens, a po rtion are illegal (Nissen, 2004). These workers are constantly living with the fear of deportation, documented or undocumented. Consequently, this fear leads to workers underreporting injuries for fear that the authorities will deport them. Also, Serious underreporting levels of both fatal and non-fatal injuries might occur in an attempt to keep positive relationships with employers. As stated by the National Research Council, Hispanic workers are less likely to report violations of their working rights or occupational injuries because they might lose their pay or their job (Brunette, 2004). For these reasons, Hispanic workers are likely to not seek treatment for their injuries and also work injured. Compounding this issue is the fact that culturally this population has been raised to follow their supervisors instructions without question, often increasing their risk of injury, illness, or death on the job (Santiago 2004). Combined with a fear of deportation, not

PAGE 30

30 questioning supervisors may result in Hispanic workers accepting very dangerous tasks which put them at a higher risk for injury. Many studies have been done relating immigrati on status to worker injuries. One study, though not in the United States found that immigran t workers in Taiwan faced no higher risk of occupational injury than native-born workers (Nissen, 2004). Another study found that neither length of residence in the United States nor leng th of time in the cons truction industry had an effect on worker safety. The same study did co nclude that unionization and documented legal status correlate positively with wo rker safety (Nissen, 2004). In any event, this furthers the notion that a proper understanding of Hispanic culture is needed to improve their safety. Firms should also consider the construction environment of the Hispanic workers home country. It is often taken for granted just how advanced the construction industry is in the United States. In most of their home countries, ther e is no powerful safety regulating authority as OSHA and workers generally do not have rea dy access to the appropriate personal protective equipment. Work related experiences in their countries of origin are key determinants of these workers level of safety awareness. These include working under poor physical environments, little or no safety and health training, being exposed to dangerous tools, machines and equipment, abusive supervisors, and lack of appropria te personal protective equipment, among others (Brunette, 2004). For example, a 52-year-old roofer, born in Mexico, said he didnt use any PPE in Mexico and was not aware of the importance of safety. He used to wo rk in bare feet with cement [which can be caustic]. Here, he said, everything is differe nt. A Florida electrician, born in Colombia said, In Colombia...they only care about production. There are not many safety regulations (Ruttenbe rg and Lazlo, 2004). One significant aspect of Hispanic culture is the concept of machismo. Machismo is a term that reflects a con cept of masculinity among Hispanics. In many ways, machismo is strength in Hispanic fam ilies. Despite the popular conception of macho

PAGE 31

31 Hispanic men as violent or animalistic, machismo can mean a nurturing, protective man (Marin, 2003). In affect, machismo is a drive to be the manlie st man one can be. It can be portrayed as one wanting to be the best father, provider, lover, toughest, strongest, most self-sufficient, or most fearless. Machismo can be of particular co ncern in the construction industry because, sometimes it is necessary to wear protective gear to prevent injuries, but Hispanics may think it is not manly to wear protective gear. Hispanics may think work should be performed without any regard for safety (Marin, 2003). That said howev er, Machismo can also be a positive force for worker safety. If management can connect to the nurturing and family oriented part of machismo, then they might be able to keep their workers safe. For example, a constant reminder that if a worker is hurt or kill ed, that the worker would not be able to provide for their family might prompt the worker to be more safety conscience. Another aspect linked to Hispan ic culture is the concept of fatalism. Fatalism can be best compared to the idea of predetermination. People, who believe in fatalism, believe that things are going to happen regardless of any measures taken to avoid the consequences. Hispanic fatalism can best be revealed thru medicine. For example, because of the Latino/Hispanic concept of f atalismo (fatalism), some Latinos/Hispanics might accept the inevitability of diabetic complica tions as part of the nature of the disease and their fate. This concept could also lead to skepticism and lack of trust in prevention measures (National Eye Health Education Program, 1994). Fatalism is a feeling that the re are things in the world whic h we have no control over (Bowdy, 1997). It is a concept that is being used to explain the escalation of HIV infections amongst Hispanic men (Bowdy, 1997). Fatalism affects constr uction in a major way. It is quite hard to convince someone to take the proper safety measur es when they believe that they are going to be injured regardless. The fact that some Hispanic construction workers view injuries as a normal or routine part of the job is very discouraging, an d steps should be taken to combat that notion.

PAGE 32

32 Machismo and fatalism combine to make the Hispanic culture one that has a propensity towards risk. If someone believes they cannot prevent an injury, what is to keep them from acting reckless? Safety directors need to adapt their traini ng to the Hispanic culture and the Hispanic lifestyle. Gonzalez notes, a lot of Hispanic workers have gone through the danger of crossing the border, not once, but several times. This is dangerous. To many of these people, it just doesnt make sense to build scaffolding just because they are hi gher than six feet off the ground (Gonzalez, 2007). Programs that have linked Hispanic cultu re and jobsite safety have been quite successful. In the Dallas area, a group of cont ractors teamed with OSHA to develop Hispanic specific safety training. What they found was that information on what safety equipment to use and how to follow safety procedures was readily available, but what wasnt was a culturally meaningful explanation of why safety was impor tant (Delaney, 2002). Workers were presented with a list of the names of the 81 local Hispanic construction workers who had been killed on the job and details of their deaths. The group also had booths at local Ci nco de Mayo festivals, where workers were with their families. The critical indicator of improvement was the substantial decrease in fatal accidents. By December 2001, construction fatalities in Northe ast Texas had fallen nearly 50 percent, to 13 for the year. And the per cent involving Hispanic and Latino workers dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent (Delaney, 2002).

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The objective of this research was twofold. The first objective was to explore the safety procedures of subcontractors in the construction industry. The second objective was to explore issues related to Hispanic workers employed by subcontractors. The research systematically explored subcontracting from the subcontractors point of view. The genesis of this study came from the fact that little research had been conduc ted concerning subcontractor safety; an idea that was first introduced by Dr. Jimmie Hinze in his Advanced Construction Safety class. This research began with a literature review to examine relevant material related to the practice of subcontracting. Th e literature review provided a good basis to develop the foundation for this research. The literature references included numerous studies by Dr. Hinze and the work of past graduate students in cluding Josh Markowitz, Marcelo Marin, and Tom Feronti. These past surveys and the recommendati ons for future research from their studies were examined to formulate this study. From the sources listed above, the first versi on of the survey was dr afted and presented to Dr. Hinze. Dr. Hinze helped to identify key qu estions to include in the survey. He also identified the Hispanic workforce as a group that needed exploration. Fr om Dr. Hinzes input a second version of this study was drafted. This version of the study included many general questions concerning the subcont ractor respondents dealings experiences with Hispanic workers. Two roofing subcontractors were chosen to take a trial version of this survey. They were also asked to critique the survey and offer any informa tion that they thought might be helpful to this study. One question that was altered was a question that asked about the responding firms RIR. It was found from the tr ial surveys that some subcontractors did not

PAGE 34

34 know this information. A second question concer ning the magnitude of the responding firms annual revenue was eliminated because it was felt the information was not needed. After examining data obtained from a study of Hisp anic culture by Dr. Hinze and Ray Godfrey, questions were added or altered in the survey to gauge the subcontractors views of Hispanic culture. These questions asked for a response base d on a Likert Scale, and dealt with fatalism and risk aversion. Survey Questions Design The Safety S urvey of Specialty Contractors was designed to determine the safety practices of subcontractors. This survey is included as an appendix. The first three questions of the survey were designed to obtain basic bac kground information on the responding company. These questions were either fill-in the blank or check box questions. Question 1, which asked whether or not the company is an Hispanic Mino rity Business Enterprise (MBE) was included to find out if there is a difference between MBE and non-MBE companies in their safety procedures and experiences with Hispanic workers. Question 2, which asked how many fulltime field workers were employed by the subcontractor, was included to gauge the size of the firm. Question 3, which asked what percen tage of the work is subcontract ed to others, was included to see if the subcontractor actually performs the work or if it passed it along to a second-tier subcontractor. The next 14 questions were designed to obtain basic information on the responding subcontractors current safety practices. These questions were either fi ll-in the blank or check box questions. Question 4 asked if the subcontr actor employed a fulltime safety director. Question 5 asked whether or not and what kind of drug testing program the firm utilized. Questions 6 thru 10 were designed to determine wh at basic safety practices the subcontractors utilized, including the use of hardhats, safety glasses, toolbox meeti ngs, pre-task planning

PAGE 35

35 meetings, and whether or not the company prep ares project specific safety programs for all projects. Question 11 asked whether or not the company provided orientation for all its employees on project sites, and if so, what was the duration of the training for new employees. Question 12 asked how many hours of safety traini ng were provided to employees each month. Question 13 asked what percenta ge of safety training was available in Spanish. Question 14 asked for the companys approximate annual expend iture of safety traini ng. Question 15 asked if the subcontractor utilized any sa fety incentive programs. Ques tions 16 and 17 asked whether or not the subcontractor had introduced any new pr ograms designed to promote safety, and if so which were the most effective. The second half of the survey was designed to obtain information on the subcontractors experiences with Hispanic workers. Questions 18 thru 25 were formatted with a Likert Scale response. Each question asked participants to circle the extent of their agreement or disagreement with provided statements. An answer of one meant that the respondent strongly disagreed while an answer of five meant th e respondent strongly agreed. Question 18 asked the respondent if safety has a positive affect on productivity. Question 19 asked the respondent if they thought Hispanic worker s were equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers. Question 20 asked respondents if Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning English. Question 22 asked if the respondents company encounters significant problems because workers do not speak English. Question 23 asked respondents if Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hisp anic workers. Question 24 asked respondents if Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuri es as a normal part of the job. Question 25 asked respondents if they felt non-Hispan ic workers value their own safety more than Hispanic workers

PAGE 36

36 do. Question 26 asked respondents if they felt Hispanic workers more regularly follow the companys safety procedures than non-Hispanic workers. The next eight questions were designed to an alyze the current state of the subcontractors Hispanic workforce. These questions were eith er fill-in the blank or check box questions. Question 27 was designed to find out how many Hispanic workers the company employed. It asked what percent of the subcontractors em ployees primary language was Spanish. Question 28 asked respondents what percent of the firms managers were bilingual. Question 29 inquired how the number of Hispanic workers employed by the firm had changed within the last five years. Question 30 asked respondents to indicate if their company required wo rkers to be able to speak and understand English in order to be employed. Question 31 asked respondents what percent of the Hispanic workers employed coul d not speak or understand English. Question 32 asked respondents what percent of the subcontra ctors Hispanic workers had been employed for at least two years. Question 33 asked responde nts what other languages besides English are spoken on the jobsite. Question 34 asked responde nts if their firm has a program in place to check I-9 forms. Question 35 asked respondents to indicate and then describe whether their firms had encountered any unique safety probl ems associated with Hispanic workers. The final question of the survey was designed to calculate each res pondents RIR. A two part fill in the blank question, Question 36 asked respondents to indicate how many company employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor during the last year, and of those employees, how many were Hispanic workers, Responses to th is question were combined with responses to Question 2, that asked about the number of fu ll time field employed by the subcontractor to determine the subcontractors approximate RIR.

PAGE 37

37 Survey Dissemination Once the survey was finalized, a population to complete the survey was sought. The Executive D irector of the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal, & Air C onditioning Contractors Association (FRSA), Steve Munnell was approached to see if his organization was willing to assist in this study. The FRSA expressed a wil lingness to help and offered to distribute the survey in exchange for a promise that a brief ar ticle on the findings that would be appropriate for a month trade publication. Mr. Munnell made sugge stions for changes to the survey which were incorporated. The FRSA then conducted a fax blast by faxing the survey to all their roofing contractor members, around 500, on the 19th of June 2007. A total of 71 surveys were returned, of which 3 did not provide full informa tion and were not included in the data. Initial Analysis Performed After the survey responses were received, the results were first input into Microsoft E xcel 2002. After the data set was crea ted, the file was converted into SPSS version 12 for further analyses. The surveys were analyzed by cal culating the mean, median, and frequency of responses. Next, the firms RIR values were calculated and comp ared against the other questions to find statistically significant differences. Limitations The research instrument was limited in sc ope to roofing contr actor members of the FRSA. Since the respondents are members of a trad e organization, it is possi ble that they have a greater propensity towards working safely. A dditionally, though there were 68 completed survey responses, not every question was answered by e ach participant, if th ere was no answer, the survey was not used in the calculations for that item. Because of th is fact, some of the calculations that deal wi th RIR are based on a small number of responses.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Introduction Data collected from the survey were used as the basis of the analysis. Sixty-eight complete survey responses were received from the sample population. Company Demographic Information Basic dem ographic information was asked at the beginning of the survey to characterize the subcontractors. The first que stion asked the subcontractors wh ether they were an Hispanic MBE or if any portion of the company was owne d by an Hispanic person. The question was asked to investigate whether firms with Hispan ic ownership have a lower RIR for Hispanic workers than firms owned by non-Hispanics. Table 4-1 shows that only one respondent indicated that their firm was an Hispanic MBE. Respondents were asked about the number of full time field employees they employed. This question was asked to gauge the size of the firm. The responses to this question were later used to compute the number of Hispanic and no n-Hispanic workers each firm employed, as well as to calculate each firms RIR. The data were quite varied. Table 4-2 shows that most firms employed no more than 20 workers. Note the median firm employed 19 workers and the largest firm employed 650 workers. Finally, respondents were asked to indicat e what percentage of their work was subcontracted to others. This question was asked to help determine how much work the subcontractor actually self perf ormed. Table 4-3 shows that the majority of respondents (75.0%) either subcontracted out zero or le ss than five percent of their wo rk. Note the largest amount of work any one firm subcontracted out was 50%.

PAGE 39

39 Company Safety Information The second part of the survey was designed to obtain basic infor mation on the responding subcontractors current safety practices. Re spondents were asked if they employ a fulltime safety director. This question was asked to de termine whether firms with safety directors are safer than firms without them. Table 4-4 shows the results to be nearly split, with 52.9% of respondents saying that they employed a fulltim e safety director. Respondents who employed fulltime safety directors were then asked to indicate what percentage of the workday the company safety director spent in the field. Responses were va ried. Table 4-5 shows that 45.4% of the company safety directors spend between 26 and 50% of their time in the field. The next question asked respondents to indi cate whether their firm s had a drug-testing program. This question was asked to determine whether firms with drug-testing programs were safer than firms without them. Table 4-6 shows that the overwh elming majority of firms, 85.3%, employ some sort of drug-testing program. Respondents who employ a drug-testing program were then asked to indicate what type of dr ug tests the company conducted. They were given four choices and told to check all that apply. The choices were: pre-hire, random, for cause, and post-accident. Responses were varied. Ta ble 4-7 shows that mo st (75.8%) drug-testing programs utilize a combination of drug-tests. Pr e-hire and post-accident drug tests are included in 74.0% and 84.5% of the programs, respectively. The sizes of the firms who only perform post-accident or for cause drug testing are depict ed in Table 4-8, indicating that these firms are predominantly small. The next question asked respondents to indicat e whether or not all their field employees were required to wear hard hats. Table 4-9 show s that nearly two-thirds of firms did not require their field employees to wear hard hats. Responde nts were then asked to indicate whether or not

PAGE 40

40 all their field employees were requ ired to wear safety glasses. Table 4-10 shows that 55.2% of respondents require their field empl oyees to wear safety glasses. The next question asked respondents to indi cate whether or not their company conducted weekly toolbox meetings. Normally held once a week, toolbox meetings last anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes and are designed to make employees aware of potential job related hazards or injuries. Table 4-11 shows that two-thirds of the firms conducted w eekly toolbox meetings. Respondents were then asked to indicate if their company held pre-task planning meetings before every task. Table 4-12 shows that 53.8% of respondents indicated that their firms do hold these meetings. The next question asked respondents to indi cate whether or not the company prepared project specific safety programs for each individual project. These programs are created because each project and jobsite poses its own unique hazards. Table 4-13 shows that 45.5% of the respondents indicated that they prepared these safety plans. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not the company provided orientation for all its employees on project sites. These orientat ion programs typically incl ude topics related to safety practices. Table 4-14 shows that 53.0% of the responding firms provid ed orientation to all their field employees on their project sites. Respondents who provided orientation to all its employees on project sites were then asked to indicate how many hours were devoted to the orientation program for new employees. Table 4-15 shows that the majority of these orientation sessions (54.8%) last two hours or less, and that most of these se ssions (80.8%) last four hours or less. Note that one respondent indicated that their companys new employee orientation program was 40 hours, or one full work week in duration.

PAGE 41

41 The next question asked respondents to indi cate how many hours of safety training were provided to employees each month. Table 4-16 s hows that the majority of the responding companies (54.1%) spend two hours or less each mont h on safety training. Note that only two companies spend more than eight hours per mont h on safety training, the largest response was 25 hours. Respondents were then asked what percentage of the safety training they offer is available in Spanish. The responses to this question va ry, as some firms who took the survey do not employ Hispanic workers or persons who do not speak and understand English, and therefore do not have Spanish safety trai ning. Table 4-17 shows the answ ers received from all survey respondents, while Table 4-18 shows the answers r eceived from companies that employ at least one Hispanic worker. Table 4-19 shows the answ ers received from companies that employ at least one Hispanic worker who cannot speak of understand English. For th is latter case, 8.3% of these firms do not provide any safety training in Spanish while 58.3% of these firms have all of their safety training available in Spanish. All 12 respondents who do not employ Hispanic workers provide no safety training in Spanish. Of the respondents w ho have at least one Hispanic worker, 19.2% of them offer no safety training in Spanish. The next question asked respondents to i nput their companys approximate annual expenditure for safety training. Table 4-20 shows that the majo rity of companies (60.8%) spent approximately $5,000 or less on safety training. Note that one res pondent wrote that they did all their safety training in house and therefore coul d not attach a dollar figur e to it. Table 4-21 shows the responding companies computed safety training expense per work er. The majority of the firms (74.5%) spend $300 or less per employ ee on safety training. Table 4-22 shows the companys computed safety trai ning expense per worker, but only for firms with at least one

PAGE 42

42 Hispanic worker. The majority of the firms (77.5%) spend $300 or less per employee on safety training. Table 4-23 shows the respondents com puted safety training expense per worker, for firms who do not employ any Hispanic workers. There were not sufficient responses for firms who do not employ Hispanic workers to make any comparisons; however, the amount of safety training expense per worker does not correlate to the firms RIR. Respondents were then asked to indicate whet her or not their comp any had an incentive program based on safety achievements. An in centive program would provide workers with prizes or cash considerations for working a period of time without injury. These programs have come under fire for not being an efficient use of money that would be better put towards safety gear or training. Table 4-24. s hows that the majority of responding companies (58.5%) do not have an incentive program. The next question asked respondents to i ndicate whether or not the company had implemented any new programs within the past five years to promote safety. Table 4-25 shows that the majority of responding firms (61.5%) have implemented new programs to promote safety within the past five years. Respondents who answered Yes to this question were then asked to describe the program, as shown in the responses in Table 4-26. The most popular responses included creating in centive programs, in troducing safety meetings, introducing toolbox meetings, having FRSA come to the j obsite, and increasing safety equipment training. Respondents were then asked to indicate their most successful practice to promote safety. Table 4-27 shows their responses. The most common responses included toolbox meetings, incentive programs, FRSA safety management a nd inspections, having mont hly safety meetings, and increasing fall protection and safety equipment.

PAGE 43

43 Company Experiences with Hispanic Workers The third part of the survey was designed to obtain inform ation on the subcontractors experiences with Hispanic workers. The respons es were formatted as a Likert Scale, ranging from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agr ee. Participants were asked to select the extent of their agreement or disagr eement with the various statements. The first statement that respondents were as ked to evaluate was safety has a positive effect on productivity. Table 4-28 shows that the overwhelming majo rity of respondents (81.6%) either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The second statement that respondents were as ked to evaluate was Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic work ers. Table 4-29 shows that the majority of respondents, 60.9%, either ag reed or strongly agreed with this statement. The third statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning E nglish. Table 4-30 shows that the results were mixed where 34.4% of the respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed while 37.5% agreed or strongly agreed. The fourth statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was our company encounters significant problems because workers dont speak English. Table 4-31 shows that the results were mixed as 34.4% of the responde nts either disagreed or strongly disagreed while 21.8% agreed or strongly agreed. A large portion of responde nts (43.8%) neither agreed nor disagreed. The fifth statement that respondents were aske d to evaluate was Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers. Table 4-32 shows that these results were also mixed where 37.4% of the respondents either d isagreed or strongly disagreed while 28.3%

PAGE 44

44 agreed or strongly agreed. A portion of the respondents (34.3%) neither agreed nor disagreed. The sixth statement that respondents were as ked to evaluate was Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job. Table 4-33 shows that the results were mixed where 39.7% of the respondents either d isagreed or strongly disagreed while 30.2% agreed or strongly agreed. A portion of respondents (30.1%) n either agreed nor disagreed. The seventh statement that respondents were asked to evaluate was non-Hispanic workers value their own safety more so than Hispanic workers do. Table 4-34 sh ows that 40.6% of the respondents either disagreed or strongly di sagreed while only 21.9% agreed or strongly agreed. A portion of respondents (30.1 %) neither agreed nor disagreed. Finally, respondents were asked whether or not Hispanic work ers more regularly follow the companys safety procedures than their non-Hispanic counterparts. To answer the question, there were three boxes to check a nd the results are pres ented in Table 4-35. The results show that the majority of the respondents (68.3%) felt that both Hispanics and non-Hispanics followed safety procedures equally. However, a portion of respondents (26.7%) felt that Hispanic workers followed safety procedures less frequently than their non-Hisp anic counterparts. Current State of the Subcontractors Hispanic Workforce The fourth part of the survey was designed to obtain inform ation to characterize the current state of the responding subcontractors Hispan ic workforce. The first question asked respondents about the percentage of their co mpanys workforce whose primary language is Spanish (Table 4-36). The majority of respondents workforces (76.5%) were made up of 50% or fewer Hispanic workers. It is important to note that the percent of the workforce that is Hispanic is directly related to the magnitude of the companys workforce with a correlation coefficient of 0.229 and a level of significance of 0.004.

PAGE 45

45 The next question asked respondents about the percent of their companys managers that are bilingual. Table 4-37 shows that for al l survey respondents, 62.2% employ 10% or fewer bilingual managers. Table 4-38 shows that for su rvey respondents with at least one Hispanic worker, 56.3% of the firms also employ 10% or fe wer bilingual managers. Note that the firms with at least one Hispanic worker employ a highe r percentage of bilingua l managers than when all the firms are taken as a whole. Respondents were then asked to characterize how the number of Hispanic workers in their firms has changed in the past five years. Tabl e 4-39 shows that the resu lts were varied, however, the most common responses indicate that the fi rms either had no change in the amount of Hispanic workers employed (34.9%) or they employ slightly more Hispanic workers now verses five years ago (31.8%). Next, respondents were asked wh ether or not their company has a requirement that workers must be able to speak and understand English in order to become employed. Table 4-40 shows that the majority of the firms (78.8%) do not have this requirement as a condition of employment. Respondents were then asked to input the percent of their Hispanic workers that cannot speak or understand English. Not being able to speak or understand Englis h is a primary concern when distress calls such as watch out and h elp are exclaimed. The results were mixed, and Table 4-41 shows 56.9% of firms not ed that 10% or fewer of thei r Hispanic workers could not speak or understand English. The next question asked respondents to indicat e what percent of their Hispanic workers had been employed for at least two years. This question was designed to characterize the job stability and/or transient nature of the Hispanic workforce. It was also hypothesized that time

PAGE 46

46 served at a one job with one employer would co rrelate with safety, but this study did not support that. Table 4-42 shows the results were mixed across the board. Next, respondents were asked to provide the languages, besides English that are spoken on their jobsites. Table 4-43 shows that on the majority of jobsites (63.3%) Spanish is spoken, while English is the solely spoken language on 36.2% of jobsites. Also note that various other languages are spoken on jobsites, including Tonga n, Fijian, Portuguese, and various European languages. The next question asked responde nts whether or not they had a program in place to check their employees I9 forms. Interestingly, there is no real perceived differe nce in the percentage of firms that have I9 programs between all fi rms and those firms that employ Hispanic workers (see Tables 4-44 and 4-45). Respondents were asked whether or not th eir companies had encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic Workers. The majority of respondents, 82.4%, had not encountered any unique safety problems associat ed with Hispanic workers (see Table 4-46). Respondents who had experienced sp ecific problems were then as ked to describe the unique safety problems. Responses were varied, but most had to do with the lan guage barrier or other communication problems (see Table 4-47). Company Injury Information The final portion of the survey was designe d to calculate the respondents RIR values. Respondents were first asked how many com pan y employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor in the previous year. The majority of companies (77%) suffered three or fewer injuries (see Table 4-48). The second part of the ques tion asked respondents to denote how many of those injuries were incurred by Hispanic work ers (see Table 4-49). Note, Table 4-49 is not related to Table 4-48, rather it is merely a tabulation of responses.

PAGE 47

47 Because of company size differences, comparis ons of safety performances could not be made on the basis of the number of injuries. Therefore, the data were converted into individual company RIR, Hispanic RIR, and non-Hispanic RIR values which can be used to compare company safety performances. To do so, each companys response to the question about the number of company employees that suffered injuries treated by a doc tor in the previous year was divided by the corresponding companys response regarding the number of fulltime field employees the company employed. This figure was then multiplied by 100 to derive the firms RIR. The 56.9% of respondents had an RIR of five or less (see Table 4-50). Note that the largest RIR was 50.0. For comparison purposes, only companies w ho employed at least one Hispanic worker were included in the following calculations. First, the RIR was recalculated for all the companies who employed at least one Hispanic worker, as presented in Table 4-51. The RIR distribution of the responding co mpanies that do not employ any Hispanic workers is presented in Table 4-52 for comparison purposes. There were insufficient responses from firms who did not employ Hispanic workers to make any statis tically significant conclu sions; one can note that these firms have a smaller average RIR than firms who employ Hispanic workers, 4.1 and 10.5, respectively. To compute each companys Hispanic RIR and non-Hispanic RIR, the number of Hispanic employees was first computed and the remai nder of the employees was assumed to be nonHispanic. To calculate the Hispanic RIR, th e number of Hispanic workers who experienced injuries in the past year was divided by the number of Hispanic workers. This figure was then multiplied by 100 to derive the firms Hispanic RIR, as shown in Table 4-53. A similar process was used to determine the responding company s non-Hispanic RIR, as shown in Table 4-54.

PAGE 48

48 Those companies with at least one Hispanic worker experienced an average Hispanic RIR that was higher than the average non-Hispanic RIR, 14.9 and 9.2, respectively (Table 4-55). A Test of two means was conducted to determine if the Hispanic RIR and Non-Hispanic RIR were statistically different. It was determined that th eir difference was statistically significant with a score of 2.218 (see Figure 4-1). Findings Correlated to RIR One of this studys prim ary goals was to id entify a set of best safety practices for subcontractors. To do so, the responses to the various questions were compared with the three types of RIR in a one-tailed Kendalls bi variate correlation using SPSS version 12.0. The characteristics of the subcontractors that correlated with the companys RIR were identified (see Table 4-56, Figures 4-2 to 4-9). There exists a statistically significant correlation between RIR and both safety glasses and pre-task planning meetings with correlation coefficients of 0.206 and 0.281, respectively. The correlation between RIR and hard hats and holding toolbox meetings had a tendency towards signific ance with correlation coefficients of 0.173 and 0.171, respectively. Respondents who said that they have experienced unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers experien ced a higher RIR than those firms who did not. A combination of safety practices was identifi ed and these were combined to form a single variable. This composite variable was correlated with the RIR. This was done to determine if a combination of safety practices improved the firm s RIR more than just one practice alone. Two combinations of variables are listed in Table 456 as safety culture and safety tone. Safety culture is a combination of hard hats, safety glasses, pre-task pl anning meetings, project specific safety planning, and new worker orientation. Safety tone is a combination of hard hats, safety glasses, toolbox meetings, pre-ta sk planning meetings. A strong correlation with the RIR was

PAGE 49

49 achieved from the scores of both of the comb inations, 0.508 and 0.309, respectively. The scores are explained in depth la ter in this chapter. The characteristics of the subcontractors that correlate significantly with the companys Hispanic RIR were identified (Table 4-57, Figur es 4-10 to 4-13). The correlations between Hispanic RIR and the requirement for the worker s to wear hard hats and pre-task planning meetings have a tendency towards significance with correlation coefficients of 0.199 and 0.209, respectively. Both combination scores correlat e with the firms Hispanic RIR; however, each has a weaker correlation coefficient than the combinations experienced when correlated to the firms total RIR. Table 4-58 displays the characteristics of th e subcontractors that correlate significantly with the companys non-Hispanic RIR. There exists a significant co rrelation between the nonHispanic RIR and practices related to safety glasses, pre-task planning meetings, and project specific safety plans with correlation coefficients of 0.224, 0.280, and 0.238, respectively. Additionally, the number of hours spent on new employee orientation has a tendency towards significance with a correla tion coefficient of -0.250. That is the more hours a firm spends on orientation, the lower their RIR (s ee Figure 4-14). Both combinat ion scores, safety culture and safety tone, correlate with the firms non-Hi spanic RIR and each has a stronger correlation coefficient than the combinations experience when correlated to the firms Hispanic RIR. There is a tendency towards significance that firms who said that they have expe rienced unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers ex perienced a higher non-Hispanic RIR than those firms who did not. There is a significant correla tion coefficient of 0.283 betw een non-Hispanic RIR and the perception that Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job.

PAGE 50

50 Firms who agreed or strongly agreed with th e statement have a higher RIR than those who either disagreed or strongly disagreed (s ee Figure 4-15). There is a tendency towards significance between the non-Hispanic RIR and th e firms perception that Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers. The correlation coefficient is -0.181, meaning firms who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement have a higher RIR than those who either agreed or strongly agreed (see Figure 4-16). The percentage of the work that is subcontra cted correlates with the companys size (see Table 4-59). There exists a significant re lationship between the company size and the requirement to wear of hard hats, the hours of safety training workers receive each month, and the percentage of safety training that is available in Spanish with correlation coefficients of 0.405, 0.227, and 0.189, respectively. Additionally, th ere is a tendency towards significance between firm size and the requirement to wear safety glasses, hold toolbox meetings, and implement safety incentive programs with corr elation coefficients of -0.160, -0.187, and -0.188. The combination score of safety tone also has a significant correlation coe fficient with firm size of -0.283. Additionally, there is a significant co rrelation coefficient between firm size and implementing new safety programs with in the last five years of -0.207. The data reveals that larger companies are mo re likely to have safety incentive programs (Table 4-60). Safety incentive programs reward workers with a small gift for achieving a specified accident rate, e.g. no accidents over a specified period of time, such as a month. However, the data analysis reveals that these incentive programs are not correlated to the RIR. There are many characteristics closely associat ed with firms that have Hispanic workers that correlate with company size (see Table 459). There is a tende ncy towards significance between firm size and the percentage of employ ees whose primary language is Spanish with a

PAGE 51

51 correlation coefficient of 0.150. Also, there is a significant correlation between firm size and the percentage of bilingual managers, the percenta ge of Hispanic workers who cannot speak or understand English, and firms having a program to check I-9 forms of 0.193, 0.253, and -0.240, respectively. Finally, firm size correlates signi ficantly with the subcontractors level of agreement with three Likert scale statements (Table 4-59). In al l three cases, the correlation coefficient indicates that firms who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement have a larger workforce than those who either disagreed or strongly disagreed. First, there is a tendency toward significance between firm size and the level of agreement with the statement safety has a positive affect on productivity with a correla tion coefficient of 0.186. Second, there is a significant correlation between firm size and the le vel of agreement with the statement Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic workers with a correlation coefficient of 0.197. Finally, there is a significant correlation betw een firm size and the level of agreement with the statement Spanish sp eaking workers can be accommodated without speaking English with a correlation coefficient of 0.187. Larger firms seemingly have a more positive view of both safety and Hispanic workers. One of the research goals was to come up w ith a set of best safety practices for the subcontracting profession. Correlations were run to find a groupi ng of practices that had the greatest effect on RIR; this grouping would be referred to as the safety culture score. For this study, RIR was best correlated with a group of five practices: hard hats, safety glasses, pre-task planning meetings, project specific safety plan, and the number of orientation hours per new employee. A correlation of 0.508 was calculated with a level of significance less than 0.001. For the first four practices, a y es response received a score of one, while a no received a

PAGE 52

52 score of two. To weigh orientation hours around the same level as the others, the number of orientation hours per new employ ee was divided by a factor of 10 and then subtracted from the sum of the other questions. For example, a subcontractor that th at required hard hats, safety glasses, and provided new employees with 4 hours of orientation, but did not implement pre-task planning meetings or create a pr oject specific safety plan earned a score of 5.6 (Figure 4-17). Companies that performed all four practices and had at least a half an hour of new employee orientation would earn a score und er four. Companies who perfor med none of the four safety practices and provided no orientat ion would earn a score of 8. It was determined that firms who performed at least four of the five listed practices would earn a score of five or less (see Table 4-61). Firms with a score of five or less had a much lower overall RIR than those who did not, 7.17 and 18.37, respectively. This trend was also observed for the Hispanic RIR and non-Hispanic RIR. T hus, it was concluded that the firms safety culture has a positive effect on RIR. Computations were made to see if the safety culture variable was related to the size of the firm. These variables were found to not be correlated. For this analysis, the cutoff number to define small firms was set at 20 employees becaus e it was hypothesized that at this level, firm owners move from working in the field to workin g in the office. Results show that the firms safety culture is independent of the firms si ze. That is, small and large firms alike can implement these safety practices to enhan ce safety performances (see Table 4-62). A chi-square analysis was conducted to examine company size (as measured by the number of employees) in relation to the associated safety culture score (see Table 4-63). This test was run to evaluate the relationships that the correlation test might have missed. The data shows that at extreme sizes, from 1-10 and more than 76 employees, the firms safety culture

PAGE 53

53 score is related to firm size. Larger firms perf orm more of the safety practices than do small firms. Computations were run to see whether the RIR correlated significantly to a combination of safety practices known as safety tone which includ ed hard hats, safety glasses, toolbox meetings, and pre-task planning meetings. For each response a yes earned a score of one, while a no earned a score of two. Firms who performed all f our safety practices would earn a score of 4, while firms who performed none of these safety practices would earn a score of 8. Firms who performed at least three of the f our listed practices would earn a score of five or less (see Table 4-64). Firms who earned a score of five or less had a lower overall RIR than those with higher scores 7.22 and 13.47, respectively. This combina tion of safety practices was found to be positively correlated with the RIR. This relationship was observed for both the Hispanic RIR and the non-Hispanic RIR. Thus, it was concluded that safety tone has a positive effect on RIR, and its effect is less than that of the combination of safety practices that make up safety culture. Computations show that safety tone scores are related to co mpany size. The safety tone score was found to be correlated to workforce si ze with a correlation of -0.283 and a level of significance of 0.006. Thus, firms are more likely to implement those practices included in the safety tone score as the size of the firm increas es. For this analysis, 20 employees or less was designated as the cutoff number to define small firms. For firms with 20 or fewer workers, 27.8% earned a score of five or less, compared to 56.5% of the firms with more than 20 workers (see Table 4-65). Computations were performed to determine if any safety practices were significantly correlated with the size of the firms workforce or the firms RIR (Table 4-66). It was noted that

PAGE 54

54 some safety practices correlate to RIR but do not correlate significantly with size, (see Table 467). The RIR for firms who have no safety training available in Spanish was compared against the RIR, Hispanic RIR, and non-Hispanic RIR of all firms with Hispanic workers and those firms who have at least 50% of their safety training available in Spanish (Tables 4-68 and 4-69). Despite the apparent influence of safety trai ning in Spanish on Hispanic RIR a chi-squared analysis showed the relationship between Hispan ic RIR and the percentage of safety training available in Spanish is not significant (Table 4-70). A chi-squared test was run between Hispanic RIR and the level of agreement with the following statement, Spanish speaking work ers can be accommodated without learning English. Companies who checked that they either strongly agree or agree with the statement have a lower RIR than those firm s who strongly disagr ee (Table 4-71). Also, a chi-squared test was run between fi rm size and the length of employment of Hispanic workers. Large firms, with more th an 75 employees, had a greater percentage of Hispanic employees that had been employe d for at least two years (Table 4-72). The data revealed that the size of the company did not correlate with the firms RIR. Table 4-73 and Table 4-74 display the number of full tim e field employees and the associated RIR. Small firms with 10 or fewer employees, who can be tight knit operations, have a low RIR. It is presumed that these firms can be family busin esses, where the employees have been working together for many years, often w ith the president of the company working in the field. As the companys workforce increases to 20 employees, the RIR increases. This occurs until a point where the workforce is greater than 20 empl oyees but less than 75, where the company RIR values start to decrease. It is assumed that perhaps at this point, the firms workforce is so large

PAGE 55

55 that they start investing in safety measures, buying better equipment, and employing more safety managers. Finally, for companies with a workfor ce that is larger still, over 75 employees, the RIR drops even further (Figure 43). It is assumed that those companies put a greater focus on working safely as their workforce increases.

PAGE 56

56 Table 4-1. Number of Hispanic Minority Busi ness Enterprises responding to the survey Table 4-2. Number of fulltime field employees Number of fulltime field employ ees Number of firms Percent 1-10 23 33.8 11-20 17 25.0 21-40 14 20.6 41-75 7 10.3 76-100 3 4.4 101-200 3 4.4 201-650 1 1.5 Total 68 100.0 Table 4-3. Percent of work that is subcontracted Percent of work subcontracted Number of firms Percent 0-5 51 75.0 6-10 8 11.8 11-20 2 2.9 21-35 5 7.4 36-50 2 2.9 Total 68 100.0 Table 4-4. Number of firms with fulltime safety directors Fulltime safety director Number of firms Percent Yes 36 52.9 No 32 47.1 Total 68 100.0 Table 4-5. Percent of workday the safe ty director spends in the field Percent of workday Number of firms Percent 1-10 7 21.2 11-25 3 9.1 26-50 15 45.4 51-75 2 6.1 76-100 6 18.2 Total 33 100.0 Hispanic MBE Number of firms Percent Yes 1 1.5 No 66 98.5 Total 67 100.0

PAGE 57

57 Table 4-6. Does the firm have a drug-testing program Drug testing program Number of firms Percent Yes 58 85.3 No 10 14.7 Total 68 100.0 Table 4-7. What type of dr ug tests does the firm conduct Type Number of firms Percent Pre-hire 4 7.0 Random 2 3.5 Post accident 9 15.4 All four 13 22.4 Pre-hire and post accident 7 12.1 Pre-hire, for cause and post accident 10 17.2 Random and post accident 2 3.5 Pre-hire, random, and post accident 9 15.4 Random, for cause, and post accident 2 3.5 Total 58 100.0 Table 4-8. Number of full time field employees in firms that only perform post-accident drugtesting Number of field employees Number of firms Percent 1-10 5 55.6 11-20 3 33.3 21-40 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0 Table 4-9. Are all company employees required to wear hard hats Hard hats Number of firms Percent Yes 24 35.8 No 43 64.2 Total 67 100.0 Table 4-10. Are all company employees required to wear safety glasses Safety glasses Number of firms Percent Yes 37 55.2 No 30 44.8 Total 67 100.0 Table 4-11. Are weekly toolbox mee tings conducted on project sites Toolbox meetings Number of firms Percent Yes 44 66.7 No 22 33.3 Total 66 100.0

PAGE 58

58 Table 4-12. Are pre-task planning m eetings held before every task Pre-task planning meetings Number of firms Percent Yes 35 53.8 No 30 46.2 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-13. Does the company prepare a proj ect specific safety plan for each project Project specific safety plan Number of firms Percent Yes 30 45.5 No 36 54.5 Total 66 100.0 Table 4-14. Does the company provide orientat ion for all its employees on project sites Project site orientation Number of firms Percent Yes 35 53.0 No 31 47.0 Total 66 100.0 Table 4-15. How many hours are de voted to the orientation program for new employees Hours of orientation Number of firms Percent .5-2 17 54.8 2.5-4 8 26.0 4.5-8 1 3.2 8.5-16 3 9.6 16-40 2 6.4 Total 31 100.0 Table 4-16. How many hours of safety training are provided to employees each month Hours of training Number of firms Percent .5-2 33 54.1 2.5-4 19 31.1 4.5-8 7 11.5 8.5-25 2 3.3 Total 61 100.0 Table 4-17. What percentage of the safe ty training is available in Spanish Percent available in Spanish Number of firms Percent 0 22 34.4 1-25 6 9.4 26-50 8 12.5 51-75 1 1.6 76-99 1 1.6 100 26 40.5 Total 64 100.0

PAGE 59

59 Table 4-18. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Percent available in Spanish Number of firms Percent 0 10 19.2 1-25 6 11.6 26-50 8 15.4 51-75 1 1.9 76-99 1 1.9 100 26 50.0 Total 52 100.0 Table 4-19. What percentage of the safety training is available in Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker who cannot speak or understand English) Percent available in Spanish Number of firms Percent 0 3 8.3 1-25 4 11.1 26-50 6 16.7 51-75 1 2.8 76-99 1 2.8 100 21 58.3 Total 36 100.0 Table 4-20. What is the companys approximate annual expenditure for safety training Approximate annual expenditure Number of firms Percent 0 5 9.8 1-1000 8 15.7 1001-2500 8 15.7 2501-5000 10 19.6 5001-10000 7 13.7 10001-20000 9 17.7 20001-100000 4 7.8 Total 51 100.0 Table 4-21. Companys computed safe ty training expense per worker Expense per worker Number of firms Percent 0 5 9.8 1-100 10 19.6 101-200 10 19.6 201-300 13 25.5 301-500 4 7.8 501-750 3 5.9 751-1000 1 2.0 1001-1850 5 9.8 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 60

60 Table 4-22. Companys computed safe ty training expense per worker (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Expense per worker Number of firms Percent 0 5 12.5 1-100 7 17.5 101-200 7 17.5 201-300 12 30.0 301-500 2 5.0 501-750 3 7.5 751-1000 1 2.5 1001-1850 3 7.5 Total 40 100.0 Table 4-23. Companys computed safe ty training expense per worker (for firms with no Hispanic workers) Expense per worker Number of firms Percent 0 0 0.00 1-100 1 12.5 101-200 2 25.0 201-300 1 12.5 301-500 2 25.0 501-750 0 0.00 751-1000 0 0.00 1001-1850 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Table 4-24. Does the company have an incen tive program based on safety achievements Incentive program Number of firms Percent Yes 27 41.5 No 38 58.5 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-25. Has the company implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote safety New programs Number of firms Percent Yes 40 61.5 No 25 38.5 Total 65 100.0

PAGE 61

61 Table 4-26. Listing of responses for those who an swered Yes to the qu estion has the company implemented any new programs within the past 5 years to promote safety Response Number of firms Creating incentive programs 7 Introduction of safety meetings 5 Introduction of toolbox meetings 4 Having FRSA come to the jobsite 4 Increasing safety or equipment training 4 Having jobsite inspections 3 Increasing fall protection and safety equipment 3 Updating safety materials to NRCA standards 2 Showing videos and posters in Spanish and English 2 Conducting driver safety classes 2 Creating a safety committee or hiring a safety consultant 2 Introduction of new safety rules or equipment 1 Instituting and documenting lock -out tag-out procedures 1 Reviewing and rating individual em ployee safety procedures 1 Introduction of a chemical safety program 1 Introduction of a site clean up program 1 Introduction of equipment inspection 1 Introduction of weekly meetings in Spanish 1 Introduction of a written safety test in Spanish 1 Total 46 Table 4-27. Listing of about the most successf ul practice implemented to promote safety Response Number of firms Toolbox meetings 10 Incentive programs 5 FRSA safety manage r and inspections 4 Monthly safety meeting 4 Increasing fall protection and safety equipment 4 Showing videos and posters in Spanish and English 3 Talking safety daily and at every meeting 3 Retraining workers on fall protection 3 Ladder tie-off procedures and training 2 Training on slip hazards and pinch points 2 Site clean up program 1 Behavior based programs to change safety culture 1 Limiting the size of the workforce to below 10 employees 1 Having a safety training day each quarter 1 Total 44

PAGE 62

62 Table 4-28. Safety has a positive affect on productivity Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 1 1.6 Disagree 2 3.1 Neither agree or disagree 9 13.8 Agree 34 52.3 Strongly agree 19 29.2 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-29. Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 3 4.7 Disagree 2 3.1 Neither agree or disagree 20 31.3 Agree 26 40.6 Strongly agree 13 20.3 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-30. Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning English Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 8 12.5 Disagree 14 21.9 Neither agree or disagree 18 28.1 Agree 23 35.9 Strongly agree 1 1.6 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-31. Our company encount ers significant problems because workers dont speak English Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 3 4.7 Disagree 19 29.7 Neither agree or disagree 28 43.8 Agree 12 18.7 Strongly agree 2 3.1 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-32. Hispanic workers take more ri sks on the job than non-Hispanic Workers Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 2 3.1 Disagree 22 34.3 Neither agree or disagree 22 34.3 Agree 13 20.4 Strongly agree 5 7.9 Total 64 100.0

PAGE 63

63 Table 4-33. Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 8 12.7 Disagree 17 27.0 Neither agree or disagree 19 30.1 Agree 18 28.6 Strongly agree 1 1.6 Total 63 100.0 Table 4-34. Non-Hispanic workers value their ow n safety more so than Hispanic workers Response Number of firms Percent Strongly disagree 7 10.9 Disagree 19 29.7 Neither agree or disagree 24 37.5 Agree 10 15.6 Strongly agree 4 6.3 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-35. Do Hispanic workers more regularly follow the companys safety procedures than non-Hispanic workers Response Number of firms Percent Yes 3 5.0 They follow procedures equally 41 68.3 No 16 26.7 Total 60 100.0 Table 4-36. What percent of the company s employees primary language is Spanish Percent of workers Number of firms Percent 0 12 17.6 1-10 11 16.2 11-25 11 16.2 26-50 18 26.5 51-75 9 13.2 76-100 7 10.3 Total 68 100.0 Table 4-37. What percent of the companys managers are bilingual Percent of workers Number of firms Percent 0 28 42.5 1-10 13 19.7 11-25 12 18.2 26-50 7 10.6 51-75 3 4.5 76-100 3 4.5 Total 66 100.0

PAGE 64

64 Table 4-38. What percent of the companys manage rs are bilingual (for fi rms with at least one Hispanic worker) Percent of managers Number of firms Percent 0 19 34.5 1-10 12 21.8 11-25 11 20.0 26-50 7 12.7 51-75 3 5.5 76-100 3 5.5 Total 55 100.0 Table 4-39. How has the number of Hispanic worker s in your firm changed in the past two years Change in Hispanic workers Number of firms Percent No Change 23 34.9 Slightly More Hispanic Workers Today 21 31.8 Less Hispanic Workers Today 9 13.6 A Lot More Hispanic Workers Today 13 19.7 Total 66 100.0 Table 4-40. Does the company require workers to speak and understand English in order to be employed English required Number of firms Percent Yes 14 21.2 No 52 78.8 Total 66 100.0 Table 4-41. Of Hispanic workers, what percent cannot speak or understand English Response in percent Number of firms Percent 0 14 21.5 1-10 23 35.4 11-25 6 9.2 26-50 14 21.5 51-75 7 10.9 76-90 1 1.5 Total 65 100.0

PAGE 65

65 Table 4-42. What percent of the Hi spanic workers have been employe d for at least two years (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Response in percent Number of firms Percent 0 7 12.5 1-25 13 23.2 26-50 14 25.0 51-75 8 14.7 76-100 14 25.0 Total 56 100.0 Table 4-43. Besides English, what languages are spoken on the jobsite Language Number of firms Percent None 22 36.2 Spanish 34 55.8 Tongan and Fijian 1 1.6 Spanish and Central American Indian 1 1.6 Spanish and Serbian 1 1.6 Spanish and Portuguese 1 1.6 Spanish, Romanian, Lithuanian, and Russian 1 1.6 Total 61 100.0 Table 4-44. Does the company have a program in place to check employees I-9 forms Program in place Number of firms Percent Yes 48 78.6 No 13 21.3 Total 61 100.0 Table 4-45. Does the company have a program in place to check employees I-9 forms (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Program in place Number of firms Percent Yes 42 79.2 No 11 20.8 Total 53 100.0 Table 4-46. Has the company encountered any unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Unique safety problems Number of firms Percent Yes 9 17.6 No 42 82.4 Total 51 100.0

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-47. Listing of responses for those fi rms who encountered unique safety problems associated with Hispanic workers Response Number of firms General language barrier 4 Communication problems wh en injuries occur 1 Communication gaps even when speaking in Spanish 1 Language a barrier for prompting quick movements 1 Miscommunications with use of equipment 1 Hispanic workers waiting to report injuries 1 Incurring OSHA fines 1 Expectation company will take care of their non-work related illnesses 1 Total 11 Table 4-48. How many company employees suffere d injuries treated by a doctor last year Number of injuries Number of firms Percent 0 25 38.5 1-3 25 38.5 4-6 11 16.8 7-10 2 3.1 11-20 2 3.1 Total 65 100.0 Table 4-49. Of injured employees, how many were Hispanic Number of injuries Number of firms Percent 0 37 57.8 1-3 24 37.5 4-6 0 0.0 7-10 2 3.1 11-20 1 1.6 Total 64 100.0 Table 4-50. Distributi on of RIR values RIR Number of firms Percent 0 25 38.5 0.01-5.00 12 18.4 5.01-10.00 7 10.8 10.01-15.00 5 7.7 15.01-20.00 7 10.8 20.01-25.00 3 4.6 25.01-50.00 6 9.2 Total 65 100.0 Note: The average RIR was 9.0.

PAGE 67

67 Table 4-51. Companys computed RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) RIR Number of firms Percent 0 14 27.5 0.01-5.00 11 21.5 5.01-10.00 7 13.7 10.01-15.00 5 9.8 15.01-20.00 7 13.7 20.01-25.00 1 2.0 25.01-50.00 6 11.8 50.01-100.00 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Note: The average RIR was 10.5 Table 4-52. Companys computed RIR (f or firms with no Hispanic worker) RIR Number of firms Percent 0 9 75.0 0.01-5.00 1 8.3 5.01-10.00 0 0.0 10.01-15.00 0 0.0 15.01-20.00 0 0.0 20.01-25.00 2 16.7 25.01-50.00 0 0.0 50.01-100.00 0 0.0 Total 12 100.0 Note: The average RIR was 4.1 Table 4-53. Companys computed Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) RIR Number of firms Percent 0 23 45.1 0.01-5.00 4 7.8 5.01-10.00 8 15.7 10.01-15.00 2 3.9 15.01-20.00 1 2.0 20.01-25.00 0 0.0 25.01-50.00 10 19.6 50.01-100.00 3 5.9 Total 51 100.0 Note: the average Hispanic RIR was 14.9.

PAGE 68

68 Table 4-54. Companys computed non-Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) RIR Number of firms Percent 0 22 43.1 0.01-5.00 6 11.8 5.01-10.00 8 15.7 10.01-15.00 2 3.9 15.01-20.00 5 9.8 20.01-25.00 3 5.9 25.01-50.00 5 9.8 50.01-100.00 0 0.0 Total 51 100.0 Note: the average non -Hispanic RIR was 9.2. Table 4-55. Companys computed RIR statistics (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Statistic RIR Hispanic RIR Non-Hispanic RIR Mean 10.5 14.9 9.2 Median 6.1 4.8 4.6 Table 4-56. Characteristics as they correlate to the companys RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Characteristic Correlation Significance Pre-task planning meetings 0.281 0.012 Safety glasses 0.206 0.043 Project specific safety plan 0.197 0.051 Hard hats 0.173 0.078 Toolbox meetings 0.171 0.082 Safety culture 0.508 < 0.001 Safety tone 0.309 0.004 Unique problems with Hispanic workers -0.203 0.046 Table 4-57. Characteristics as they correlate to the companys Hisp anic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Characteristic Correlation Significance Hard hats 0.199 0.058 Pre-task planning meetings 0.209 0.053 Safety tone 0.204 0.043 Safety culture 0.392 0.005

PAGE 69

69 Table 4-58. Characteristics as they correlate to the companys nonHispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Characteristic Correlation Significance Safety glasses 0.224 0.035 Pre-task planning meetings 0.280 0.014 Project specific safety plan 0.238 0.027 Orientation hours -0.250 0.057 Safety tone 0.278 0.009 Safety culture 0.501 0.001 Unique problems with Hispanic workers -0.201 0.052 Hispanic workers take mo re risks on the job than do non-Hispanic workers -0.181 0.062 Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job 0.283 0.008 Table 4-59. Characteristics as they correlate with the company size (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Characteristic Correlation Significance Percentage of work subcontracted 0.229 0.016 Hard hats -0.405 0.000 Safety glasses -0.160 0.088 Toolbox meetings -0.187 0.061 Hours of safety training per month 0.227 0.019 Percentage of safety traini ng available in Spanish 0.189 0.046 Safety incentive program -0.188 0.062 Implemented new safety program within the last five years -0.207 0.043 Safety has a positive affect on productivity 0.186 0.051 Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic workers 0.197 0.041 Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without speaking English 0.187 0.048 Percentage of the employees whose primary language is Spanish 0.150 0.067 Percentage of bilingual managers 0.193 0.033 Percentage of Hispanic workers who cannot speak or understand English 0.253 0.008 Checks I-9 forms -0.240 0.024 Hard hats, safety glasses, toolbox meetings, pre-task planning meetings -0.283 0.006

PAGE 70

70 Table 4-60. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the company having implemented an incentive program Number of field employees Yes No 1-20 12 28 41+ 10 3 Chi Square 8.897 Significant to 0.01 Table 4-61. Number of full-time field employees and the firms RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Hard hats Safety glasses Pretask planningProject specific safety plan Orientation hours Yes Yes No Yes 4 1 1 2 2 0.4 Score = 1+1+2+2-0.4 = 5.6 Table 4-62. Companys computed RIR as a factor of their safety cu lture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Statistic Score 5 Score > 5 Number of firms 13 11 RIR Mean 7.17 18.37 Median 3.33 16.67 Hispanic RIR Mean 7.99 33.00 Median 0.66 28.57 Non-Hispanic RIR Mean 3.88 15.22 Median 0.00 7.50 Table 4-63. Company safety culture as a factor of the companys workforce (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Workforce of firm Score 5 (%) Score > 5 (%) 20 employees 5 (45.5%) 6 (54.5%) > 20 employees 8 (61.5%) 5 (38.5%) Total 13 (54.2%) 11 (45.8%) Chi square 0.621 Not significant > 0.10 Table 4-64. Number of full time field employees as a factor of the firms sa fety culture score (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Number of field employees Score 5 Score > 5 1-10 0 2 76+ 4 1 Chi square 3.733 Significant to 0.10

PAGE 71

71 Table 4-65. Companys computed RIR as related to the safety tone score (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Statistic Score 5 Score > 5 Number of firms 18 28 RIR Mean 7.22 13.47 Median 4.17 10.91 RIR Hispanic Mean 8.07 19.97 Median 0.33 9.54 RIR Non-Hispanic Mean 7.38 11.54 Median 2.24 7.32 Table 4-66. Safety tone score as related to company size (mea sured by employees) (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Workforce of firm Score 5 (%) Score > 5, (%) 20 employees 5 (27.8%) 18 (72.2%) > 20 employees 13 (56.5%) 10 (43.5%) Total 18 (39.1%) 28 (60.9%) Chi square 5.841 Significant to 0.02 Table 4-67. Safety practices that correlate with both the size of the companys workforce and the companys RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Characteristic Correlation coefficient to size Level of significance to size Correlation coefficient to safety (RIR) Level of significance to safety (RIR) Hard hats -.405 .000 .173 .078 Safety glasses -.160 .088 .206 .043 Toolbox meetings -.187 .061 .171 .082 Safety tone -.283 .006 .309 .004 Table 4-68. Characteristics which do not correlate with the size of company but correlate with the companys RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Characteristic Correlation coefficient to size Level of significance to size Correlation coefficient to safety (RIR) Level of significance to safety (RIR) Safety culture -.135 .185 .463 .001 Pre-task planning meetings -.100 .207 .281 .012 Project specific safety plan -.136 .125 .197 .051

PAGE 72

72 Table 4-69. Recordable injury ra te for companies that have no safety training available in Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) RIR Hispanic RIR Non-Hispanic RIR Mean 11.96 23.57 7.87 Median 2.86 14.28 0.00 Table 4-70. Recordable injury rate for companies that have at leas t 50% safety training available in Spanish (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) RIR Hispanic RIR Non-Hispanic RIR Mean 10.15 11.29 9.95 Median 5.00 3.57 3.70 Table 4-71. Percent of safety traini ng available in Spanish as a fact or of Hispanic RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Percent available in Spanish Hispanic RIR 10 Hispanic RIR > 10 0 4 4 50% 24 9 Chi square 1.536 Not Significant Table 4-72. Company responses to the statement Spanish speaking workers can be accommodated without learning English and th e associated RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Response Hispanic RIR 6.11 Hispanic RIR > 6.11 Strongly disagree 0 4 Strongly agree or agree 12 8 Chi square 4.800 Significant to 0.05 Table 4-73. Percent of Hispanic employees who have been employed at least two years as a factor of the firms size (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Percent employed 2 years Employees 1-10 Employees 76+ 0 4 0 50+ 6 6 Chi square 3.200 Significant to 0.10 Table 4-74. Number of full-time fiel d employees and the firms RIR Number of field employees Mean RIR Median RIR 1-10 8.30 0.00 11-20 12.85 10.55 21-75 8.21 4.77 76+ 4.46 5.00

PAGE 73

73 Table 4-75. Number of full-time field employees and the firms RIR (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) Number of field employees Mean RIR Median RIR 1-10 13.13 7.14 11-20 14.04 11.11 21-75 8.57 5.00 76+ 4.46 5.00

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4-1. Z calculation for the di fferences between the mean injury rates related to Hispanic workers and non-Hispanic workers. 8.0 13.0 3.3 11.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Pre-Task Planning RIR Mean Median Figure 4-2. Firm RIR and pre-task planning (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 8.3 13.6 5 11.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Safety Glasses RIR Mean Median Figure 4-3. Firm RIR and safety glasses (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 75

75 8.1 12.3 4.8 8.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Project Specific Safety Plan RIR Mean Median Figure 4-4. Firm RIR and project specific safety plans (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 5.8 13.3 5.0 9.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Hard Hats RIR Mean Median Figure 4-5. Firm RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 76

76 8.8 14.5 5.0 11.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Toolbox Meetings RIR Mean Median Figure 4-6. Firm RIR and toolbox meetings (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 7.2 18.3 3.3 16.7 0 5 10 15 20 Score 5Score > 5 Safety Culture RIR Mean Median Figure 4-7. Firm RIR and safety culture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 77

77 7.2 13.5 4.2 10.9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Score 5Score > 5 Safety Tone RIR Mean Median Figure 4-8. Firm RIR and safety tone (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 15.7 9.4 16.7 5 0 5 10 15 20 Yes No Experienced Unique Problems with Hispanic Workers RIR Mean Median Figure 4-9. Firm RIR and uni que problems experienced with Hisp anic workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 78

78 7.7 19.4 0.3 8.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Hard Hats RIR Mean Median Figure 4-10. Hispanic RIR and hard hats (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 8.0 13.0 0 7.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Pre-Task Planning RIR Mean Median Figure 4-11. Hispanic RIR and pretask planning (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 79

79 8 33 0.7 28.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Score 5Score > 5 Safety Culture RIR Mean Median Figure 4-12. Hispanic RIR and safety culture (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 8.1 20.0 0.3 9.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Score 5Score > 5 Safety Tone RIR Mean Median Figure 4-13. Hispanic RIR and safety tone (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 80

80 2.9 14.3 2.9 0 7.5 3.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.5-2.02.5-4.04.5+ Orientation Hours RIR Mean Median Figure 4-14. Non-Hispanic RIR and orientation hours (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 4.3 13.9 1.5 8.3 0 5 10 15 Strongly Disagree or Disagree Strongly Agree or Agree V iew Injuries as a Normal Part of the Job RIR Mean Median Figure 4-15. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of agreement with the statement Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker)

PAGE 81

81 11.3 13.9 5.7 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Strongly Disagree or Disagree Strongly Agree or Agree Take More Risks on the Job RIR Mean Median Figure 4-16. Non-Hispanic RIR and level of ag reement with the statement Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than do non-Hispan ic workers (for firms with at least one Hispanic worker) 8.3 12.85 8.21 4.46 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 to 1011 to 2021 to 7576+ Number of employees RIR Figure 4-17. RIR and the number of full time field employees.

PAGE 82

82 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The safety practices of sm all subcontractors have not been examined at length in prior research studies. The majority of the resear ch studies on construction safety have focused mainly on determining the effective safety practices of large general contractors. However, most construction projects involve a significant numbe r of subcontracting firm s, many of which are small firms. Additionally, little research has been conducted re lating safety practices to the Hispanic workforce. The Hispanic workforce in the construction industry is steadily increasing, and these workers have experienced a disproporti onate number of injuries. The results of this study can be beneficial to subc ontractors who want to improve their safety performances. One goal of this research was to perfor m an exploratory examination of small subcontractor safety practices. The majority of the subcontracting firms view safety as having a positive effect on productivity. To this end, the ma jority of the firms implement a variety of safety practices including but not limited to dr ug testing programs, weekly toolbox meetings, and requirements for wearing safety glasses. Also, the majority of the firms said that they had implemented a new program within the past five years to promote safety. It shows that some firms are continuing in the righ t direction towards improving thei r safety programs; however, it also shows that there is room for improvement Additionally, the average RIR for all firms surveyed was 8.98, which is above but near the national average of 7.3 for roofing contractors (EHSO, 2006). The research supported the fact that each in dividual safety practice reinforces the necessity of the other practices, and together they send a positive message that worker safety is important to the firm. It was hypothesized that subcontractors have fe wer available resources than general contractors to invest in safety training and equipment, and that smaller

PAGE 83

83 subcontractors would have fewer re sources to invest th an larger subcontractors. Despite this difference in available resources, safety culture wa s not correlated with fi rm size except at the absolute extremes. Thus, smaller firms have also shown that these safety programs can be successfully implemented. It should be noted th at these safety practi ces are not dependent on company size in order to be successful. These safety practices can be implemented by all firms regardless of size. Most importantly, the im plementation of these safety programs can be accomplished at a relatively low cost. The second goal of this study was to observe the integration of the Hispanic workforce into the subcontracting industry. This research concludes that the number of Hispanic construction workers is increasi ng and it was found that many firms have adjusted their safety practices to address the special needs of Hispanic workers. The study also concluded that Hispanic workers have their own unique safety issues that need to be addressed. Most of these issues are a result of language and cultural diffe rences. Combating these differences is difficult when only a small percentage of supervisory pers onnel are bilingual. The translation of safety materials into Spanish is a start, but more action is needed to slow the injury rate in the Hispanic workforce.

PAGE 84

84 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Subcontractors Subcontractors, regardless of size, should plac e more em phasis on their safety programs. This study outlined some simple procedures that all subcontractors can perform regardless of their resources or income level. These procedures include the wearing of hard hats and safety glasses, the creation of project specific safety plans, the implementation of pre-task planning meetings, and conducting new worker orientation. Additionally, firms should be proactive in their approach to safety for all workers. Hisp anic workers should be tr eated with the same duty of care that is placed on non-Hispanic workers. Employers should take steps to understand the culture and background of their Hi spanic workforce so that when dealing with them they can adjust their approach according ly. The Hispanic workforce is growing, particularly in the construction industry. Employers have a responsib ility to not only check I-9 forms when hiring workers, but also to help assimilate them into their workforces and protect them from injury. Recommendations for Future Research Additional research is needed on subcontractor safety. A study, sim ilar to this one, should be conducted with other subcontra cting trades. The results should be compared to see if the benefit of any particular safety prac tices correlate with specific trades If this were to occur, a set of best safety practices by trade could be developed. A case study should be conducted with thr ee subcontractors of different sizes, with employees numbering under 10, between 20 and 40, a nd over 50. It would be best to select firms that do not currently utilize many safety practi ces. The study would take place over a period of time to examine how these subcont ractors initiate and follow thr ough with the implementation of a new safety program. Safety programs to be implemented include the wearing of hard hats and

PAGE 85

85 safety glasses, the creation of project specific sa fety plans, conduct pretask planning meetings, and conduct new worker orientation. The firms RIRs would be monitored, but the true benefit of the study would be in seeing the roadblocks and br eakthroughs involved in safety programs implementation. Additionally, more research n eeds to be done concerning Hisp anic construction workers. This research should be conducted utilizing pers onal interviews of Hisp anic workers and their employers. The interviews with Hispanic work ers should inquire about their experiences on the jobsite. The interviews would a ddress their feelings on safety, e xperiences in their home country, ability to identify risks, and obt ain their thoughts and feelings a bout how safety programs can be adjusted to make them feel protected and part of the team. Next, interviews should be conducted with their employers to see what their perceptions are of their Hispanic workforce. Topics discussed should include how they perceive the Hispanic culture, their ability to instruct in Spanish, and how they think Hispanic workers iden tify and deal with jobsite risks. Results of these interviews could be used to formulate a program that could teach Hispanic workers to identify and mitigate risks. The results could also instruct employers on understanding the perception of their Hispanic workers so that th ey can communicate both and share jobsite safety information with their Hispanic workers.

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX A CONTRACTOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Safety Survey of Specialty Contractors The following questionnaire can be finished within five minutes. Please answer only the questions you are comf ortable in answering. 1. Is the company a Hispanic MBE (Minority Bu siness Enterprise) or is any portion of the company owned by a Hispanic person? [ ] Hispanic MBE [ ] Hispanic Person Ownership (non MBE) [ ] No 2. How many full time field employees does the company employ? _________(average) 3. What percentage of the work is subcontracted to others? _______% 4. Does the company have a full-time safety director on staff? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, what percentage of the workda y does the company safety director spend in the field? ________ % 5. Does the company have a drug-testing progra m? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, what type of drug tests does th e company conduct? (Check all that apply) [ ] Pre-hire [ ] Random [ ] For Cause [ ] Post-Accident 6. Are all company field employees required to wear hard hats? [ ] Yes [ ] No 7. Are all company field employees required to wear safety glasses? [ ] Yes [ ] No 8. Are weekly Tool Box Meetings conducted on project sites? [ ] Yes [ ] No 9. Are Pre-Task Planning Meetings held befo re every task? [ ] Yes [ ] No 10. Does the company prepare project specific safety programs for all projects? [ ] Yes [ ] No 11. Does the company provide orientation for all its employees on project sites? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, how many hours are devoted to th e orientation program for new employees? _________hours per worker 12. How many hours of safety training are prov ided to employees each month? _______hours 13. What percentage of safety training is available in Spanish? ___________%

PAGE 87

87 14. What is your companys approximate annual expenditure on safety training? $ _______thousand 15. Does the company have an incentive program based on safety achievements? [ ] Yes [ ] No 16. Has the company implemented any new program s within the past five years to promote safety? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please describe the programs. ____________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 17. Of the practices implemented by the company to promote safety, which has been the most successful? ________________________________________________________________ For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement by circling th e one appropriate answer. 18. Safety has a positive affect on productivity? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Ag ree Strongly Agree 19. Hispanic workers are equally or more productive than non-Hispanic Workers? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Ag ree Strongly Agree 20. Spanish speaking workers can be acco mmodated without learning English? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Ag ree Strongly Agree 22. Our company encounters significant proble ms because workers dont speak English? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Ag ree Strongly Agree 23. Hispanic workers take more risks on the job than non-Hispanic workers? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agre e or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 24. Hispanic workers are more likely to view injuries as a normal part of the job? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agre e or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 25. Non-Hispanic workers value their own safety more so than Hispanic Workers do? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agre e or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

PAGE 88

88 26. Do Hispanic workers more regularly follo w the companys safety procedures than non-Hispanic workers? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] They follow the procedures equally 27. What percent of the company employee s primary language is Spanish? ___________% 28. What percent of the compa ny managers are bilingual? ___________% 29. How has the number of Hispanic workers in your firm changed in the past 5 years? [ ] No change [ ] Slightly more Hispanic workers today [ ] Less Hispanic workers today [ ] A lot more Hispanic workers today 30. Does the company have any requirement that workers must be able to speak and understand English in order to be employed? [ ] Yes [ ] No 31. Of Hispanic workers, what percent ca nnot speak or understand English? ___________% 32. What percent of the Hispanic workers have been employed for at least two years? ___________% 33. Besides English, what languages are spoken on the jobsite? _________________________ 34. Do you have a program in place to check employee s I-9 forms? [ ] Yes [ ] No 35. Have you encountered any unique safety probl ems associated with Hispanic workers? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, please explain ___________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 36. How many company employees suffered injuries treated by a doctor last year? ______ Of these employees, how many we re Hispanic workers? ______ Optional A summary of this research study will be prepar ed. If you would like to receive a copy of a summary report as soon as it is available, you ma y include your name and address below and one will be provided to you. Note that your firms id entity will not be used in any way other than to get a report to you. Thank you for your pa rticipation in this research study.. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________ Street Address: ______________________________________________________ City: __________________________ State: ___________ Zip: _______________

PAGE 89

89 LIST OF REFERENCES BLR. (2002). The Im pact of Language and Culture on Job Safety. Business & Legal Reports Connecticut, Old Saybrook, http://safety.blr.co m /display.cfm/id/88020 (May 15, 2007). Bowdy, M. A. (1997). Como Se Dice HIV? Adapting Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Messages to Reach Homosexual a nd Bisexual Hispanic Men: The Importance of Hispanic Cultural and Health Beliefs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED416548. Brunette, M.J. (2004). Construction Safety and Health Research and the Hispanic Workforce in the U.S.: The Need for a Research Agenda. Inj. Prev., 10, 244-248. Delaney, K. (2002). Hispanic Outreach: Deli vering the Safety and Health Message. Job and Safety Health Quarterly 13(4), 24, 25. Dong, X., Platner, J. (2004). O ccupational Fatalities of Hispan ic Construction Workers from 1992 to 2000. Am. J. Ind. Med., 45(1), 46,49,51,53. Durand, J., and Massey, D. S. (2004). Crossing the Boarder: Research from the Mexican Migration Project Russell Sage Foundation, New York. EHSO. (2006). Table 1. Incidence rates of nonf atal occupation injuries and illnesses by industry and case types, 2006. Environmental, Health and Safety Online Georgia, Atlanta, http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1765.pdf (Sept. 21, 2007). Gonzalez, R (2006). Five Critical Traini ng Needs with Your Hispanic Employees. National Driller Illinois, Bensenville, http://www.nationaldriller.com/C DA/Archives/0a2d813a2678c010VgnVCM100000f932a 8c0 (May 19, 2007). Goodrum P. M. (2004). Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Wage Differentials: Implications for United States Construction Industry. J. Constr. Eng. and Manage., 130(4), 557. Hinze, J., Gambatese, J. (2003). Factors That Influence Safety Performance of Specialty Contractors. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 129(2), 160. Hinze, J., Tracey, A. (1994). The Contractor-S ubcontractor Relationship: The Subcontractors View. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120(2), 274. Illia, T. (2006). Incident and Injury-free: Maki ng it Personal. Constructor McGraw-Hill Construction, Colorado, Denver, http://constructor.construction.com /features/issuesTrends /archives/2006-01safety.asp (July 12, 2007).

PAGE 90

90 Jaselskis, E. (2005). Developi ng an Effective Construction Tr aining Program for American Supervisors with Hispanic Craft Workers Center for Transportation Research and Education Project 04-132 Iowa State University, 14. Lipoma, S. (1997). Contractors Cooperate to Improve Safety. The Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce Washington, Seattle, http://www.djc.com/special/const97/10023894.htm (July 24, 2007). Marin, M. (2003). Training Hispanic Construc tion W orkers in Florida. [Masters Thesis] University of Florida M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, 17. Mathis, J. (2001). CII: Construction Occupational Safety and Health. Electronic Library of Construction Occupational Safety and Health Georgia, Atlanta, http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0500/d000518/d000518.html (July 17, 2007). McCausland C. (2006). Labor Shortage Solutions Combatting the Lack of Skilled Craftsmen. Builder News Magazine Washington, Vancouver, http://www.buildernewsmag.com/viewnews.pl?id=428 (May 20, 2007). National Eye Health Education P rogram. ( 1994). Latino/Hispanic Communication Plan: Reaching Latinos/Hispanics at Risk. National Eye Institute Maryland, Bethesda, http://www.nei.nih.gov/nehep/plans/latinplan.asp (May 14, 2007). NIOSH FACE Program: In-House Report 98-16. (1998) Roofer Helper Dies After Falling 16.5 Feet From Roof to Concrete Basement Way Kansas. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Ohio, Cincinnati, http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/face/In-house/full9816.html (July 2, 2007). NIOSH Publication No. 2004-146. (2004). W orker Health Chartbook 2004. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Ohio, Cincinnati, http://www2a.cdc.gov/niosh-Chartbook/imagedetail.asp?imgid=305 (July 2, 2007). Nissen, B. (2004). Construction Saf ety Practices and Immigrant Workers: A Pilot Study. The Center to Protect Workers Rights Florida International Un iversity, April, iii,1,3,17. OSHA. (2000). OSHA Cites Subcontr actors in Miller Park Fata l Crane Collapse, Milwaukee. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration Washington D.C., http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadis p.show_docum ent?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES &p_id=764 (July 14, 2007). OSHA. (2007). Sample Safety and Hea lth Program for Small Business. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration Washington D.C., http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/safe tyhealth/mod2_sam ple_sh_program.html(July 2, 2007).

PAGE 91

91 Pallack, B. (2007). OSHA Ruling Puts Onus on Subcontractors. Arizona Daily Star Arizona, Tucson, http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/business/183858.php (July 14, 2007). Quackenbush, G. (2007). Latinos R ank Hi gh in Construction Fatalities. North Bay Business Journal California, Santa Rosa, http://www.busjrnl.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a rticle? AID=/20070416/BUSINESSJOURNAL/704 15034/1207/BUSINESSJOURNAL02 (July 16, 2007) Ruttenberg, R., Lazlo, M. (2004). Spanish-Spe aking Construction Workers Discuss Their Safety Needs and Experiences, Residential Construction. Center to Protect Workers Rights, Silver Spring, MD, 2,4,6,7. Santiago, L. (2002). Hispanic Outreach: Making Inroads in Ft. Lauderdale. Job and Safety Health Quarterly Washington D.C., 13(4), 27. SCF Arizona. (2004). Raising the Roof Higher Safety Standa rds Lower Costs. SCF Arizona, Phoenix, http://www.scfaz.com/publish/article_490.shtml (July 14, 2007). Schneider, S P. (2005). Economics of H ealth and Safety in Construction. Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America Washington D.C., http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm? objectID=191C9D75-D56 F-E6FA937CCB7AA94CD088 (July 2, 2007). Thomas, R. (2006). Safe Profits: Adopt Best Pr actices and Safety Compliance Will Take Care of Itself. Remodeling Magazine, Hanley Wood, Washington D.C., http://www.remodeling.hw.net/ industry-n ews.asp? sectionI D=298&articleID=265598 (July 27, 2007). Tinajero, L. (2005). Latinos in Construc tion: Breaking Barriers, Building Hope. National Council of La Raza Washington D.C., 2, 4-7. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2007). Florida QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html (May 20, 2007). U.S. Departm ent of Labor. (2006) National Census of Fatal O ccupational Injuries in 2005. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S.Department of Labor 06-1364, 3,8. Yogindra, S., Parker, D., Brosseau, L., Pa n, W., Xi, M., Haugan, D., Williams, Q. (2007). Organizational Characteristics of Small Metal-fabricating Businesses in Minnesota. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health., 13(2), 164. Yohay, S. C., Walsh, E. M. (2007). OSHAs Ability to Cite General Contractors for Subcontractors Safety Vi olations Now in Doubt. Construction Weblinks Washington D.C., http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resour ces/Industry_Reports _Newsletters/May_21_ 2007/osha.htm l (July 14, 2007).

PAGE 92

92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matthew Ruben received his B achelor of Science in Accounting and Master of Accounting from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, in May 2 006. After graduation, he enrolled in the graduate program in the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida to pursu er a Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction. Matthew was born in Fairfield, California and grew up Tampa, Florida. Upon graduation, he will move to Atlanta, Georgia to work as a Project Engineer.