|
who focus mainly on the scheduling and paperwork aspects of construction provide assistance in
the field by enforcing safety. Jobsite safety inspections are a method used to achieve this goal.
The project manager meets with the job superintendent on the site and walks through the jobsite
to look at the safety aspects of construction. These inspections usually are performed weekly,
and range from one to two hours in length. A checklist is commonly used to conduct the
inspection. The jobsite safety inspections should not be scheduled, in order to keep the workers
unaware of when the inspection will be. If the time is random, then the workers will need to
make sure that they are working safely at all times (Hinze 1997). A study by Jimmie Hinze
showed that although these safety inspections allow project managers to become familiar with
the jobsite and the safety procedures being used, there have been no indications that these safety
inspections reduce accidents (Hinze and Gambatese 2003).
Leading Indicators
Many of the strategies used for coming up with the safety procedures for a company's
safety program are developed by using lagging indicators. This method defines hazardous
construction areas by looking where the past injuries on construction jobsites occurred. After the
construction firms analyze this information, they can implement new safety techniques or
procedures to put into their safety program. Although this gives an accurate account for areas of
improvement, it only looks at the past. If a company is involved in a new and unfamiliar type of
construction project, the safety program may not be as successful. The new trend for a
company's safety procedures to be considered successful includes initiating preventative
measures, which look for leading indicators on the jobsite. This is defining the problem before
there is an actual injury and coming up with a plan to prevent it (Mohamed 2002). Leading
indicators show that the company takes the employees safety as a high concern, because there is
more research required for leading indicators compared to lagging indicators.
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study focused on the most common safety procedures that are used in small to
medium-sized construction firms. This study can serve as a base to further research of small to
medium-sized construction firms.
A recommendation of studying the EMR and the OSHA RIR for each company, along with
the components of their safety program, one could analyze which components have the largest
affect on the safety ratings. This would prove beneficial for the small to medium-sized
construction firms to reevaluate the current components of their safety program.
Originally, the method used to collect data for this study was via the telephone. This
method would be acceptable for future study, as long as the interviewer had the ability to place
calls during the normal business hours in a day. Because of other daytime obligations of this
researcher, the telephone interviews proved to be a major obstacle in this research.
The use of surveys sent in the mail with self-addressed envelopes proved to be successful
in collecting data. The turnaround time for the surveys was around two to three weeks. If a
company did not respond by then, usually they did not respond at all. Calling or mailing the
potential participants could cut down on the number of surveys that are not returned. An email
could be sent out asking the companies to decline or accept the offer to be part of the study.
Only the companies accepting the offer would receive the surveys, and this would save time and
money on the interviewer's part. It would also make sure that the company is still in business.
The Blue Book of Construction was used for selecting companies in this study, and
although the latest edition online was used, there still were companies that had gone out of
business. This may be due, in part, to the construction industry becoming more competitive and
the amount of construction slowing down.
Data Analysis
Upon receipt of the completed surveys, the responses from the construction companies
were compiled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Each company was given a row on the
spreadsheet, and their responses were inserted in each column. Many of the questions could be
answered by checking a box, so in this case, a number was given to each possible response, and
the number that was placed in the response column coincided with a selected answer. This
procedure was also followed when questions could be answered with a yes or no response.
Number one was used if the company responded "yes", and number 2 was used if the company
responded "no". The questions that sought opened-ended responses were also entered in the
cells, and if a company did not respond, a dash was placed in the cell. There were instances
where the company put a question mark in the answer blank and for these a question mark was
used.
These questions were then compiled into charts to show the percentages of the answers
that were shared by the construction firms. These showed the prevalence of the use of specific
safety practices for small to medium-sized construction firms.
Costs Associated with Injuries
Costs that construction companies have incurred due to injuries onjobsite have added to
the importance of safety that owners are stressing to their employees. A study conducted by the
Business Roundtable in 1979 found that injuries in construction accounted for 6.5% of the total
cost for construction, including the industrial, utility, and commercial divisions combined. The
Business Roundtable also found that for the average construction company the amount of money
allocated to the safety program is roughly 2.5% (Everett and Frank 1996).
There are two types of costs that a construction company incurs when an employee is
injured on the jobsite. These costs are defined as either direct costs or indirect costs. The direct
cost is one that the company can track after the injury has occurred. An example of a direct cost
would be any medical costs for the employee that are paid by workers' compensation, disability
benefits, or ambulance services that were required (Hinze 1997).
While direct costs help to provide an accounting method to quantify the financial damage
done by an injury on ajobsite, the construction company needs to also look at indirect costs.
Indirect costs are not easily tracked or measured. Some examples of these costs are loss of
productivity in the crews, training of replacement employees, schedule delays, and the time
allocated by administration to research the injury. Since the indirect costs associated with
injuries cannot be clearly measured, a cost multiplier is used. This multiplier is a ratio of the
indirect costs to the direct costs, and varies from company to company. Usually these multipliers
range from two to 20, and are assigned by the construction company. An example would be if a
construction company thought that the indirect costs after an injury were not that severe they
would probably use a multiplier of two. Whereas if a different construction company felt that
the indirect costs were far greater than the direct costs then they would assign a higher multiplier
value up to 20 (Everett and Frank 1996).
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of the study was to provide information on which types of safety procedures
are used in small to medium-sized construction firms. To be considered as being small or
medium-sized, a firm must have an annual volume of business of less than $100 million.
Previous studies dealing with safety in construction has focused on the larger construction firms.
The number one safety procedure used by the participants in the study is requiring a new
worker orientation for the employees. This can vary in costs dependent upon the duration of the
orientation session, and if the orientation consists of meetings or just reading a manual provided
by the company.
The Literature Review described drug testing in the industry, and how smaller construction
firms were not implementing this as a safety procedure, primarily due to the high costs. The
results negated this comment, and showed that drug testing was the second most common
procedure used by small to medium-sized construction companies. This may reflect the concern
that the construction companies have for their employees, and the declining costs for
administering a drug test. The construction companies may also receive a lower insurance rate
for being a drug free workplace.
Toolbox talks and hard hats being required at all times was tied for third on the most
common safety practices. These requirements have a minimal impact on the project budget, and
if conducted properly can prove to be beneficial in increasing the safety on a jobsite. The rest of
the practices were implemented by less than half of the participants in the study, and will not be
examined any further.
The response that stood out in Figure 4-15 is "saving money." Eight companies responded
that the safety program was implemented to reduce the workers' compensation insurance rate.
their projects are usually larger, and therefore there is a greater reliability that can be placed on
the safety performance measures, such as the OSHA recordable injury rate.
One might think that a smaller company would have a lower incident rate and less chance
of injuries on a job, because there are fewer employees to oversee and the sizes of the projects
are usually smaller. This may be true, but the smaller firms generally do not have a full-time
safety representative to look over the jobs. The economy might be another factor that influences
the safety practices implemented by construction firms. The rate of construction (especially in
the residential sector) has slowed, and companies are looking forjobs to keep their firm running.
Under such conditions, the firms will attempt to cut costs to complete their projects at the lowest
price, so as to ensure the highest profit on the job. A successful construction project is one that
is completed on time, within budget, and without human suffering. Obviously, if a project is
completed on time and under budget, an attractive profit will probably be realized. If someone is
seriously injured on a job though, the potential profits could be eroded or the project could even
result in a loss.
This thesis will target small to medium sized construction firms, defined as companies who
perform up to $100 million dollars of contracted work per year. A survey on the most common
safety practices that these companies implement was conducted. Reasons that particular
practices were implemented were also examined.
The common safety practices found in small to medium-sized construction firms were
new worker orientation, dug testing programs, requirements of hard hats, and toolbox talks.
APPENDIX A
SURVEY
Questionnaire for Safety in Small to Medium Sized Construction Firms
1. How long has your company been in business? Years
2. What is the approximate projected volume of work for the upcoming year?
$ Million
3. What was the average volume of work completed by the company 5 years ago?
$ Million
4. Does your firm work as a general contractor or as a specialty/subcontractor?
SGeneral contractor I Subcontractor
5. a. How many employees do you currently have on your payroll? Employees
b. Of these employees how many perform field tasks? Employees
Is this typically the size of your field labor force? D yes I no
6. What percent of the contracted construction work does your company self perform?
%
If less then 100%, how many subcontracts do you have on most projects? Subs
7. What type of work do the field employees perform (ex. Masonry, concrete, etc.)?
8. for GC: What kind of projects does you firm typically build?
for subs: What kind of work does you firm do?
9. What percent of the projects are done for public owners? %
10. Does you firm have a safety policy or safety program? I yes I no
If yes, do you require your subcontractors to comply with the requirements that are stated
in it? [ yes I no
11. What does your safety program consist of?
I new worker orientation, if yes who receives the orientation? I all I new hires
If yes, how long is the orientation, typically? Hours
I are toolbox meetings held each week on the project? I yes I no
I does the company have a worker safety incentive program? I yes I no
I new workers must submit to a drug test before being hired? I yes I no
I hard hats are required to be worn at all times on the job? I yes I no
I safety glasses are required to be worn at all times on the job? I yes I no
Nunrrter of Firms 10
Yes No N/A Per OSHA
Figure 4-10. Safety glasses required at all times.
The Literature Review described drug-testing policies that can be used in the construction
industry, and explained that this is a new practice among many small to medium-sized
construction firms. Drug testing programs are a type of preventative measure, and an
investigative post accident drug test can be enforced by construction companies. If the
employees are screened prior to working with the company, then the construction firm is taking
measures to make sure they are not hiring someone who has an addiction to drugs. Many of the
companies require testing after an accident, to make sure that the employee was under sound
mind while they were working, and the drugs or alcohol did not hinder their ability to work.
This would be considered a post-accident indicator. Of the companies participating in the study,
26 said that they have a drug testing policy in their safety program. Nine of the participating
companies stated that they did not have such a policy in their safety program.
Nurter of Firms 1
Yes No N/A
Figure 4-11. Drug testing program implemented.
Once the direct costs are accounted for by the construction company, they will add the
indirect costs to the direct costs associated with the injury to find an estimate of the total costs
associated with the particular injury. This can only be an estimate, since the indirect costs
include an assumption of the ratio of the direct costs to the indirect costs (Everett and Frank
1996).
Measurements of Safety
In construction there are multiple measurements used to evaluate a construction
company's safety performance. While all of these measurements look at a firm's safety
statistics, they all (one-way or another) can be biased. The types of measurements will be
defined below, and their advantages and disadvantages will be explained.
EMR
The Experience Modification Rate otherwise know as the EMR is a way that the insurance
companies measure a construction company's safety on the jobsite. "The EMR, which is
employer-specific, is a complex formulation that takes into account both the frequency and the
severity of the injury" (Hinze 1997). The formula for the Experience Modification Rate is as
follows.
Experienced Modification = A~+ WA,+ (1 W) E, + B
E+B
The formula takes into account the following:
* Ap = the actual primary losses
* W = weight (provided in state experience rating plan manuals)
* Ae = the actual excess losses
* Ee = the expected excess loss
* E = the expected loss
* B = the ballast
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
4-1 Classification of the type of construction firm ................. ........... ................ ... ........... 35
4-2 Types of projects typically built. ........... .................. ......... ..............................36
4-3 Is this your average number of field employees? ......... ............................ ..........37
4-4 Number of firms with a safety program ................................. .....................39
4-5 Companies that require the subcontractors to comply with the safety program ..............39
4-6 N ew w orker orientation required. ........................................ .......................................40
4-7 Toolbox meetings held weekly. ...... ........................... .......................................41
4-8 W worker incentive program ...................................................................... ....................41
4-9 H ard hats required at all tim es. ........................................ ............................................42
4-10 Safety glasses required at all tim es. ...... ......................................................................43
4-11 Drug testing program implemented. ............................................................................43
4-12 W hen the drug tests are required. ........................................................... .....................44
4-13 Em ploy a full tim e safety em ployee. ............................................................................ 45
4-14 Safety's effect on productivity .................................................... ................................. 46
4-15 Reason for implementing the current safety program.....................................................47
4-16 Employee verification of completing safety program. ................... ............................. 48
4-17 O SH A inspections in the past five years................................................. .....................49
4-18 Does your company compute its OSHA RIR? ...................................... ............... 50
8
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion if this thesis could not have been accomplished without the support of the
following parties: Dr. Jimmie Hinze provided me with the experience in construction safety and
the guidance that was necessary in compiling the information needed. I thank my grandfather
Whitey, whose encouragement and motivation made the completion of this thesis attainable. I
thank my parents who always told me that I could do anything that I set my mind to, and instilled
in me the importance of an education. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Kerrie. Her
financial support while I was in school to pay the bills proved invaluable.
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
4-1 Projected volum e of w ork for this year................................... ........................ ............. 34
4-2 Company history in the construction industry. ........................................ ............... 35
4-3 N um ber of em ployees on payroll............................................................ .....................36
4-4 Employees on payroll who perform field tasks. ..................................... ............... 36
4-5 Percentage of field work self performed .................................................37
4-6 Average number of subcontractors on each job...........................................................38
4-7 Percentage of work completed for public owners .......................... ............................38
4-8 Common safety practices of small to medium-sized construction firms.........................50
Nurner of Firns
Yes No N/A
Figure 4-7. Toolbox meetings held weekly.
Worker Incentive programs as explained in the Literature Review are aimed at rewarding
the employees for performing work without accidents. The concept is good, but just because
someone is not injured on the job does not mean that the job was completed in a safe manner.
The objective of incentives is for workers to take stock of safety of the project, and instead of a
few eyes looking out for worker safety, everyone on the job will be making sure the job is as safe
as possible. Figure 4-8 shows that 13 companies include safety incentive programs for their
employees, while 18 of the companies do not.
Nunrrer of Firrm 10
Yes No N/a
Figure 4-8. Worker incentive program.
OSHA requires that hard hats must be worn on the jobsite when there is the potential for
injury from objects falling from above. If there is no hazard of objects falling from above, then
the hard hat is optional for anyone on the jobsite, according to OSHA. Companies requiring hard
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
OSHA
NIOSH
EMR
OSHA RIR
CDC
Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Formed in 1971 under
the Department of Labor
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Formed under the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Experience Modification Rate. A formula used by the insurance
companies to rate the safety performance of construction companies.
OSHA Recordable Injury Rate. Another method used to rate safety
performance of construction firms. This is the number of injuries per
200,000 work hours.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
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
SAFETY PRACTICES OF SMALL TO MEDIUM-SIZED CONSTRUCTION FIRMS
By
Shane Gramlich Bizzell
May 2008
Chair: Jimmie Hinze
Major: Building Construction
Since the early days of construction, injuries on construction jobsites have been viewed as
occurrences that are a part of the construction process. In 1971, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration was formed to reduce the risks that employees were exposed to while
working. While OSHA oversees all occupational hazards, they have directed much of their
attention to the construction industry. This is because construction is one of the leaders in terms
of the number of injuries sustained by workers in the United States of America. The effort that
has been put forth by OSHA has made construction firms aware that jobsite safety is a concern
of the government and should be made a priority on all jobsites, without regard to the size of the
project.
Most of the safety studies involving construction firms have focused on the larger
companies, in part because of the annual volume of work performed by these companies and
because of the sizes of theirjobs. This has been beneficial to the larger construction firms, but
the smaller construction companies, accounting for the majority of the construction industry,
cannot compare themselves with companies that have more resources to use for safety. One
reason that past safety studies have been focused on the larger firms might be that the sizes of
4-4 reflected the normal size of their field labor. Figure 4-3 shows that for 77.8% of the
companies this reflected the average size of their field labor force.
Number of Firms 1.
Yes No
Figure 4-3. Is this your average number of field employees?
To find out about the extent of work that is subcontracted to other firms, the firms were
asked about the amount of work that is self-performed. The average response showed that 21%
4.6% of the field work is self-performed, but the most common response was that 10% was
self-performed. The average for the work that is self-performed could have been affected by the
responses from subcontractors who self-perform a large portion of their work. Subcontractors
will perform most of their own work, and they tend to subcontract only a small portion of their
work on each project.
Table 4-5. Percentage of field work self performed.
Average Median Mode Range
21% 4.6% 10% 10% 0-100%
The percentage of fieldwork self-performed by each company shows the amount of work
performed by the general contractors or the subcontractors, i.e., there are many employees on a
jobsite at one time. This worker crowding can result in hazardous situations, and the employees
always have to watch what they are doing, because if they are not careful they cannot only hurt
themselves, but they can injure other workers. The average number of subcontractors that are
Nurrnter of Firms
Yes No N/a Part Time
Figure 4-13. Employ a full time safety employee.
Safety and its effect on productivity of employees is a concern that many construction
companies have in the industry. Some industry professionals consider safety and productivity to
be mutually achievable goals while others consider them to be mutually exclusive. If a company
believes that productivity compromises the rate at which a person can complete tasks, they might
reduce the level of safety enforcement to avoid losses and to stay on schedule. When a
construction company cuts back on the safety budget for a project to reduce costs, it will increase
the chance of an injury on the job and could actually end up costing the company more money
than they would have saved by keeping to the budget or schedule. If someone on the jobsite is
injured it can slow the construction process considerably. Not only will the injured employee
have to be treated, the co-workers on the jobsite might be affected mentally by the injury, and
this would contribute to slowing down the rate of productivity. Of the 36 participants, 22 stated
they felt that safety actually increases productivity, while three believed that it compromises it.
Nine of the companies felt safety has no effect on the productivity of the employees, and two of
the companies did not answer the question. Most respondents felt that the achievement of
efficient work did not have to compromise safety while on the construction jobsite. This is an
important view on safety that the construction company should let their employees know that
performing tasks in an unsafe manner can actually slow the construction process down.
company had 7 injuries, and the most injuries reported by a participant was 43 injuries in the past
year. Figure 4-18 shows the number of companies who compute their OSHA RIR.
2o
Nunrrer of Firms
10
Yes No N/A What is RIR?
Figure 4-18. Does your company compute its OSHA RIR?
Three of the ten companies that answered yes to the question in Figure 4-18 were able to
provide the company's OSHA RIR. This failure to be able to give details about the company
RIR may indicate that the individual did not have access to the safety performance measures.
The last question that was asked of the participants was if they knew the company's Experience
Modification Rating (EMR). The EMR as defined in the Literature Review shows how a
company's safety performance compares to other companies in the industry. The EMR is a
factor in the Workers' Compensation Insurance rate that construction companies pay. Nine
companies answered the question, one company left the response blank, and 26 of the companies
asked what EMR stood for.
Table 4-8 has compiled the information gathered from the questions in the survey dealing
with the different safety practices in small to medium-sized construction firms. The table shows
the common safety practices found in small to medium-sized construction firms.
Table 4-8. Common safety practices of small to medium-sized construction firms.
Drug Hard hats Worker Safety glasses Full time
New worker testing required at Toolbox incentive required at all safety
orientation program all times talks program times employee
80.56% 72.22% 63.89% 63.89% 36.11% 27.78% 25.00%
it again to their computer, and then send via email as an attachment. The survey was not meant
to be tedious to the interviewees so this method was abandoned.
A survey through the mail seemed to be the best option. The introduction, along with the
questionnaire, was sent to the construction firms that were found in the Blue Book of
Construction. A self-addressed stamped envelope was included with each survey, so that it
would not cost the construction firms to participate in the study. It was felt that this helped to get
a higher response rate. With the surveys being distributed by mail the construction companies
could complete the questionnaire when they had the available time and all they had to do was
place it in the self-addressed stamped envelope and drop it in the mail.
The telephone survey initially started in May of 2006. After seeing the low response rate
of the participants, and difficulty in scheduling callbacks during the workday, the written surveys
were sent out in December of 2007. Initially 100 surveys were mailed out on December 10,
2007. The responses to the surveys began to be received as soon as three days after initially
mailing them. The returned surveys seemed to stop two to three weeks after they were initially
sent to the construction companies. The first mail survey provided 12 respondents, which
brought the total number of responses to 19. It was decided that the sample size was too small
and that additional responses should be sought.
On February 11, 2008, 100 more surveys were distributed in the mail with self-addressed
stamped envelopes. This round of surveys resulted in responses from 22 construction firms, the
highest response rate experienced in this research. When reviewing the survey replies, it was
noted that five surveys were not completed, and some included statements that due to the
construction slump they would not be performing any work this year. This resulted in 36 usable
surveys for the final analysis.
bonus or incentive award. While everyone on the jobsite may be happy, the real issue has been
swept under the rug. If they had reported the injury, then the construction company would be
made aware of different risks that they have on their jobsite. They could then expend the effort
to find solutions to eliminate them in the future. The under-reporting gives the construction
companies and their employees a false sense of security while on the jobsite (Hinze, unpublished
report, 2005).
Safety Personnel/ Safety Inspections
Safety employees are individuals who work for a construction company, and their
responsibility is to oversee the company's safety program and track safety information for
recordkeeping purposes. The safety employee may be involved with new worker orientation,
pre-job planning, toolbox talks, and employee training. This is a broad scope of work for one
employee and would be a full time position (Hinze 1997).
Construction companies can also hire an independent safety firm to assess the safety
methods used by construction companies. This will eliminate any bias that may be apparent in
the construction companies, and the construction companies will get an expert's advice on how
to achieve the highest security for their employees' safety on the jobsite. JMJ is an independent
consulting firm that has been used by many construction firms, and their approach is to add a
new layer of commitment to the existing safety program. "It requires shifting safety from a
priority to a "value," a deep-seated belief that it will not be compromised and it will actually
drive company's actions." Independent safety consulting firms have proven to be a positive
method used to improve a construction firm's safety program (Powers and Rubin 2005).
The employment of safety personnel or an independent safety consultation agency is a
common practice with large construction firms, but with small to medium-sized construction
firms, the safety budget may not allow this type of program. This is where the project managers
their construction employees in multiple ways. One of the easiest and least expensive ways to
provide a safety incentive for the employees is to recognize them in some way for undertaking
their work tasks in a safe manner. This could also be done in a newsletter identifying the
employees who completed work for the past year without an injury. While this may boost moral,
many companies prefer to use monetary awards for their employees. Safety engineers and job
superintendents can have safety incentives tied into a bonus that they will receive if they
complete theirjobs without an injury (Gillen, Kools, McCall, Sum, and Moulden 2004). A
program such as this is only as good as the person who will be overseeing the project. If the
safety engineer or the superintendent buy into the safety program and the incentive, they will put
forth the effort to run the jobsite in a safe manner. Under such an incentive, only the supervisor
has a stake in the incentive, and the other employees may not see any value. If everyone on the
jobsite has an incentive tied into their performance, then the employees would be watching each
other to make sure that the work is being completed in a safe manner (Hinze 1997).
While safety incentives are one of the most common practices that construction companies
use for their safety program, it has controversy associated with it. There are construction
companies that say their injury rate has declined after these incentives were put into place (Gillen
et al. 2004). While this may be true, the fact is that because an employee did not get hurt does
not mean that the project was completed in a safe manner. The award or recognition is
ostensibly based on the assumption that no worker was injured, but it does not consider if they
actually performed all their work tasks in a safe manner (Hinze and Gambatese 2003).
The chance of injuries being under-reported is another area where safety incentives could
have a negative effect. Since incentives are tied directly to the injuries on a job, there may be
workers who are injured, but do not report it. This way everyone will still be able to receive the
PAGE 1
SAFETY PRACTICES OF SMALL TO ME DIUM-SIZED CONSTRUCTION FIRMS By SHANE GRAMLICH BIZZELL 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 1
PAGE 2
2008 Shane Gramlich Bizzell 2
PAGE 3
To my Grandfather Whitey 3
PAGE 4
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion if this thesis could not ha ve been accomplished without the support of the following parties: Dr. Jimmie Hinze provided me with the experi ence in construction safety and the guidance that was necessary in compiling the information needed. I thank my grandfather Whitey, whose encouragement and motivation made the completion of this thesis attainable. I thank my parents who always told me that I could do anything that I set my mind to, and instilled in me the importance of an education. Finall y, I would like to thank my wife Kerrie. Her financial support while I wa s in school to pay the bills proved invaluable.
PAGE 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 History of Construction Safety...............................................................................................15 Safety Statistics in Construction.............................................................................................1 7 Safety Practices for the Jobsite............................................................................................... 18 Design Teams Role in Safety..........................................................................................18 Worker Training..............................................................................................................19 Pre-work Meetings/ Toolbox Talks.................................................................................20 Drug Testing....................................................................................................................21 Safety Incentives.............................................................................................................2 1 Safety Personnel/ Safety Inspections...............................................................................23 Leading Indicators...........................................................................................................24 Costs Associated with Injuries................................................................................................25 Measurements of Safety......................................................................................................... 26 EMR................................................................................................................................26 OSHA Recordable Injury Rate........................................................................................27 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................29 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........29 Research Methods...................................................................................................................30 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................33 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........34 General Company Information...............................................................................................34 Safety Programs and Contents................................................................................................38 Safety Record Keeping and Statistics.....................................................................................47 5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. ..51 5
PAGE 6
6 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................53 APPENDIX A SURVEY....................................................................................................................... .........55 B THESIS QUESTIONAIRE INTRODUCTION.....................................................................58 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................60 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................61 6
PAGE 7
LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Projected volume of work for this year..............................................................................34 4-2 Company history in th e construction industry...................................................................35 4-3 Number of employees on payroll.......................................................................................36 4-4 Employees on payroll who perform field tasks.................................................................36 4-5 Percentage of field work self performed............................................................................37 4-6 Average number of subcontractors on each job.................................................................38 4-7 Percentage of work co mpleted for public owners..............................................................38 4-8 Common safety practices of small to medium-sized construction firms...........................50 7
PAGE 8
LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Classification of the t ype of construction firm..................................................................35 4-2 Types of projects typically built........................................................................................36 4-3 Is this your average nu mber of field employees?..............................................................37 4-4 Number of firms with a safety program.............................................................................39 4-5 Companies that require the subcontractor s to comply with the safety program................39 4-6 New worker orientation required.......................................................................................40 4-7 Toolbox meetings held weekly..........................................................................................41 4-8 Worker incentive program.................................................................................................41 4-9 Hard hats required at all times...........................................................................................4 2 4-10 Safety glasses required at all times....................................................................................43 4-11 Drug testing program implemented...................................................................................43 4-12 When the drug tests are required.......................................................................................44 4-13 Employ a full time safety employee..................................................................................45 4-14 Safetys effect on productivity........................................................................................... 46 4-15 Reason for implementing the current safety program........................................................47 4-16 Employee verification of completing safety program.......................................................48 4-17 OSHA inspections in the past five years............................................................................49 4-18 Does your company compute its OSHA RIR?..................................................................50 8
PAGE 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Formed in 1971 under the Department of Labor NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Formed under the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. EMR Experience Modification Rate. A formula used by the insurance companies to rate the safety perf ormance of construction companies. OSHA RIR OSHA Recordable Injury Rate. Another method used to rate safety performance of construction firms. Th is is the number of injuries per 200,000 work hours. CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 9
PAGE 10
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 SAFETY PRACTICES OF SMALL TO MEDIUM-SIZED CONSTRUCTION FIRMS By Shane Gramlich Bizzell May 2008 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Building Construction Since the early days of constr uction, injuries on construction j obsites have been viewed as occurrences that are a part of the construction process. In 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was formed to reduce the risks that employees were exposed to while working. While OSHA oversees all occupational h azards, they have directed much of their attention to the construction industr y. This is because construction is one of the leaders in terms of the number of injuries sustained by workers in the United States of America. The effort that has been put forth by OSHA has made construction firms aware that jobsite safety is a concern of the government and should be made a priority on all jobs ites, without regard to the size of the project. Most of the safety studies involving construction firms have focused on the larger companies, in part because of the annual vol ume of work performed by these companies and because of the sizes of their jobs. This has been beneficial to the larger construction firms, but the smaller construction companies, accounting fo r the majority of th e construction industry, cannot compare themselves with companies that have more resources to use for safety. One reason that past safety studies have been focuse d on the larger firms might be that the sizes of 10
PAGE 11
11 their projects are usually larger, a nd therefore there is a greater reliability that can be placed on the safety performance measures, such as the OSHA recordable injury rate. One might think that a smaller company would have a lower incident rate and less chance of injuries on a job, because there are fewer em ployees to oversee and the sizes of the projects are usually smaller. This may be true, but th e smaller firms generally do not have a full-time safety representative to look over the jobs. The economy might be another f actor that influences the safety practices implemented by construction fi rms. The rate of cons truction (especially in the residential sector) has slowed, and companies ar e looking for jobs to keep their firm running. Under such conditions, the firms will attempt to cut costs to complete their projects at the lowest price, so as to ensure the highest profit on the job. A successful constructi on project is one that is completed on time, within budget, and without human suffering. Obviou sly, if a project is completed on time and under budget, an attractive prof it will probably be real ized. If someone is seriously injured on a job though, the potential prof its could be eroded or the project could even result in a loss. This thesis will target small to medium sized construction firms, defined as companies who perform up to $100 million dollars of contracted work per year. A survey on the most common safety practices that these companies implem ent was conducted. Reasons that particular practices were implemented were also examined. The common safety practices found in small to medium-sized construction firms were new worker orientation, dug test ing programs, requirements of hard hats, and toolbox talks.
PAGE 12
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Safety in construction is a topic that has changed the mindset for many of the construction firms in the U.S. The importance of safety in construction was overlooked for many years, and now companies are seeing the impli cations and/or conseque nces that come with injuries on the job. This has lead to many co mpanies changing their sa fety manuals, hiring a person on staff that handles the safety procedures on their projects, and some are even offering incentives to employees on projects during which there are no injuries recorded. The current market for construction, especially in the residential sect or is on a decline. This is making every project that much more important, so the cash flow situation with construction companies can stay positive. This means that either the construction companies are reducing the profit that they expect to make on a project, or they are cutting costs from different areas of the budget. Companies must carefully c onsider where they are reducing or eliminating costs from the budget. Some companies may be tempted to take money that was allocated for safety out of the budget. Although the idea of completing a project at a lower cost seems beneficial, the risks associated with cutting safety expenditures could prove to be detrimental. The studies conducted on construction safety have dealt with the firms that are usually in the Engineering News Record Top 400 construction firms. Thes e studies have identified different safety methods and policies that ha ve been implemented on different projects. Companies that have considered the implementa tion of different procedures in their safety programs have been able to look at these studie s and develop different procedures and practices for their own safety programs. The information gathered in the past has been very helpful, but just as every project in construction is different, so are the companies in construction. The small to medium-sized 12
PAGE 13
construction firms do not have the financial reso urces enjoyed by the larg er construction firms, and in turn, the amount of money a llocated to safety is usually less. The challenge that small to medium-sized construction firms face is how to ac hieve the highest level of safety on the project while expending the least amount possible. This study will focus on small/medium-sized construction firms, which are defined as firms that complete less than $100 million dollars of work each year. This thesis will identify the safety procedures and practices being employed by small to medium-sized construction firms. The results sh ould prove to be beneficial for small/mediumsized construction firms, in that they will be able to evaluate different safety techniques used by companies who are their peers. There will al ways be room for improvement for safety in construction, until every construc tion project is completed without any incidents. This idea should always have construction firms looking for ways to improve their safety practices and procedures. The limitations of this study lie in the hands of the companies surveyed. The answers given by the personnel interviewed might be biased to make their firms sound as if their safety program is flawless. Outline of this study: This introduction is the first of six chapters outlined in the study of safety in small to medium-sized construction firms. Chapter 2 is a literature review that presents information gathered through research about safety in construction. It will look at the history of construction safety, different methods implemen ted to ensure safe work performance in construction, the costs that are incurred when an employee is injured in a jobsite accident, and the different measurements of safety in c onstruction. This will provide a base for the information that will be examined in the results and conclusion chapter. 13
PAGE 14
14 Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study for obtai ning the information analyzed. This will outline the questions used in the interviews and surveys, and it will describe the process used to gath er the information. Chapter 4 presents the results, which show the data obtained as part of this research effort. This will lead to statements about safety in the construction industry and will provide answers to th e questions about safety in small to mediumsized construction firms. Chapter 5 is the Conc lusions chapter, which defines the most common safety procedures that are used in small to medium-sized construction firms, and the main reasons that these were selected for implementation by the firm.
PAGE 15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The safety performance record of the construc tion industry is far behind other industries in the U.S. This label, of being one of the most dangerous industries, is one that the construction industry as a whole would like to change. Different ideas have been expressed by construction companies on the types of safety procedures or pr actices that provide the safest environment for workers. This literature review will examine the history of safety in construction, some statistics focusing on construction safety, and the differe nt practices that c onstruction firms are implementing to strengthen their safety programs. Finally, the financial aspects of safety will be examined, by investigating the costs incurred wh en an injury occurs on the jobsite, and the different measures used to define th e safety performance of a company. History of Construction Safety Injuries in construction have been viewed as part of the job since the early construction efforts. The U.S. government realized the need to protect workers in all industries. The government passed the Occupational Safety and H ealth Act (OSH Act) of 1970 to address the safety needs in the work environment. The OSH Act states the purpose of the act is, to assure safe and healthful working conditions for work ing men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under th e Act; by assisting and encouragi ng the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupatio nal safety and health; and for other purposes ( www.osha.gov) The passage of the OSH Act of 1970 brought fort h two major contributors to the safety and well-being of employees in America. OSHA is the first agency that will be examined, and is generally the most recognizable in the constr uction industry. The Occupational Safety and 15
PAGE 16
Health Administration aims to ensure employees safety and health in the United States by working with employers and employees to crea te better working environments. Since its inception in 1971, OSHA has helped to cut wor kplace fatalities by more than 60 percent and occupational injury and illness rates by 40 percent ( www.osha.gov ). The Department of Labor is the head of this Agency and the safety and he alth of Americas workers is the main focus of their mission (www.osha.gov ). The other agency formed by th e Occupational Safety and Heal th Act of 1970 was NIOSH. This is the National Institute for Occupational Safe ty and Health. This agency is part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is in the Department of Health and Human Services, and its focus is safety in the workplace while providing healthful working conditions when people are on the job ( www.cdc.gov/niosh/). The formation of OSHA and NIOSH helped to open the eyes of the different industries in that the workplace needed to ensure that employ ees could complete their tasks without having to worry about their well-being. Congress recognized the need to focus on safety in construction, and in 1990, Congress directed NIOSH to start re search and train companies on ways to reduce the exposure to diseases and injuri es for U.S. construction workers ( www.cdc.gov/niosh/ ). This brought many studies, which were used to investig ate construction and to analyze how the safety environments of jobsites could be impr oved for the wellness of the employees. The construction industry responded to the init iative that the government was taking to make the workplace a safe place for employees and in 1989, The Construction Safety Council was formed. This non-profit organization was founded by large construction company owners who were seeking ways to inform the construction industry of the need for safety on jobsites ( www.buildsafe.org). The Construction Safety Council provi des safety training and education to 16
PAGE 17
construction companies, for their employees as well as the owners. Prior to these training sessions, they evaluated the status of safety in the construction industry, so that the information that they passed on was the most up-to-date information that they could provide. The Construction Safety Council also has consul tants that will come to a company, union, or association that needs their assist ance in safety of the jobsite ( www.buildsafe.org). Safety Statistics in Construction The construction industry has be en classified as one of the most hazardous industries in the United States for many years in terms of both fatal and nonfatal injuries (Gillen 2004). This is a major concern, as the construction industry employs roughly 6% of the workforce in the U.S., but a disproportionate number of injuries and fatalities occur in construction. Of approximately 600,000 construction companies, 90% employ fewer than 20 workers, and of these small companies few have safe ty programs that are implemented ( www.cdc.gov). This could help to explain why a companys size is usually related to the company injury rate. From 1988 1993 the larger construction firms had a lower injury frequency, and as the firm size got smaller the injury rate increased (M cVittie, Banklin, Brocklebank 1997). It is not just the smaller firms though that wa s contributing to the in jury statistics in construction. In 1993 despite employing only 5% of the industrial workforce, construction accounted for 14% of all workplace deaths and 9% of disabling injuries (Everett and Frank 1996). The only other industry that has a higher injury and illness rate than construction is agriculture (Jaselskis, Anderson, Russell 1996). Although these statistics are very high, the effort that has be en put forth by governmental agencies, academic research, and organizations within the constructi on industry have had a positive effect in reducing the number of injuri es in construction each year (Broderick and Murphy 2001). The Construction Industry Instit ute was formed by owners in both the private 17
PAGE 18
and public industry in construction to improve the overall effectivene ss and quality of the construction industry ( www.construction-institute.org ). The Construction Industry Institute issued a report in 1993 that was aimed at pr oviding construction comp anies with the most successful safety measures to eliminate injuries on the jobsite (Hinze and Gambatese 2003). The measures that have been taken to reduce the construction worker injuries on the jobsite have been helpful in reducing the injury rate, but the fatality rate in construction remains flat (Broderick and Murphy 2001). The statistics in construction not only provide a bad image in the public eye, but the skilled workers are now notic ing the hazards and it is becoming harder to attract these workers to construc tion (Everett and Frank 1996). Th is is the reason that safety programs are important to not only the employe rs, but also the employees. Not only do the workers feel safe, but they also notice that the company has their best interest in mind by trying to protect them from hazards on the jobsites. Safety Practices for the Jobsite Design Teams Role in Safety Construction is a complex industry where no tw o jobsites are the same. There are hazards that change daily on the jobsite, and when combined with the potential for up to 35 different subcontractors working in the same areas, the chance for injuries is increased ( www.cdc.gov/niosh/ ). There are many ideas on the best procedures to be used to prevent injuries on jobsites, and on ways to improve the safety of employees One of the first steps that can be taken by a construction company to improve safety on a jobsite is to provide input to the designers. This has been referre d to as a type of pre-job plan ning (Broderick and Murphy 2001). Designers generally have not focused on the safety of the means and methods used during construction, but if they are made aware of so me of these instances where safety will be a concern, then they might be able to remedy th e problem by altering the design. The Construction 18
PAGE 19
Industry Institute has designed a computer-bas ed program called Design for Construction Safety Toolbox, which helps the architect or de signer notice areas that might have potential hazards during construction (Hinze, Gambatese, Ha ss 1997). This tool was developed to be used by designers to help eliminate unnecessary risks on jobsites and to provide useful information to designers to be used when ma king future design decisions. Worker Training Worker training has been proven to be a very effective means of ensuring that workers have the ability to complete their tasks in a safe manner. Training is not the same as experience. Experienced workers may feel that since a task has been completed successfully on multiple projects without injury that th ey are being safe. This is no t necessarily true. Experienced workers may take certain procedures for grante d, let their guard down, and subsequently be involved in an accident. Data cl early shows that new workers to a company are at greater risk. Even long-term employees with th e same company are at a higher risk when they move from one project to another (Broderick and Murphy 2001). This shows that worker training is necessary for new and seasoned workers alike and the trai ning reiterates the hazards found on jobsites. Worker training can be provided in-house, but there are also co mpanies and organizations that provide excellent training servic es to construction companies. One of the most common types of training that companies provide for their employees is OSHA training. OSHA and their training centers distribute lists of their certified trainers and when they will be providing classes for a 10hour or 30-hour program. The trainers that ar e certified by OSHA to teach construction must have five years experience, and complete cour se 501 which involves the OSHA standards for the construction industry ( www.osha.gov ). This allows the employees for companies to learn the different regulations defined by OSHA, or if th ey are experienced workers it will act as a refresher course to items they have already learned. 19
PAGE 20
Pre-work Meetings/ Toolbox Talks Pre-work safety meetings, otherwise known as toolbox talks, are ac cepted in the industry as a formidable way to organize the workers on a jobsite, and to make everyone aware of the hazards that can occur during construction. On small construction projects, these meetings usually take place once a week, and are conduc ted by the safety e ngineer or the job superintendent. The attendees for the meetings c onsist of the general contractors employees that are onsite, and all of the subcontractors employ ees that are working that day. These meetings can be very effective, or they can be a waste of time. This is dependent upon the time and effort that the general contractor devotes to organizing the meeting. Many companies have a standard toolbox talk outline, and cover diffe rent hazards on the jobsite each week. As long as the subject covered relates to the work that will be taking place, it helps make the workers aware of the dangers that they could face that day. For instan ce, falls and ways to prevent them should not be discussed if on the primary work tasks involve sitework. All of the employees will be working at ground level, and this information would be us eless on the job that week. If the general contractor designs the toolbox talks to discuss th e scope of work that will completed that week then the toolbox talk will prove to be effective (Broderick and Murphy 2001). Language barriers can also limit the effectiven ess of toolbox meetings. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has shown that during the year s 1992 to 2002 the fatality rate for Hispanic construction workers tripled. Not all construc tion workers are bilingual, and if an Englishspeaking worker conducts the mee ting and some of the attendees only speak Spanish, only some of the employees will receive beneficial informa tion from the meeting. Some general contractors require the subcontractors provide a bilingual worker to be on th eir crew, and they must attend the toolbox talks. After the toolbox talk that is usually given in English, the bilingual worker will translate the information shared during th e toolbox talk to the employees who only speak 20
PAGE 21
Spanish. The Associated of Ge neral Contractors, otherwise k nown as AGC, provides training courses for general contractors to learn Spanish, which can help to eliminate the language barrier in construction (Parsons 2007). Drug Testing A drug-testing program is another effective wa y for construction companies to be proactive about safety on their jobsites. The success depe nds on the type of drug testing required by the company. Most companies that have a drug-testi ng program require a drug te st to be taken prior to beginning their employment with the company. This is helpful in making sure that workers that are hired are drug-free on the first day of employment. To increase the effectiveness of these drug tests, follow up drug tests should be implemented. These tests can be administered upon suspicion, at random, or after an accident. Th is helps to identify employees who may have started to abuse drugs after being hired. Workers may also have stopped using drugs so as to pass the test, and then start back up after being hired. Drug testing in large construction companies is quite common, but it is a relatively new practice in the small to medium-sized constructi on firms. Many of the smaller construction firms do not allocate sufficient money in their safety budgets to be able to require adequate drug testing, if at all. In a Ne vada construction safety study c onducted by Jimmie Hinze on drug testing in construction firms. It was discovered th at the lack of drug tes ting was associated with higher injury rates as the median injury ra te for these contractor s was 14.71, considerably higher than the injury rate reported by the firms with drug testing programs (Hinze and Gambatese 2003). Safety Incentives One of the highly debated safety practices that construction firms are using is providing their employees with safety incentives. A construction company can provide safety awards for 21
PAGE 22
their construction employees in multiple ways. One of the easiest and least expensive ways to provide a safety incentive for the employees is to recognize them in some way for undertaking their work tasks in a safe manner. This coul d also be done in a ne wsletter identifying the employees who completed work for the past year without an injury. While this may boost moral, many companies prefer to use monetary awards for their employees. Safety engineers and job superintendents can have safety incentives tied into a bonus that they will receive if they complete their jobs without an injury (Gille n, Kools, McCall, Sum, and Moulden 2004). A program such as this is only as good as the pe rson who will be overseeing the project. If the safety engineer or the superintendent buy into th e safety program and the incentive, they will put forth the effort to run the jobsit e in a safe manner. Under such an incentive, only the supervisor has a stake in the incentive, and the other employ ees may not see any value. If everyone on the jobsite has an incentive tied into their performance, then the employees would be watching each other to make sure that the work is be ing completed in a safe manner (Hinze 1997). While safety incentives are one of the most common practices that construction companies use for their safety program, it has controversy associated with it. There are construction companies that say their injury rate has declined after these incentives we re put into place (Gillen et al. 2004). While this may be true, the fact is that because an employee did not get hurt does not mean that the project was completed in a safe manner. The award or recognition is ostensibly based on the assumption that no worker was injured, but it does not consider if they actually performed all their work tasks in a safe manner (Hinze and Gambatese 2003). The chance of injuries being under-reported is another area where sa fety incentives could have a negative effect. Since incentives are tied directly to the injuries on a job, there may be workers who are injured, but do not report it. This way everyone will still be able to receive the 22
PAGE 23
bonus or incentive award. While everyone on the jobsite may be happy, the real issue has been swept under the rug. If they had reported the injury, then the constr uction company would be made aware of different risks that they have on th eir jobsite. They coul d then expend the effort to find solutions to eliminate them in the fu ture. The under-reporting gives the construction companies and their employees a false sense of security while on the jobsite (Hinze, unpublished report, 2005). Safety Personnel/ Safety Inspections Safety employees are individuals who work for a construction company, and their responsibility is to oversee the companys safety program and track safety information for recordkeeping purposes. The safety employee ma y be involved with new worker orientation, pre-job planning, toolbox talks, and employee training. This is a broad scope of work for one employee and would be a full time position (Hinze 1997). Construction companies can also hire an independent safety firm to assess the safety methods used by construction companies. This w ill eliminate any bias that may be apparent in the construction companies, and the constructio n companies will get an experts advice on how to achieve the highest security for their employees safety on the jobsite. JMJ is an independent consulting firm that has been used by many cons truction firms, and their approach is to add a new layer of commitment to the existing safety program. It requires shifting safety from a priority to a value, a deep-seated belief that it will not be compromised and it will actually drive companys actions. Independent safety consulting firms have proven to be a positive method used to improve a construction firm s safety program (Powers and Rubin 2005). The employment of safety personnel or an i ndependent safety consultation agency is a common practice with large construction firms, but with small to medium-sized construction firms, the safety budget may not allow this type of program. This is where the project managers 23
PAGE 24
who focus mainly on the scheduling and paperwork aspects of construction provide assistance in the field by enforcing safety. Jobsite safety insp ections are a method used to achieve this goal. The project manager meets with the job superinte ndent on the site and walks through the jobsite to look at the safety aspects of construction. These inspections usually are performed weekly, and range from one to two hours in length. A checklist is commonly used to conduct the inspection. The jobsite safety inspections should not be scheduled, in order to keep the workers unaware of when the inspection will be. If th e time is random, then the workers will need to make sure that they are working safely at all times (Hinze 1997). A study by Jimmie Hinze showed that although these safety inspections allo w project managers to become familiar with the jobsite and the safety procedur es being used, there have been no indications that these safety inspections reduce accidents (H inze and Gambatese 2003). Leading Indicators Many of the strategies used for coming up with the safety procedures for a companys safety program are developed by using lagging indicators. This method defines hazardous construction areas by looking where the past injuries on constructi on jobsites occurred. After the construction firms analyze this information, they can implement new safety techniques or procedures to put into their safety program. A lthough this gives an accurate account for areas of improvement, it only looks at the past. If a company is involved in a new and unfamiliar type of construction project, the safety program may not be as successful. The new trend for a companys safety procedures to be considered successful includes initiating preventative measures, which look for leading indicators on the j obsite. This is defining the problem before there is an actual injury a nd coming up with a plan to pr event it (Mohamed 2002). Leading indicators show that the compa ny takes the employees safety as a high concern, because there is more research required for leading indicators compared to lagging indicators. 24
PAGE 25
Costs Associated with Injuries Costs that construction companie s have incurred due to injuri es on jobsite have added to the importance of safety that owners are stressing to their employees. A study conducted by the Business Roundtable in 1979 found that injuries in construction accounted for 6.5% of the total cost for construction, including th e industrial, utility, and commercial divisions combined. The Business Roundtable also found that for the aver age construction company the amount of money allocated to the safety program is roughly 2.5% (Everett and Frank 1996). There are two types of costs that a constr uction company incurs when an employee is injured on the jobsite. These costs are defined as e ither direct costs or indi rect costs. The direct cost is one that the company can track after the in jury has occurred. An example of a direct cost would be any medical costs for the employee that are paid by workers compensation, disability benefits, or ambulance services that were required (Hinze 1997). While direct costs help to provide an account ing method to quantify the financial damage done by an injury on a jobsite, the construction company needs to also look at indirect costs. Indirect costs are not easily tracked or measured. Some examples of these costs are loss of productivity in the crews, training of repla cement employees, schedule delays, and the time allocated by administration to research the injur y. Since the indirect costs associated with injuries cannot be clearly measured, a cost multi plier is used. This multiplier is a ratio of the indirect costs to the direct costs, and varies from company to company. Usually these multipliers range from two to 20, and are assigned by the co nstruction company. An example would be if a construction company thought that th e indirect costs after an injury were not that severe they would probably use a multiplier of two. Whereas if a different construction company felt that the indirect costs were far greater than the dire ct costs then they would assign a higher multiplier value up to 20 (Everett and Frank 1996). 25
PAGE 26
Once the direct costs are accounted for by th e construction company, they will add the indirect costs to the direct costs associated with the injury to fi nd an estimate of the total costs associated with the particular injury. This can only be an estimate, since the indirect costs include an assumption of the ratio of the direct costs to the indirect co sts (Everett and Frank 1996). Measurements of Safety In construction there are multiple measurements used to evaluate a construction companys safety performance. While all of these measurements look at a firms safety statistics, they all (one-way or another) can be biased. The types of measurements will be defined below, and their advantages and disadvantages will be explained. EMR The Experience Modification Rate otherwise kno w as the EMR is a way that the insurance companies measure a construction companys safe ty on the jobsite. The EMR, which is employer-specific, is a complex formulation that takes into account bot h the frequency and the severity of the injury (Hinze 1997). The formula for the Experience Modification Rate is as follows. Experienced Modification = A p + WA e + (1 W) E e + B E + B The formula takes into account the following: Ap = the actual primary losses W = weight (provided in st ate experience rating plan manuals) Ae = the actual excess losses Ee = the expected excess loss E = the expected loss B = the ballast 26
PAGE 27
The EMR takes into account the co sts of the injuries along with the severity of injuries sustained by employees of a construction company. A severe injury is not as crucial as if a company has multiple minor injuries that add up to the same cost of a severe injury. For instance, if a construction comp any of a particular size (number of employees) paying a particular wage has one injury that costs $50,000 the EMR is around .8, but if that same company were to have five $10,000 injuries totaling $50,000 the EMR would be around 1.09. This shows that the EMR weighs the frequency of injuries higher that the severity of injuries (Hinze, Bren, Piepho 1995). The amount of workers compensation insuranc e that a company has to pay is dependent upon the EMR of the company multiplied by the manual rate that is established each of the trades employed by the company in a particular st ate. This shows that the insurance companies regard the EMR as an acceptable way to measur e a companys safety performance (Hinze 1997). The size of the construction firm plays a factor on the EMR rating when the valuations of the injuries vary. This is attributed to th e annual expenditures on la bor. If two construction firms have the same frequency of injuries, and the injuries cost the sa me (say $3,000), then the larger construction firm that spends more on la bor annually will have the lower EMR. If the frequencies stay the same, but the value of th e injuries increase significantly, the smaller construction company will have the more favorable EMR (Hinze et al. 1995). This is why it is important to look at the factor s that are being measured when evaluating a firms safety performance. OSHA Recordable Injury Rate The OSHA recordable injury rate is another measurement used to evaluate a construction companys safety performance. This measurem ent takes into account th e number of recordable injuries that are sustained by employs of a company per 200,000 worker hours of exposure. An 27
PAGE 28
28 example of how to calculate the OSHA RIR is as follows. A company that has 3 OSHA recordable injuries with 100,000 hour s of work performed would have an OSHA RIR of 6. This is found by using the following formula. (Number of OSHA recordable in juries/number of hours) 200,000 Using the formula the calculation woul d be (3/100,000)*200,000, which equals 6. The accuracy for determining the OSHA RIR lies in the hands of supervision and the employees to account for any injury considered recordable. The following is a list of requirements for injuries to be considered as recordable. Death Loss of consciousness Days away from work Restricted work activity or job transfer Medical treatment beyond first aid OSHA defines these classifications, and the form s for recording these injuries that can be found on the OSHA website ( www.osha.gov).
PAGE 29
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction For a construction company to be successful ther e have to be three fa ctors present on every project. The project must be completed on tim e, within budget, and with no serious worker injuries. If any one of these three factors is missing, the construction company performing the work could lose money or its reputation, which in turn could compromise business opportunities. Most construction companies put forth a strong effort in the estimating and scheduling of projects. The safety concerns on project do not s eem to get the same time and effort as the other two factors. This could be th e reason that the construction in dustry is one of the leaders in jobsite injuries and fatalities for all industries in the U.S. The safety research in the construction indus try conducted in the past has focused on the larger construction firms, and the smaller construction firms have been overlooked. The small to medium-sized construction firms make up the majo rity of the constructi on industry and research of these companies is warranted. This study focused on small to medium-sized construction firms, with the objective of identifying the most common safety procedures and practices being used by these companies. Although construction firms may complete the same tasks, the general operations can vary from firm to firm. If a comparison was to be conducted on a firm that completed $15 million dollars worth of work each year with a comp any that completed $212 million dollars of work each year there would be a tremendous difference in how the companies operated. This would include the nature and implementa tion of the safety programs of these companies. A small to medium-sized construction firm does not have the fi nancial assets that a la rger construction firm would have to allocate stric tly to safety on a jobsite. 29
PAGE 30
This situation places a greater burden on the sm all to medium-sized construction firms to find ways that they can have a successful and co st effective safety program implemented. This has become even more difficult with the dec line of construction in the industry. Many companies are trying to maximize profits while offering the lowest bid for work. This is where companies need to balance the priority of getti ng a job with the safety and well-being of their employees. The literature review showed that the gove rnment has put an emphasis on construction safety and the well-being of company employees Many organizations a nd associations have been formed to help construction companies with safety concerns, and to improve their current program. Some of the methods are very costly to construction firms. In order for a construction company to have a successful safety program it w ill require a concerted effort from all parties in the company. Research Methods This research was completed to identify safety policies and practi ces being employed in small to medium sized construction firms. The definition of a small to medium-sized construction firm was any construction company that completed less than $100 million worth of work each year. This definition excluded all construction companies that are included in the Engineering News Records list of Top 400 Firms for completed construction. A survey was developed to ask construction companies about the various aspects of their financial and safety information. An introdu ction was included w ith the questionnaire introducing this researcher to th e construction company, and letting them know that this research was to identify common safety practices in small to medium-sized construction firms. The construction companies were informed that their identities would not be included in the final analysis, and that if th ey would like a copy of the results, one would be provided to them at no 30
PAGE 31
charge, in return for participating in the survey. The survey consisted of 26 questions, some with multiple parts. This survey could be completed in around ten minutes and the questions ranged from company history, to view s of safety in construction. The construction companies to be included in this research were selected at random from firms doing business within the state of Florida. Companies were originally selected from a list of firms that had participated in the University of Florida Building Construction Career Fair. Additional companies were identified in the Blue Book of Construction website from which companies were randomly selected. A link on the website allows the user to examine each construction companys annual volum e of work. This feature was helpful in selecting companies to ensure that they satisfied the size criteria for the study. Initially, the research was conducted via a tele phone survey with the selected construction companies. This approach was selected so the person being interv iewed could expand on answers and give their beliefs on safety in cons truction. The telephone su rvey approach was not as successful as anticipated. In the construction industry, time is money, and when a random phone call was made to conduct the survey, it had to be at a time that was convenient to the interviewee. This led to playi ng phone tag with many of the selected construction firms. Seven telephone surveys were successfully completed. These seven respondents appeared to be more inclined to answer the opened ende d questions since they co uld explain their answers in a conversation. Since the telephone survey was not as successful as or iginally anticipated, the subsequent surveys were distributed to the c onstruction firms in another manner. Email was initially considered as a means of distributing the surveys, but this method would require the interviewees to save a copy of the survey to the drive on their computers, fill out the survey, save 31
PAGE 32
it again to their computer, and then send via ema il as an attachment. The survey was not meant to be tedious to the interview ees so this method was abandoned. A survey through the mail seemed to be the best option. The introduction, along with the questionnaire, was sent to the construction firms that were found in the Blue Book of Construction A self-addressed stamped envelope was included with each survey, so that it would not cost the construction firms to participate in the study. It was felt that this helped to get a higher response rate. With the surveys being distributed by mail the construction companies could complete the questionnaire when they had the available time and all they had to do was place it in the self-addressed stamped envelope and drop it in the mail. The telephone survey initially started in May of 2006. Afte r seeing the low response rate of the participants, and difficulty in scheduling callbacks during the workday, the written surveys were sent out in December of 2007. Initially 100 surveys were mailed out on December 10, 2007. The responses to the surveys began to be received as soon as thre e days after initially mailing them. The returned surveys seemed to st op two to three weeks after they were initially sent to the construction companies. The fi rst mail survey provided 12 respondents, which brought the total number of responses to 19. It was decided that the sa mple size was too small and that additional responses should be sought. On February 11, 2008, 100 more surveys were di stributed in the mail with self-addressed stamped envelopes. This round of surveys resulted in responses from 22 construction firms, the highest response rate experienced in this research. When reviewing the survey replies, it was noted that five surveys were not completed, an d some included statements that due to the construction slump they would not be performing any work this year. This resulted in 36 usable surveys for the final analysis. 32
PAGE 33
33 Data Analysis Upon receipt of the completed surveys, the responses from the construction companies were compiled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Each company was given a row on the spreadsheet, and their responses were inserted in each column. Many of the questions could be answered by checking a box, so in this case, a number was given to each possible response, and the number that was placed in the response column coincided with a sel ected answer. This procedure was also followed when questions co uld be answered with a yes or no response. Number one was used if the company responded y es, and number 2 was used if the company responded no. The questions th at sought opened-ended responses were also entered in the cells, and if a company did not respond, a dash wa s placed in the cell. There were instances where the company put a question mark in the an swer blank and for these a question mark was used. These questions were then compiled into charts to show the percentages of the answers that were shared by the construction firms. Thes e showed the prevalence of the use of specific safety practices for small to me dium-sized construction firms.
PAGE 34
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The survey consisted primarily of multiple-c hoice questions and opened-ended questions. The results for these questions are shown usi ng different methods, depending upon the type of question that was asked. The responses to the multiple-choice questions are shown in a bar chart to illustrate the distribution of responses to the questions. Th e opened-ended questions resulted in two types of responses. Some of the questi ons were answered with a numeric response and other were answered with a comm ent or opinion. The questions that had a numeric response are shown in charts, and the others are su mmarized in the paragraph descriptions. General Company Information Size was the determining factor for selecting companies. There were 36 companies that returned surveys, and all of the companies had annual volumes of business of less than $100 million. Table 4-1 shows information on the volume of work performed by the responding firms, with the average being $18.44 million. The volume of work ranged from $250,000 to $100 million, and the most common annual volume of work was $1 million dollars. Table 4-1. Projected volume of work for this year. Number of companies Average Median Mode Range 36 $18.44 $4.8 $5 $1 $250,000 $100 Million Note: Projected volume shown in millions. Experience can play a positive role in constr uction safety. The longer that a construction company is in business, the better prepared will be the company principals to address various types of issues that might arise. It would be su spected that this experience would be associated with better safety performance. Table 4-2 shows the experience history of the responding companies. The average amount of time that the companies had been in business is 22.22 years 3.1, with one company having 88 years of expe rience in the industry. The most common response for a companys length in the industry was 10 years. 34
PAGE 35
Table 4-2. Company history in the construction industry. Average Median Mode Range 22.22 3.1 19.5 10 2.5 88 Note: Company history is shown in years. The survey did not discriminate on basis of the type of constr uction undertaken or performed by the companies. The surveys we re returned from general contractors and subcontractors. Even subcontractors may subc ontract a portion of their work. An example would be for an electrical subcontractor that s ubcontracts the fire alarm installation to another company. Figure 4-1 shows that th e majority of surveys that were returned were completed by general contractors, with tw o companies stating that they fell into both categories. 32 2 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Firms General ContractorSubcontractor Both Figure 4-1. Classification of th e type of construction firm. The survey asked about the type of cons truction work that was performed by each responding firm. This was divided into the reside ntial sector and the commercial sector, with some of the companies stating that they fell into both of the categories. Some firms may have gained experience by working in both sectors of the construction industry, while others may have been residential builder s who undertook commercial projects when business opportunities in the residential market began to decline. Worki ng in both sectors could prove to be hazardous though, because the employees may be subjected to unfamiliar types of construction work. Figure 4-2 illustrates firms and the projects they complete. 35
PAGE 36
27 2 6 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Firms CommercialResidential Both N/A Figure 4-2. Types of projects typically built. Another way of describing companies by si ze is by the number of workers that the company employs. Table 4-3 shows the average number of workers employed (37.5 3.33 employees) by the construction company responde nts. The number of employees in the responding firms ranged from 1 600, but the av erage is clearly being influenced by the responding firm with 600 employees. Table 4-3. Number of employees on payroll. Average Median Mode Range 37.5 3.3 11 5 1 600 It is apparent that not all of the employees shown in Table 4-3 work in the field. The question was posed to see how many of the employees on payroll actually worked in the field, where they could be subjected to more serious safety issues on the jobsite. The responses showed that less than half of the empl oyees on payroll worked in the field. Table 4-4. Employees on payrol l who perform field tasks. Average Median Mode Range 18.6 10.9 5 1 0 400 With the construction industry slowing down, many companies have had to lay off some of their workers. The companies were then asked if the number of field personnel shown in Table 36
PAGE 37
4-4 reflected the normal size of their field la bor. Figure 4-3 shows that for 77.8% of the companies this reflected the averag e size of their field labor force. 28 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Firms Yes No Figure 4-3. Is this your averag e number of field employees? To find out about the extent of work that is subcontracted to other firms, the firms were asked about the amount of work that is self-per formed. The average response showed that 21% 4.6% of the field work is self-performed, but the most common response was that 10% was self-performed. The average for the work that is self-performed could have been affected by the responses from subcontractors who self-perform a large portion of their work. Subcontractors will perform most of their own work, and they te nd to subcontract only a small portion of their work on each project. Table 4-5. Percentage of field work self performed. Average Median Mode Range 21% 4.6% 10% 10% 0 100% The percentage of fieldwork self-performed by each company shows the amount of work performed by the general contractors or the s ubcontractors, i.e., there are many employees on a jobsite at one time. This worker crowding can result in hazardous situations, and the employees always have to watch what they are doing, because if they are not careful they cannot only hurt themselves, but they can injure other workers. The average number of subcontractors that are 37
PAGE 38
used by the construction firms on each project is 12.8 1.4. Seven of the companies did not respond to this question. Table 4-6. Average number of subcontractors on each job. Average Median Mode Range N/A 12.8 1.4 10 10 0 30 7 Public owners usually invest more time in th e safety of the project, and require background checks for construction companies who are biddi ng their projects. The companies were asked how much of their work completed is for public owners. The responses to this question ranged from 0% to 100%. The average for the firms was 29.8% 6.2%, but the most common response from the companies was 0%. Table 4-7. Percentage of work completed for public owners. Average Median Mode Range 29.8% 6.2% 10% 0% 0 100% Safety Programs and Contents The responses to the preceding questions provided a broad overview of the types of construction firms that responded in this study an d the type of construction work that they perform. The second half of the survey focuse d on the safety programs of the responding firms, including the different measures that the compan ies implemented to keep their employees safe while on the jobsite and how these safety procedur es are carried out. The recordkeeping of their past safety performance was also examined in th is area of the survey al ong with their views on safety and the overall effect that it can have on the performance of their workers while on the jobsite. The adherence to a safety program c onfirms the importance that a company places on safety for their employees. Of the 36 responding companies, 32 firms stated that they have a safety program that their employees must adhere to. All of the companies responded yes or no to this question in the survey. 38
PAGE 39
28 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Firms Yes No Figure 4-4. Number of firms with a safety program. Table 4-6 showed that the av erage number of subcontract ors on a project was 12.75 1.4. Every construction company has a different view on safety, and the importance of it. Many of the subcontractors in construction on ly take jobsite safety as serious as the general contractor that contracted with them. If the general contractor does not empha size the importance of safety, the subcontractors often follow suit. Figure 4-5 show s that 26 of the contractors stated they require subcontractors on their jobs to comply with th e components of their safety programs. This demonstrates to the subcontractors that the general contractors believe that safety is of the utmost importance. This guidance can help the subcont ractors to perform work in a safe manner. 26 7 3 0 10 20 30 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Figure 4-5. Companies that requ ire the subcontractors to comp ly with the safety program. The Literature Review explained that one of the measures that can be taken by a construction company early in the construction pr ocess is to provide employees with worker 39
PAGE 40
orientation sessions. This usually gives a broa d overview of the companys procedures while working in the field, and what the employee will n eed to do if an accident were to occur. Figure 4.6 shows that 29 of the 36 responding companies included new worker orientation in their safety program, and one company did not. The new worker orientation varies in length, with two hours being the highest response for the length. 29 1 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Figure 4-6. New worker orientation required. Toolbox meetings take a proactive approach on the jobsite where the superintendent (or the individual conducting the toolbox m eeting) goes over the different ar eas of construction that will be taking place during the week, and informs the work ers of the hazards that they may face while on the job. Since these meetings are held weekly, the information is always fresh in the minds of the employees and subcontractors. These meetings also open up discussions if any of the subcontractors or employees has safe ty concerns they would like to have addressed. This lets the subcontractors or employees know that safety is a team effort and that in order for a construction jobsite to be safe it takes everyone s input to locate di fferent areas on the jobsite where injuries could occur. Figure 4-7 shows th at 74% of the respondents stated that they hold toolbox talks weekly on their jobsite to address safety, while ei ght (26%) of the respondents do not. Six of the companies did not answer the question if a toolbo x talk was held weekly on their construction jobsites. 40
PAGE 41
23 8 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Figure 4-7. Toolbox mee tings held weekly. Worker Incentive programs as explained in the Literature Review are aimed at rewarding the employees for performing work without accidents. The con cept is good, but just because someone is not injured on the job does not mean that the job was completed in a safe manner. The objective of incentives is for workers to take stock of safety of the project, and instead of a few eyes looking out for worker safety, everyone on the job will be making sure the job is as safe as possible. Figure 4-8 shows that 13 compan ies include safety incentive programs for their employees, while 18 of the companies do not. 13 18 5 0 5 10 15 20 Number of Firms Yes No N/a Figure 4-8. Worker incentive program. OSHA requires that hard hats must be worn on the jobsite when there is the potential for injury from objects falling from above. If there is no hazard of objects falling from above, then the hard hat is optional for anyone on the jobs ite, according to OSHA. Companies requiring hard 41
PAGE 42
hats to be worn at all times while on the jobsite have strengthened this requirement. This eliminates any confusion or misinterpretation of the OSHA guidelines, and ensures that if there is an OSHA inspection, hardhats will not be an issue during the walkthrough. Of the 36 responding companies, 23 require hard hats to be worn at all times while on the jobsite. The response only when required by OSHA was given by one company. 23 7 5 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Per OSHA Figure 4-9. Hard hats required at all times. Like hardhats, OSHA only requires safety gl asses to be worn when workers are using equipment or tools that have the po tential to cause harm to the eyes or the face. This means that the employees are not required to wear safety glasses at all times while on the job, unless their work that they are completing at that time falls into the description provided by OSHA. This requires the onsite supervisory pe rsonnel to remind the employees if they are performing certain tasks that they must have their safety glasses on. The question was posed to the participants if they required their employees to wear safety gl asses on the job at all times and not just when OSHA requires them to. Of the participants 10 responded yes, 17 responded no, six did not answer the question, and three clarified that they are worn onl y per OSHAs requirements. The tasks in construction that requi re safety glasses to be worn on the job per OSHA are minimal compared to the number of different tasks that can be performed on the jobsite throughout a project. 42
PAGE 43
10 17 6 3 0 5 10 15 20 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Per OSHA Figure 4-10. Safety glasse s required at all times. The Literature Review described drug-testing po licies that can be used in the construction industry, and explained that th is is a new practice among many small to medium-sized construction firms. Drug testing programs ar e a type of preventative measure, and an investigative post accident drug test can be en forced by construction companies. If the employees are screened prior to working with th e company, then the construction firm is taking measures to make sure they are not hiring someone who has an addiction to drugs. Many of the companies require testing after an accident, to make sure that the employee was under sound mind while they were working, and the drugs or alcohol did not hinder th eir ability to work. This would be considered a post-accident indicat or. Of the companies participating in the study, 26 said that they have a drug testing policy in their safety program. Nine of the participating companies stated that they did not have such a policy in their safety program. 26 9 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Figure 4-11. Drug testing program implemented. 43
PAGE 44
If the companies indicated that they had im plemented a drug testing program, they were asked to define when these tests were admini stered. Seventeen of the 26 responding companies indicated that they have a drug-te sting program and required the test s prior to hiring the workers. The next highest response for when drug tests would be administered was for post accident evaluations and to satisfy workers compensatio n requirements. Post accident drug tests are administered in 16 of the 26 companies that have a drug-testing program. Figure 4-12 illustrates when the participating compan ies require the drug tests. 17 16 7 7 0 5 10 15 20 Number of Firms Pre HirePost AccidentSuspicionRandom Figure 4-12. When the drug tests are required. Large construction companies usually have a full time employee who oversees the safety aspects of the company, and trie s to eliminate the chance of injuries on the jobsites. As explained in the Literature Review, the sma ll to medium-sized companies do not have the financial resources that are available to the larg er companies. Therefore, the small to mediumsized construction firms have to run their organization in a differ ent manner. A fourth (25%) of the participants in this study employ a full time person to overs ee the safety aspects of the company. Most (69.4%) of the co mpanies stated that they did not have a full time safety employee, and one of the 36 companies stated they have a part time safety employee. This would lead to the project managers taking on th e responsibility to overs ee the project safety. 44
PAGE 45
9 25 1 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Firms Yes No N/a Part Time Figure 4-13. Employ a full time safety employee. Safety and its effect on productivity of em ployees is a concern that many construction companies have in the industry. Some industry pr ofessionals consider safe ty and productivity to be mutually achievable goals while others consider them to be mutually exclusive. If a company believes that productivity compromi ses the rate at which a person can complete tasks, they might reduce the level of safety enforcement to av oid losses and to stay on schedule. When a construction company cuts back on the safety budget for a project to reduce costs, it will increase the chance of an injury on the job and could actually end up costing the company more money than they would have saved by keeping to the bu dget or schedule. If someone on the jobsite is injured it can slow the construc tion process considerably. Not only will the injured employee have to be treated, the co-worke rs on the jobsite might be affect ed mentally by the injury, and this would contribute to slowing down the rate of productivity. Of the 36 participants, 22 stated they felt that safety actually incr eases productivity, while three beli eved that it compromises it. Nine of the companies felt safety has no effect on the productivity of the employees, and two of the companies did not answer the question. Mo st respondents felt that the achievement of efficient work did not have to compromise safety while on the construction jobsite. This is an important view on safety that the construction company should let their employees know that performing tasks in an unsafe manner can actu ally slow the construction process down. 45
PAGE 46
3 9 22 2 25 20 10 1 Number of Firms 5 5 0 No Answe r It Increases It No Effect It Compromises It Figure 4-14. Safetys effect on productivity. Part of the focus for this study was to de fine the reasons that the companies had implemented the current safety program. This question was left opene d ended so that the participants could expres s their views on the subject matter, and they would not be limited to multiple-choice answers. Although this was an opened ended question, the responses could be grouped into five different categories. The categories are as follows: internal, external, legal, save money, and isolated incident. Six of the participants did not res pond to this question. The companies were not limited to one category; de pendent on how they felt, they could have a response that fell into more than one category. The answers were grouped into internal respon ses, which varied from company beliefs that it was the right thing to do and that the company was concerned for the employees. Many of the external responses cited requirements by the gover nment, the owner, and OSHA. The companies that responded legal to the questi on may have been referring to li ability and potential lawsuits. There were companies who stated that they want ed to lower their workers compensation rate, and these participants were grouped in to th e Save Money category. One company answered the question with isolated incide nt. Figure 4-15 shows the ca tegories and the responses from the participants. Internal factors received the highest response ra te for this question with 15 of the companies citing that this was the reason the current safety program was implemented. 46
PAGE 47
15 6 6 8 6 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Firms InternalExternalLegalSave MoneyN/AIsolated Incident Figure 4-15. Reason for implementing the current safety program. Safety Record Keeping and Statistics Keeping well maintained records of a comp anys safety performance shows that the company is concerned with their safety, by taking the time required to keep the records up-todate. This way the company can track their safe ty performance over time and easily determine if it has improved or declined over the years. Ke eping records also shows that the company has studied the rating systems for safety in construc tion. To achieve the highest ratings, they would have to know how different measures are calculated. One way that construction companies can protect themselves is to require their employees to sign a form stating that they have completed safety training, and are aware of the current safety program and its contents. This way the employee knows if they have received all of the components of the safety program, and they ar e assuring the company that they have the knowledge to perform the field tasks in a safe manner as set forth by the company. Of the respondents, 63.8% confirmed that they require their employees to prov ide documentation that they have completed the safety program, while 30.5% of the companies do not. Two companies did not respond to this question. This type of verification provides the construction company with a written record stating their employees have received the training to perform their tasks in a safe manner and allows the companies to follow up with continuing education. 47
PAGE 48
23 11 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Firms Yes No N/A Figure 4-16. Employee verification of completing safety program. OSHA is a well-known and recognized agency that performs random safety checks on construction jobsites in the U.S. The OSHA compliance officer must provide documentation of their credentials to the general c ontractor on the site, a nd then they typically walk the site with the superintendent. The length of the inspections can vary, and a report is written at the end of the inspection to make the genera l contractor aware of any violat ions or corrections that are needed. Based on the compliance officers notes, the OSHA Area Director will decide if it is appropriate to issue fines/cita tions for not complying with the OSHA standards. Figure 4-17 shows the number of participants who have had an OSHA inspection in the past five years. Some have argued that once OSHA performs an in spection and they find a violation, then that company is targeted by OSHA in the future. Th is is a false statement. The OSHA inspections are random, and are usually initiated by a complian ce officer who happens to see a jobsite while driving. The response to the ques tion if the companies have had an OSHA inspection in the past five years was almost split. There were 20 companies that stated they have had an OSHA inspection while 16 of the 36 companies responde d they did not. All of the respondents answered this question. While some companies may feel that it is a bad th ing if OSHA visits the jobsite, it can actually prove to be very benefi cial. The OSHA inspector might bring up areas of concern that were originally ove rlooked in the jobsite planning. 48
PAGE 49
20 16 0 5 10 15 20Number of Firms Yes No Figure 4-17. OSHA inspections in the past five years. The results from the participants who had OSHA inspections varied from no citations, to minimal infractions. None of the companies pa rticipating in the study claimed that they had major violations or infractions brought upon them by OSHA after the inspection. As described in the Literature Review a company can compute their OSHA Recordable Injury Rate by taking the number of recordable injuries as de fined by OSHA and divide this number by the total number of worker-hours work ed by the company. Then take this quotient and multiply it by 200,000 worker-hours. In order for the OSHA RIR to be accurate, th e company must keep accurate recordable injury records. In the survey there were two related questions. The first posed the question of the number of accidents in the past year where a worker was treated by a doctor. The next question consisted of two parts, and inquired if the company computes its own OSHA RIR and, if so, what it was. If the companies participati ng knew of their injuries in the past year, and they had the records for the hours worked, then the OSHA RIR would be found using the equation provided in the Literature Review. The results from the responding companies are as follows: 22 of the companies stated that they did not have any injuries that were treated by a doctor in the past year. Seven of the companies had one, four of the companies had tw o injuries, one company had three injuries, one 49
PAGE 50
50 company had 7 injuries, and the most injuries repo rted by a participant was 43 injuries in the past year. Figure 4-18 shows the number of companies who compute their OSHA RIR. 10 23 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Firms Yes No N/A What is RIR? Figure 4-18. Does your company compute its OSHA RIR? Three of the ten companies that answered yes to the question in Figure 4-18 were able to provide the companys OSHA RIR. This failure to be able to give details about the company RIR may indicate that the individual did not have access to the safety performance measures. The last question that was asked of the participants was if th ey knew the companys Experience Modification Rating (EMR). The EMR as defined in the Literature Review shows how a companys safety performance compares to ot her companies in the industry. The EMR is a factor in the Workers Compensation Insurance rate that construction companies pay. Nine companies answered the question, one company left the response blank, and 26 of the companies asked what EMR stood for. Table 4-8 has compiled the information gathered from the questions in the survey dealing with the different safety practices in small to medium-sized cons truction firms. The table shows the common safety practices found in sma ll to medium-sized construction firms. Table 4-8. Common safety pr actices of small to medium-sized construction firms. New worker orientation Drug testing program Hard hats required at all times Toolbox talks Worker incentive program Safety glasses required at all times Full time safety employee 80.56% 72.22% 63.89% 63. 89% 36.11% 27.78% 25.00%
PAGE 51
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The objective of the study was to provide information on which types of safety procedures are used in small to medium-sized construction firms. To be considered as being small or medium-sized, a firm must have an annual volume of business of less than $100 million. Previous studies dealing with safety in constructi on has focused on the larger construction firms. The number one safety procedure used by the participants in the study is requiring a new worker orientation for the employees. This can vary in costs dependent upon the duration of the orientation session, and if the orie ntation consists of meetings or just reading a manual provided by the company. The Literature Review described drug testi ng in the industry, and how smaller construction firms were not implementing this as a safety pr ocedure, primarily due to the high costs. The results negated this comment, and showed th at drug testing was the second most common procedure used by small to medium-sized construc tion companies. This may reflect the concern that the construction companies have for th eir employees, and the declining costs for administering a drug test. The construction comp anies may also receive a lower insurance rate for being a drug free workplace. Toolbox talks and hard hats being required at all times was tied for third on the most common safety practices. These requirements ha ve a minimal impact on the project budget, and if conducted properly can prove to be beneficial in increasing the safe ty on a jobsite. The rest of the practices were implemented by less than half of the participants in the study, and will not be examined any further. The response that stood out in Figure 4-15 is saving money. Eight companies responded that the safety program was implemented to re duce the workers compensation insurance rate. 51
PAGE 52
52 Although they expressed a concern about the worker s compensation rates, but they were asked later about the EMR, many of the respondents questioned what the EMR was. With this playing a factor in the workers comp ensation insurance rate, and the high response that the companies wanted to reduce this cost it was anticipated th at they would all know this value.
PAGE 53
CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS This study focused on the most common safety procedures that are used in small to medium-sized construction firms. This study can se rve as a base to furthe r research of small to medium-sized construction firms. A recommendation of studying the EMR and the OSHA RIR for each company, along with the components of their safety program, one co uld analyze which components have the largest affect on the safety ratings. This would prove beneficial for the small to medium-sized construction firms to reevaluate the current components of their safety program. Originally, the method used to collect data for this study was via the telephone. This method would be acceptable for future study, as l ong as the interviewer had the ability to place calls during the normal business hours in a day. Because of other daytime obligations of this researcher, the telephone interviews proved to be a major obstacle in this research. The use of surveys sent in the mail with self -addressed envelopes proved to be successful in collecting data. The turnaround time for the surveys was around two to three weeks. If a company did not respond by then, usually they did not respond at all. Calling or emailing the potential participants could cut down on the number of surveys that are not returned. An email could be sent out asking the companies to decline or accept the offer to be part of the study. Only the companies accepting the offer would recei ve the surveys, and this would save time and money on the interviewers part. It would also make sure that th e company is still in business. The Blue Book of Construction was used for selecting companies in this study, and although the latest edition online was used, there still were companies that had gone out of business. This may be due, in part, to the c onstruction industry becomi ng more competitive and the amount of construction slowing down. 53
PAGE 54
54 The participants should also be grouped into the same category in future studies, as far as the type of construction. Reside ntial contractors usually do not have extensive safety programs that may be more common for commercial contractors. This study has many branches that can be inve stigated through future studies to improve jobsite safety for small to medium-sized construc tion firms, and with the majority of the industry falling into this size category, it is essential for worker safety.
PAGE 55
APPENDIX A SURVEY Questionnaire for Safety in Small to Medium Sized Construction Firms 1. How long has your company been in business? ______ Years 2. What is the approximate projected volume of work for the upcoming year? $_______ Million 3. What was the average volume of work completed by the company 5 years ago? $ Million 4. Does your firm work as a general cont ractor or as a spec ialty/subcontractor? General contractor Subcontractor 5. a. How many employees do you currently have on your payroll? _____ Employees b. Of these employees how many pe rform field tasks? _______ Employees Is this typically the size of your field labor force? yes no 6. What percent of the contra cted construction work does yo ur company self perform? ______ % If less then 100%, how many subcontracts do you have on most projects? _____ Subs 7. What type of work do the field employ ees perform (ex. Masonry, concrete, etc.)? 8. for GC: What kind of projects do es you firm typically build? __________________ for subs: What kind of work does you firm do? __________________ 9. What percent of the projects are done for public owners? ________ % 10. Does you firm have a safety policy or safety program? yes no If yes, do you require your subcontractors to comply with the requirements that are stated in it? yes no 11. What does your safety program consist of? new worker orientation, if yes who receives the orientation? all new hires If yes, how long is the orient ation, typically? ______ Hours are toolbox meetings held each week on the project? yes no does the company have a worker safety incentive program? yes no new workers must submit to a drug test before being hired? yes no hard hats are required to be worn at all times on the job? yes no safety glasses are required to be worn at all times on the job? yes no 55
PAGE 56
12. Does your company have a drug-t esting program? If yes when are th e drug tests required? 13. Has your firm ever prepared a site specifi c safety program for a particular project? yes no 14. What percent of your employees wear safety glasses when on the job? ______% 15. How do you enforce safety comp liance with subcontractors? __________________________________________________________________ 16. When was safety designated a major part of your company?_____________ 17. How has the safety program changed in the past 5 years? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 18. What was the reason for implementing the current sa fety program that you use? (internal, external, legal, etc.) __________________________________________________________________ 19. How do you enforce safety co mpliance with your employees? __________________________________________________________________ 20. In general, how do you feel safety relates to productivity? Safety compromises Productivity Safety has no effect on Productivity Safety Increases Productivity 20. Do you employ a full-time safety person in the company? yes no If so how many jobs will that person oversee at a time? _________________ How much time does the safety person spend on the jobs? ___________________ What is their background? (safety, production, trades)___________________ 21. What aspects of your program do you feel has been the most successful in providing a safe workplace for your employees? __________________________________________________________________ 22. Is there any documentation th at you require employees to si gn verifying that they have completed your safety training? yes no 23. Have you had any OSHA inspections in the past 5 years? yes no If yes, how did it turn out? ____________________________________________ 56
PAGE 57
57 24. About how many injuries have your company wo rkers had in the past year where they were treated by a doctor? _______ Injuries 25. Does your company compute its OSHA recordable injury rate? yes no If yes, do you know what the RIR is? RIR=________ 26. What is your company EMR? ________
PAGE 58
APPENDIX B THESIS QUESTIONAIRE INTRODUCTION Hello, my name is Shane Bizzell, and I am a gra duate student in the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Flor ida. I am conducting a study on safety programs in Small to Medium-Sized construction firms. I am gathering information on various aspects of safety programs. The benefit of this study will provide the most common safety procedures used in Small to Medium-Sized Construction Firm s, and the reasons for implementing them. I have enclosed a survey with various questions about your safety progr am. If you decide to participate in this study, then please fill out the questionnaire, place it in the self-addressed envelope, and return it as soon as possible. Many of the questi ons can be answered by simply answering yes or no. There are no risks associated with participating in this study, and it should take about ten minutes to complete. Naturally, y ou are asked to answer only those questions that you feel comfortable in answering. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. The results of this study will be compiled and a su mmary report will be prepared. As a token of our appreciation for participating in the st udy, I would be happy to provide a copy of the summary report to you at no charge. If you would like a copy of the summary please send an email to sbizzell@ufl.edu stating that you participated in the study and would like a copy of the summary. This will ensure that your identity will be kept separate from your survey. Upon completion I will send a copy of the survey to your office. Following this procedure will ensure that I have no knowledge of who completed the surveys. Your consent to participate will be implied by the completion of the surv ey. You may withdraw your consent to participate at any time without penalty. For questions about your rights as a research participant, cont act the IRB office at 352-392-0433. The responses you provide will be kept strictly anonymous to the extent provided by law. Research data will be summarized so that th e identity of individual participants will be concealed. To keep your survey anonymous, please do not include your return address when returning the survey. The report will include surveys from a maximum of 100 participants, not just your company. You have my sincere thanks for particip ating in the valuable study. The results to the research will be provided to your company upon request. This research will identify the common safety practices that are us ed in Small to Medium-Sized construction firms and the reasons they were implemented. You may withdraw your part icipation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them, and I can also direct you to the personnel at the University of Florida. My name is Shane Bizzell Phone: (941) 312-4972 Email:sbizzell@ufl.edu Others that can be contacted: 58
PAGE 59
59 Jimmie Hinze Holland Professor, Director of Center for Construction Safety Loss and Control Phone: (352) 273-1167 Fax: (352) 392-4537 Email: hinze@ufl.edu University of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433 Email: IRB2@ufl.edu
PAGE 60
LIST OF REFERENCES Brodercik, Tom, and Murphy, Dan (Oct 2001). C onstruction Safety: A Cruel Oxymoron? Occupational Health and Safety, ASCE 70(10), 68-70. Construction Industry Institute official website, www.construction-institute.org (Feb. 18, 2008) Construction Safety Council official website, www.buildsafe.org (Feb. 17, 2008) Everett, John and Frank Jr., Peter (Jun 1996). Cost of Accidents and Injuries to the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 122(2), 158-64. Gillen, Marion, Kools, Susan, McCall, Cade, Sum, Juliann, and Moulden, Kelli (2004). Construction Managers Percepti on of Construction Safety in Small and Large Firms: A Qualitative Investigation. Work, ASCE, 23(3), 233-43. Hinze, Jimmie, Bren, Dave, and Piepho, Nancy (Dec 1995). Experience Modification Rating as a Measure of Safety Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 121(4), 455-58. Hinze, Jimmie, Gambatese, John, and Hass, Carl (1997). Tool to Design for Construction Worker Safety. Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 3(1), 32-42. Hinze, Jimmie, and Gambatese, John (Mar/A pr 2003). Factors That Influence Safety Performance of Specialty Contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 129(2), 159-64. Hinze, Jimmie, W. (1997). Construction Safety, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Jaselskis, Edward, Anderson, Stuart, and Russell, Jeffrey (Mar 1996). Str ategies for Achieving Excellence in Construction Safety Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 122(1), 61-71. McVittie, D., Banklin, H., and Brocklebank, W. (Oct1997). The Effects of Firm Size on Injury Frequency in Construction. Safety Science, ASCE, 27(1), 19-23. Mohamed, Sherif (Oct 2002). Safety Climate in Construc tion Site Environments. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 128(5), 375-85. Occupational Health and Safety Website, www.osha.gov (Feb. 18, 2008) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, www.cdc.gov/niosh/ (Feb. 18, 2008) Powers, Mary Buckner and Rubin, Debra K. (Jume 6, 2005). More Companies Bring Jobsite Safety: Up Close And Personal. Engineering News Record, ENR, 254(22), 26-29. Parsons, Jim (September 2007). Mastering the Safety Message. Colorado Construction www.coloradoconstruction.com (Feb. 17, 2008) 60
PAGE 61
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shane was born in Pensacola, Florida, and that is where he spent mo st of his life growing up. Shane moved to Montgomery, Alabama for tw o years, and Birmingham, Alabama for one year. This was during the first through third grade. Shane completed the re st of his education all of the way through high school when he m oved back to Pensacola, Florida in 1987. Upon graduation from Escambia High School in 1996, Shane was accepted to The University of Florida. This is where Shane comp leted his undergraduate de gree in finance at the Warrington College of Business in the fall of 2000. After graduation, Shane took a couple of years off and tried to decide what he was going to do with the rest of hi s life. One of Shanes roommates while in undergraduate school was a student in the Rinke r School of Building Construction. Shane was always intrigued with the type of work that his roommate was completing for his classes. In the fall of 2003, Shane moved to Gainesville, Fl orida with his future wife to enroll in the Rinker School of Building Construction. Or iginally, Shane planned to receive a post baccalaureate degree, but after ta lking to Dottie Beaupied at th e school of Building Construction, he decided to pursue a masters degree. Shane completed his coursework for the degree in the summer of 2006, but due to the lack of success with telephone interviews, he did not receive adequate responses for his survey. Shane moved to Sarasota, Florida and began worki ng for a construction firm that falls into the category defined earlier as a small to medium-s ized firm. Shane has been working for this company since September of 2006 and has been very pleased with the selection to work in construction. Shane is now currently married, pr omoted to Project Manager, and is planning to purchase his first house sometime around August. 61
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study for obtaining the information
analyzed. This will outline the questions used in the interviews and surveys, and it will describe
the process used to gather the information. Chapter 4 presents the results, which show the data
obtained as part of this research effort. This will lead to statements about safety in the
construction industry and will provide answers to the questions about safety in small to medium-
sized construction firms. Chapter 5 is the Conclusions chapter, which defines the most common
safety procedures that are used in small to medium-sized construction firms, and the main
reasons that these were selected for implementation by the firm.
2008 Shane Gramlich Bizzell
Health Administration aims to ensure employees safety and health in the United States by
working with employers and employees to create better working environments. Since its
inception in 1971, OSHA has helped to cut workplace fatalities by more than 60 percent and
occupational injury and illness rates by 40 percent" (www.osha.gov). The Department of Labor
is the head of this Agency and the safety and health of America's workers is the main focus of
their mission (www.osha.gov).
The other agency formed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was NIOSH.
This is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. This agency is part of the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and its focus is safety in the workplace while providing healthful working
conditions when people are on the job (www.cdc.gov/niosh/).
The formation of OSHA and NIOSH helped to open the eyes of the different industries in
that the workplace needed to ensure that employees could complete their tasks without having to
worry about their well-being. Congress recognized the need to focus on safety in construction,
and in 1990, Congress directed NIOSH to start research and train companies on ways to reduce
the exposure to diseases and injuries for U.S. construction workers (www.cdc.gov/niosh/). This
brought many studies, which were used to investigate construction and to analyze how the safety
environments ofjobsites could be improved for the wellness of the employees.
The construction industry responded to the initiative that the government was taking to
make the workplace a safe place for employees and in 1989, The Construction Safety Council
was formed. This non-profit organization was founded by large construction company owners
who were seeking ways to inform the construction industry of the need for safety on jobsites
(www.buildsafe.org). The Construction Safety Council provides safety training and education to
This situation places a greater burden on the small to medium-sized construction firms to
find ways that they can have a successful and cost effective safety program implemented. This
has become even more difficult with the decline of construction in the industry. Many
companies are trying to maximize profits while offering the lowest bid for work. This is where
companies need to balance the priority of getting a job with the safety and well-being of their
employees.
The literature review showed that the government has put an emphasis on construction
safety and the well-being of company employees. Many organizations and associations have
been formed to help construction companies with safety concerns, and to improve their current
program. Some of the methods are very costly to construction firms. In order for a construction
company to have a successful safety program it will require a concerted effort from all parties in
the company.
Research Methods
This research was completed to identify safety policies and practices being employed in
small to medium sized construction firms. The definition of a small to medium-sized
construction firm was any construction company that completed less than $100 million worth of
work each year. This definition excluded all construction companies that are included in the
Engineering News Record's list of Top 400 Firms for completed construction.
A survey was developed to ask construction companies about the various aspects of their
financial and safety information. An introduction was included with the questionnaire
introducing this researcher to the construction company, and letting them know that this research
was to identify common safety practices in small to medium-sized construction firms. The
construction companies were informed that their identities would not be included in the final
analysis, and that if they would like a copy of the results, one would be provided to them at no
Although they expressed a concern about the workers' compensation rates, but they were asked
later about the EMR, many of the respondents questioned what the EMR was. With this playing
a factor in the workers' compensation insurance rate, and the high response that the companies
wanted to reduce this cost it was anticipated that they would all know this value.
Number of Firms
It Compromises It No Effect It Increases It No Answer
Figure 4-14. Safety's effect on productivity.
Part of the focus for this study was to define the reasons that the companies had
implemented the current safety program. This question was left opened ended so that the
participants could express their views on the subject matter, and they would not be limited to
multiple-choice answers. Although this was an opened ended question, the responses could be
grouped into five different categories. The categories are as follows: internal, external, legal,
save money, and isolated incident. Six of the participants did not respond to this question. The
companies were not limited to one category; dependent on how they felt, they could have a
response that fell into more than one category.
The answers were grouped into internal responses, which varied from company beliefs that
it was the right thing to do and that the company was concerned for the employees. Many of the
external responses cited requirements by the government, the owner, and OSHA. The companies
that responded legal to the question may have been referring to liability and potential lawsuits.
There were companies who stated that they wanted to lower their worker's compensation rate,
and these participants were grouped in to the "Save Money" category. One company answered
the question with "isolated incident". Figure 4-15 shows the categories and the responses from
the participants. Internal factors received the highest response rate for this question with 15 of
the companies citing that this was the reason the current safety program was implemented.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Safety in construction is a topic that has changed the mindset for many of the
construction firms in the U.S. The importance of safety in construction was overlooked for
many years, and now companies are seeing the implications and/or consequences that come with
injuries on the job. This has lead to many companies changing their safety manuals, hiring a
person on staff that handles the safety procedures on their projects, and some are even offering
incentives to employees on projects during which there are no injuries recorded.
The current market for construction, especially in the residential sector is on a decline.
This is making every project that much more important, so the cash flow situation with
construction companies can stay positive. This means that either the construction companies are
reducing the profit that they expect to make on a project, or they are cutting costs from different
areas of the budget. Companies must carefully consider where they are reducing or eliminating
costs from the budget. Some companies may be tempted to take money that was allocated for
safety out of the budget. Although the idea of completing a project at a lower cost seems
beneficial, the risks associated with cutting safety expenditures could prove to be detrimental.
The studies conducted on construction safety have dealt with the firms that are usually in
the Engineering News Record Top 400 construction firms. These studies have identified
different safety methods and policies that have been implemented on different projects.
Companies that have considered the implementation of different procedures in their safety
programs have been able to look at these studies and develop different procedures and practices
for their own safety programs.
The information gathered in the past has been very helpful, but just as every project in
construction is different, so are the companies in construction. The small to medium-sized
hats to be worn at all times while on the jobsite have strengthened this requirement. This
eliminates any confusion or misinterpretation of the OSHA guidelines, and ensures that if there
is an OSHA inspection, hardhats will not be an issue during the walkthrough. Of the 36
responding companies, 23 require hard hats to be worn at all times while on the jobsite. The
response "only when required by OSHA" was given by one company.
Nunrrer of Firrs
Yes No N/A Per OSHA
Figure 4-9. Hard hats required at all times.
Like hardhats, OSHA only requires safety glasses to be worn when workers are using
equipment or tools that have the potential to cause harm to the eyes or the face. This means that
the employees are not required to wear safety glasses at all times while on the job, unless their
work that they are completing at that time falls into the description provided by OSHA. This
requires the onsite supervisory personnel to remind the employees if they are performing certain
tasks that they must have their safety glasses on. The question was posed to the participants if
they required their employees to wear safety glasses on the job at all times and not just when
OSHA requires them to. Of the participants, 10 responded yes, 17 responded no, six did not
answer the question, and three clarified that they are worn only per OSHA's requirements. The
tasks in construction that require safety glasses to be worn on the job per OSHA are minimal
compared to the number of different tasks that can be performed on the jobsite throughout a
project.
Pre-work Meetings/ Toolbox Talks
Pre-work safety meetings, otherwise known as toolbox talks, are accepted in the industry
as a formidable way to organize the workers on a jobsite, and to make everyone aware of the
hazards that can occur during construction. On small construction projects, these meetings
usually take place once a week, and are conducted by the safety engineer or the job
superintendent. The attendees for the meetings consist of the general contractor's employees that
are onsite, and all of the subcontractors' employees that are working that day. These meetings
can be very effective, or they can be a waste of time. This is dependent upon the time and effort
that the general contractor devotes to organizing the meeting. Many companies have a standard
toolbox talk outline, and cover different hazards on the jobsite each week. As long as the subject
covered relates to the work that will be taking place, it helps make the workers aware of the
dangers that they could face that day. For instance, falls and ways to prevent them should not be
discussed if on the primary work tasks involve sitework. All of the employees will be working at
ground level, and this information would be useless on the job that week. If the general
contractor designs the toolbox talks to discuss the scope of work that will completed that week
then the toolbox talk will prove to be effective (Broderick and Murphy 2001).
Language barriers can also limit the effectiveness of toolbox meetings. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics has shown that during the years 1992 to 2002 the fatality rate for Hispanic
construction workers tripled. Not all construction workers are bilingual, and if an English-
speaking worker conducts the meeting and some of the attendees only speak Spanish, only some
of the employees will receive beneficial information from the meeting. Some general contractors
require the subcontractors provide a bilingual worker to be on their crew, and they must attend
the toolbox talks. After the toolbox talk that is usually given in English, the bilingual worker
will translate the information shared during the toolbox talk to the employees who only speak
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The survey consisted primarily of multiple-choice questions and opened-ended questions.
The results for these questions are shown using different methods, depending upon the type of
question that was asked. The responses to the multiple-choice questions are shown in a bar chart
to illustrate the distribution of responses to the questions. The opened-ended questions resulted
in two types of responses. Some of the questions were answered with a numeric response and
other were answered with a comment or opinion. The questions that had a numeric response are
shown in charts, and the others are summarized in the paragraph descriptions.
General Company Information
Size was the determining factor for selecting companies. There were 36 companies that
returned surveys, and all of the companies had annual volumes of business of less than $100
million. Table 4-1 shows information on the volume of work performed by the responding
firms, with the average being $18.44 million. The volume of work ranged from $250,000 to
$100 million, and the most common annual volume of work was $1 million dollars.
Table 4-1. Projected volume of work for this year.
Number of companies Average Median Mode Range
36 $18.44 $4.8 $5 $1 $250,000 $100 Million
Note: Projected volume shown in millions.
Experience can play a positive role in construction safety. The longer that a construction
company is in business, the better prepared will be the company principals to address various
types of issues that might arise. It would be suspected that this experience would be associated
with better safety performance. Table 4-2 shows the experience history of the responding
companies. The average amount of time that the companies had been in business is 22.22 years
+ 3.1, with one company having 88 years of experience in the industry. The most common
response for a company's length in the industry was 10 years.
orientation sessions. This usually gives a broad overview of the company's procedures while
working in the field, and what the employee will need to do if an accident were to occur. Figure
4.6 shows that 29 of the 36 responding companies included new worker orientation in their
safety program, and one company did not. The new worker orientation varies in length, with two
hours being the highest response for the length.
Nurrnber of Firms 1
Yes No N/A
Figure 4-6. New worker orientation required.
Toolbox meetings take a proactive approach on the jobsite where the superintendent (or the
individual conducting the toolbox meeting) goes over the different areas of construction that will
be taking place during the week, and informs the workers of the hazards that they may face while
on the job. Since these meetings are held weekly, the information is always fresh in the minds of
the employees and subcontractors. These meetings also open up discussions if any of the
subcontractors or employees has safety concerns they would like to have addressed. This lets the
subcontractors or employees know that safety is a team effort and that in order for a construction
jobsite to be safe it takes everyone's input to locate different areas on the jobsite where injuries
could occur. Figure 4-7 shows that 74% of the respondents stated that they hold toolbox talks
weekly on their jobsite to address safety, while eight (26%) of the respondents do not. Six of the
companies did not answer the question if a toolbox talk was held weekly on their construction
jobsites.
To my Grandfather "Whitey"
LIST OF REFERENCES
Brodercik, Tom, and Murphy, Dan (Oct 2001). "Construction Safety: A Cruel Oxymoron?"
Occupational Health and Safety, ASCE 70(10), 68-70.
Construction Industry Institute official website, www.construction-institute.org (Feb. 18, 2008)
Construction Safety Council official website, www.buildsafe.org (Feb. 17, 2008)
Everett, John and Frank Jr., Peter (Jun 1996). "Cost of Accidents and Injuries to the
Construction Industry." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
122(2), 158-64.
Gillen, Marion, Kools, Susan, McCall, Cade, Sum, Juliann, and Moulden, Kelli (2004).
"Construction Managers' Perception of Construction Safety in Small and Large Firms: A
Qualitative Investigation." Work, ASCE, 23(3), 233-43.
Hinze, Jimmie, Bren, Dave, and Piepho, Nancy (Dec 1995). "Experience Modification Rating as
a Measure of Safety Performance." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 121(4), 455-58.
Hinze, Jimmie, Gambatese, John, and Hass, Carl (1997). "Tool to Design for Construction
Worker Safety." Journal ofArchitectural Engineering, ASCE, 3(1), 32-42.
Hinze, Jimmie, and Gambatese, John (Mar/Apr 2003). "Factors That Influence Safety
Performance of Specialty Contractors." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 129(2), 159-64.
Hinze, Jimmie, W. (1997). Construction Safety, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Jaselskis, Edward, Anderson, Stuart, and Russell, Jeffrey (Mar 1996). "Strategies for Achieving
Excellence in Construction Safety Performance." Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, ASCE, 122(1), 61-71.
McVittie, D., Banklin, H., and Brocklebank, W. (Oct1997). "The Effects of Firm Size on Injury
Frequency in Construction." Safety Science, ASCE, 27(1), 19-23.
Mohamed, Sherif (Oct 2002). "Safety Climate in Construction Site Environments." Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 128(5), 375-85.
Occupational Health and Safety Website, www.osha.gov (Feb. 18, 2008)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, www.cdc.gov/niosh/ (Feb. 18, 2008)
Powers, Mary Buckner and Rubin, Debra K. (Jume 6, 2005). "More Companies Bring Jobsite
Safety: Up Close And Personal." Engineering News Record, ENR, 254(22), 26-29.
Parsons, Jim (September 2007). "Mastering the Safety Message." Colorado Construction,
www.coloradoconstruction.com. (Feb. 17, 2008)
example of how to calculate the OSHA RIR is as follows. A company that has 3 OSHA
recordable injuries with 100,000 hours of work performed would have an OSHA RIR of 6. This
is found by using the following formula.
(Number of OSHA recordable injuries/number of hours) 200,000
Using the formula the calculation would be (3/100,000)*200,000, which equals 6.
The accuracy for determining the OSHA RIR lies in the hands of supervision and the
employees to account for any injury considered recordable. The following is a list of
requirements for injuries to be considered as recordable.
* Death
* Loss of consciousness
* Days away from work
* Restricted work activity or job transfer
* Medical treatment beyond first aid
OSHA defines these classifications, and the forms for recording these injuries that can be
found on the OSHA website (www.osha.gov).
Number of Firrn 1c
Yes No
Figure 4-4. Number of firms with a safety program.
Table 4-6 showed that the average number of subcontractors on a project was 12.75 + 1.4.
Every construction company has a different view on safety, and the importance of it. Many of
the subcontractors in construction only take jobsite safety as serious as the general contractor that
contracted with them. If the general contractor does not emphasize the importance of safety, the
subcontractors often follow suit. Figure 4-5 shows that 26 of the contractors stated they require
subcontractors on theirjobs to comply with the components of their safety programs. This
demonstrates to the subcontractors that the general contractors believe that safety is of the utmost
importance. This guidance can help the subcontractors to perform work in a safe manner.
20
Nunter of Firms
Yes No N/A
Figure 4-5. Companies that require the subcontractors to comply with the safety program.
The Literature Review explained that one of the measures that can be taken by a
construction company early in the construction process is to provide employees with worker
construction companies, for their employees as well as the owners. Prior to these training
sessions, they evaluated the status of safety in the construction industry, so that the information
that they passed on was the most up-to-date information that they could provide. The
Construction Safety Council also has consultants that will come to a company, union, or
association that needs their assistance in safety of the j obsite (www.buildsafe.org).
Safety Statistics in Construction
"The construction industry has been classified as one of the most hazardous industries in
the United States for many years in terms of both fatal and nonfatal injuries" (Gillen 2004). This
is a major concern, as the construction industry employs roughly 6% of the workforce in the
U.S., but a disproportionate number of injuries and fatalities occur in construction. "Of
approximately 600,000 construction companies, 90% employ fewer than 20 workers", and of
these small companies few have safety programs that are implemented (www.cdc.gov). This
could help to explain why a company's size is usually related to the company injury rate. From
1988 1993 the larger construction firms had a lower injury frequency, and as the firm size got
smaller the injury rate increased (McVittie, Banklin, Brocklebank 1997).
It is not just the smaller firms though that was contributing to the injury statistics in
construction. "In 1993 despite employing only 5% of the industrial workforce, construction
accounted for 14% of all workplace deaths and 9% of disabling injuries" (Everett and Frank
1996). The only other industry that has a higher injury and illness rate than construction is
agriculture (Jaselskis, Anderson, Russell 1996).
Although these statistics are very high, the effort that has been put forth by governmental
agencies, academic research, and organizations within the construction industry have had a
positive effect in reducing the number of injuries in construction each year (Broderick and
Murphy 2001). The Construction Industry Institute was formed by owners in both the private
The participants should also be grouped into the same category in future studies, as far as
the type of construction. Residential contractors usually do not have extensive safety programs
that may be more common for commercial contractors.
This study has many branches that can be investigated through future studies to improve
jobsite safety for small to medium-sized construction firms, and with the majority of the industry
falling into this size category, it is essential for worker safety.
If the companies indicated that they had implemented a drug testing program, they were
asked to define when these tests were administered. Seventeen of the 26 responding companies
indicated that they have a drug-testing program and required the tests prior to hiring the workers.
The next highest response for when drug tests would be administered was for post accident
evaluations and to satisfy workers' compensation requirements. Post accident drug tests are
administered in 16 of the 26 companies that have a drug-testing program. Figure 4-12 illustrates
when the participating companies require the drug tests.
20
15
Nurber of Fims 10
5
Pre Hre Post Accident Suspicion Random
Figure 4-12. When the drug tests are required.
Large construction companies usually have a full time employee who oversees the safety
aspects of the company, and tries to eliminate the chance of injuries on the jobsites. As
explained in the Literature Review, the small to medium-sized companies do not have the
financial resources that are available to the larger companies. Therefore, the small to medium-
sized construction firms have to run their organization in a different manner. A fourth (25%) of
the participants in this study employ a full time person to oversee the safety aspects of the
company. Most (69.4%) of the companies stated that they did not have a full time safety
employee, and one of the 36 companies stated they have a part time safety employee. This
would lead to the project managers taking on the responsibility to oversee the project safety.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The safety performance record of the construction industry is far behind other industries in
the U.S. This label, of being one of the most dangerous industries, is one that the construction
industry as a whole would like to change. Different ideas have been expressed by construction
companies on the types of safety procedures or practices that provide the safest environment for
workers. This literature review will examine the history of safety in construction, some statistics
focusing on construction safety, and the different practices that construction firms are
implementing to strengthen their safety programs. Finally, the financial aspects of safety will be
examined, by investigating the costs incurred when an injury occurs on the jobsite, and the
different measures used to define the safety performance of a company.
History of Construction Safety
Injuries in construction have been viewed as part of the job since the early construction
efforts. The U.S. government realized the need to protect workers in all industries. The
government passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 1970 to address the
safety needs in the work environment. The OSH Act states the purpose of the act is, "to assure
safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement
of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts
to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information,
education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes
(www.osha.gov)."
The passage of the OSH Act of 1970 brought forth two major contributors to the safety and
well-being of employees in America. OSHA is the first agency that will be examined, and is
generally the most recognizable in the construction industry. "The Occupational Safety and
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
For a construction company to be successful there have to be three factors present on every
project. The project must be completed on time, within budget, and with no serious worker
injuries. If any one of these three factors is missing, the construction company performing the
work could lose money or its reputation, which in turn could compromise business opportunities.
Most construction companies put forth a strong effort in the estimating and scheduling of
projects. The safety concerns on project do not seem to get the same time and effort as the other
two factors. This could be the reason that the construction industry is one of the leaders in
jobsite injuries and fatalities for all industries in the U.S.
The safety research in the construction industry conducted in the past has focused on the
larger construction firms, and the smaller construction firms have been overlooked. The small to
medium-sized construction firms make up the majority of the construction industry and research
of these companies is warranted. This study focused on small to medium-sized construction
firms, with the objective of identifying the most common safety procedures and practices being
used by these companies.
Although construction firms may complete the same tasks, the general operations can vary
from firm to firm. If a comparison was to be conducted on a firm that completed $15 million
dollars worth of work each year with a company that completed $212 million dollars of work
each year there would be a tremendous difference in how the companies operated. This would
include the nature and implementation of the safety programs of these companies. A small to
medium-sized construction firm does not have the financial assets that a larger construction firm
would have to allocate strictly to safety on a jobsite.
Nurrnber of Firms
Yes No N/A
Figure 4-16. Employee verification of completing safety program.
OSHA is a well-known and recognized agency that performs random safety checks on
construction jobsites in the U.S. The OSHA compliance officer must provide documentation of
their credentials to the general contractor on the site, and then they typically walk the site with
the superintendent. The length of the inspections can vary, and a report is written at the end of
the inspection to make the general contractor aware of any violations or corrections that are
needed. Based on the compliance officer's notes, the OSHA Area Director will decide if it is
appropriate to issue fines/citations for not complying with the OSHA standards. Figure 4-17
shows the number of participants who have had an OSHA inspection in the past five years.
Some have argued that once OSHA performs an inspection and they find a violation, then that
company is targeted by OSHA in the future. This is a false statement. The OSHA inspections
are random, and are usually initiated by a compliance officer who happens to see ajobsite while
driving. The response to the question if the companies have had an OSHA inspection in the past
five years was almost split. There were 20 companies that stated they have had an OSHA
inspection while 16 of the 36 companies responded they did not. All of the respondents
answered this question. While some companies may feel that it is a bad thing if OSHA visits the
jobsite, it can actually prove to be very beneficial. The OSHA inspector might bring up areas of
concern that were originally overlooked in the jobsite planning.
Number of Firnms
Internal External Legal Save Vbney N/A Isolated
Incident
Figure 4-15. Reason for implementing the current safety program.
Safety Record Keeping and Statistics
Keeping well maintained records of a company's safety performance shows that the
company is concerned with their safety, by taking the time required to keep the records up-to-
date. This way the company can track their safety performance over time and easily determine if
it has improved or declined over the years. Keeping records also shows that the company has
studied the rating systems for safety in construction. To achieve the highest ratings, they would
have to know how different measures are calculated.
One way that construction companies can protect themselves is to require their employees
to sign a form stating that they have completed safety training, and are aware of the current
safety program and its contents. This way the employee knows if they have received all of the
components of the safety program, and they are assuring the company that they have the
knowledge to perform the field tasks in a safe manner as set forth by the company. Of the
respondents, 63.8% confirmed that they require their employees to provide documentation that
they have completed the safety program, while 30.5% of the companies do not. Two companies
did not respond to this question. This type of verification provides the construction company
with a written record stating their employees have received the training to perform their tasks in
a safe manner and allows the companies to follow up with continuing education.
12. Does your company have a drug-testing program?
If yes when are the drug tests required?
13. Has your firm ever prepared a site specific safety program for a particular project?
Syes I no
14. What percent of your employees wear safety glasses when on the job? %
15. How do you enforce safety compliance with subcontractors?
16. When was safety designated a major part of your company?
17. How has the safety program changed in the past 5 years?
18. What was the reason for implementing the current safety program that you use? (internal,
external, legal, etc.)
19. How do you enforce safety compliance with your employees?
20. In general, how do you feel safety relates to productivity?
I Safety compromises Productivity
D Safety has no effect on Productivity
D Safety Increases Productivity
20. Do you employ a full-time safety person in the company? I yes I no
If so how many jobs will that person oversee at a time?
How much time does the safety person spend on the jobs?
What is their background? (safety, production, trades)
21. What aspects of your program do you feel has been the most successful in providing a safe
workplace for your employees?
22. Is there any documentation that you require employees to sign verifying that they have
completed your safety training? I yes I no
23. Have you had any OSHA inspections in the past 5 years? D yes I no
If yes, how did it turn out?
Spanish. The Associated of General Contractors, otherwise known as AGC, provides training
courses for general contractors to learn Spanish, which can help to eliminate the language barrier
in construction (Parsons 2007).
Drug Testing
A drug-testing program is another effective way for construction companies to be proactive
about safety on their jobsites. The success depends on the type of drug testing required by the
company. Most companies that have a drug-testing program require a drug test to be taken prior
to beginning their employment with the company. This is helpful in making sure that workers
that are hired are drug-free on the first day of employment. To increase the effectiveness of
these drug tests, follow up drug tests should be implemented. These tests can be administered
upon suspicion, at random, or after an accident. This helps to identify employees who may have
started to abuse drugs after being hired. Workers may also have stopped using drugs so as to
pass the test, and then start back up after being hired.
Drug testing in large construction companies is quite common, but it is a relatively new
practice in the small to medium-sized construction firms. Many of the smaller construction firms
do not allocate sufficient money in their safety budgets to be able to require adequate drug
testing, if at all. In a Nevada construction safety study conducted by Jimmie Hinze on drug
testing in construction firms. It was discovered that the lack of drug testing was associated with
higher injury rates as "the median injury rate for these contractors was 14.71, considerably
higher than the injury rate reported by the firms with drug testing programs" (Hinze and
Gambatese 2003).
Safety Incentives
One of the highly debated safety practices that construction firms are using is providing
their employees with safety incentives. A construction company can provide safety awards for
charge, in return for participating in the survey. The survey consisted of 26 questions, some with
multiple parts. This survey could be completed in around ten minutes and the questions ranged
from company history, to views of safety in construction.
The construction companies to be included in this research were selected at random from
firms doing business within the state of Florida. Companies were originally selected from a list
of firms that had participated in the University of Florida Building Construction Career Fair.
Additional companies were identified in the Blue Book of Construction website from which
companies were randomly selected. A link on the website allows the user to examine each
construction company's annual volume of work. This feature was helpful in selecting companies
to ensure that they satisfied the size criteria for the study.
Initially, the research was conducted via a telephone survey with the selected construction
companies. This approach was selected so the person being interviewed could expand on
answers and give their beliefs on safety in construction. The telephone survey approach was not
as successful as anticipated. In the construction industry, time is money, and when a random
phone call was made to conduct the survey, it had to be at a time that was convenient to the
interviewee. This led to playing "phone tag" with many of the selected construction firms.
Seven telephone surveys were successfully completed. These seven respondents appeared
to be more inclined to answer the opened ended questions since they could explain their answers
in a conversation. Since the telephone survey was not as successful as originally anticipated, the
subsequent surveys were distributed to the construction firms in another manner. Email was
initially considered as a means of distributing the surveys, but this method would require the
interviewees to save a copy of the survey to the drive on their computers, fill out the survey, save
20
Nurrber of Firms 15
Conrercial Residential Both N/A
Figure 4-2. Types of projects typically built.
Another way of describing companies by size is by the number of workers that the
company employs. Table 4-3 shows the average number of workers employed (37.5 + 3.33
employees) by the construction company respondents. The number of employees in the
responding firms ranged from 1 600, but the average is clearly being influenced by the
responding firm with 600 employees.
Table 4-3. Number of employees on payroll.
Average Median Mode Range
37.5 3.3 11 5 1 -600
It is apparent that not all of the employees shown in Table 4-3 work in the field. The
question was posed to see how many of the employees on payroll actually worked in the field,
where they could be subjected to more serious safety issues on the jobsite. The responses
showed that less than half of the employees on payroll worked in the field.
Table 4-4. Employees on payroll who perform field tasks.
Average Median Mode Range
18.6 10.9 5 1 0 400
With the construction industry slowing down, many companies have had to lay off some of
their workers. The companies were then asked if the number of field personnel shown in Table
Nunter of Firms 10
I5
Yes No
Figure 4-17. OSHA inspections in the past five years.
The results from the participants who had OSHA inspections varied from no citations, to
minimal infractions. None of the companies participating in the study claimed that they had
major violations or infractions brought upon them by OSHA after the inspection.
As described in the Literature Review a company can compute their OSHA Recordable
Injury Rate by taking the number of recordable injuries as defined by OSHA and divide this
number by the total number of worker-hours worked by the company. Then take this quotient
and multiply it by 200,000 worker-hours.
In order for the OSHA RIR to be accurate, the company must keep accurate recordable
injury records. In the survey there were two related questions. The first posed the question of
the number of accidents in the past year where a worker was treated by a doctor. The next
question consisted of two parts, and inquired if the company computes its own OSHA RIR and,
if so, what it was. If the companies participating knew of their injuries in the past year, and they
had the records for the hours worked, then the OSHA RIR would be found using the equation
provided in the Literature Review.
The results from the responding companies are as follows: 22 of the companies stated that
they did not have any injuries that were treated by a doctor in the past year. Seven of the
companies had one, four of the companies had two injuries, one company had three injuries, one
Industry Institute has designed a computer-based program called "Design for Construction
Safety Toolbox," which helps the architect or designer notice areas that might have potential
hazards during construction (Hinze, Gambatese, Hass 1997). This tool was developed to be used
by designers to help eliminate unnecessary risks on jobsites and to provide useful information to
designers to be used when making future design decisions.
Worker Training
Worker training has been proven to be a very effective means of ensuring that workers
have the ability to complete their tasks in a safe manner. Training is not the same as experience.
Experienced workers may feel that since a task has been completed successfully on multiple
projects without injury that they are being safe. This is not necessarily true. Experienced
workers may take certain procedures for granted, let their guard down, and subsequently be
involved in an accident. "Data clearly shows that new workers to a company are at greater risk.
Even long-term employees with the same company are at a higher risk when they move from one
project to another" (Broderick and Murphy 2001). This shows that worker training is necessary
for new and seasoned workers alike and the training reiterates the hazards found onjobsites.
Worker training can be provided in-house, but there are also companies and organizations that
provide excellent training services to construction companies. One of the most common types of
training that companies provide for their employees is OSHA training. OSHA and their training
centers distribute lists of their certified trainers, and when they will be providing classes for a 10-
hour or 30-hour program. The trainers that are certified by OSHA to teach construction must
have five years experience, and complete course 501 which involves the OSHA standards for the
construction industry (www.osha.gov). This allows the employees for companies to learn the
different regulations defined by OSHA, or if they are experienced workers it will act as a
refresher course to items they have already learned.
construction firms do not have the financial resources enjoyed by the larger construction firms,
and in turn, the amount of money allocated to safety is usually less. The challenge that small to
medium-sized construction firms face is how to achieve the highest level of safety on the project
while expending the least amount possible. This study will focus on small/medium-sized
construction firms, which are defined as firms that complete less than $100 million dollars of
work each year.
This thesis will identify the safety procedures and practices being employed by small to
medium-sized construction firms. The results should prove to be beneficial for small/medium-
sized construction firms, in that they will be able to evaluate different safety techniques used by
companies who are their peers. There will always be room for improvement for safety in
construction, until every construction project is completed without any incidents. This idea
should always have construction firms looking for ways to improve their safety practices and
procedures.
The limitations of this study lie in the hands of the companies surveyed. The answers
given by the personnel interviewed might be biased to make their firms sound as if their safety
program is flawless.
Outline of this study: This introduction is the first of six chapters outlined in the study of
safety in small to medium-sized construction firms. Chapter 2 is a literature review that presents
information gathered through research about safety in construction. It will look at the history of
construction safety, different methods implemented to ensure safe work performance in
construction, the costs that are incurred when an employee is injured in ajobsite accident, and
the different measurements of safety in construction. This will provide a base for the
information that will be examined in the results and conclusion chapter.
24. About how many injuries have your company workers had in the past year where they were
treated by a doctor? Injuries
25. Does your company compute its OSHA recordable injury rate? D yes I no
If yes, do you know what the RIR is? RIR=
26. What is your company EMR?
Jimmie Hinze
Holland Professor, Director of Center for Construction Safety Loss and Control
Phone: (352) 273-1167 Fax: (352) 392-4537 Email: hinze@ufl.edu
University of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433
Email: IRB2@ufl.edu
used by the construction firms on each project is 12.8 1.4. Seven of the companies did not
respond to this question.
Table 4-6. Average number of subcontractors on each job.
Average Median Mode Range N/A
12.8 1.4 10 10 0- 30 7
Public owners usually invest more time in the safety of the project, and require background
checks for construction companies who are bidding their projects. The companies were asked
how much of their work completed is for public owners. The responses to this question ranged
from 0% to 100%. The average for the firms was 29.8% + 6.2%, but the most common response
from the companies was 0%.
Table 4-7. Percentage of work completed for public owners.
Average Median Mode Range
29.8% 6.2% 10% 0% 0 100%
Safety Programs and Contents
The responses to the preceding questions provided a broad overview of the types of
construction firms that responded in this study and the type of construction work that they
perform. The second half of the survey focused on the safety programs of the responding firms,
including the different measures that the companies implemented to keep their employees safe
while on the jobsite and how these safety procedures are carried out. The recordkeeping of their
past safety performance was also examined in this area of the survey along with their views on
safety and the overall effect that it can have on the performance of their workers while on the
jobsite. The adherence to a safety program confirms the importance that a company places on
safety for their employees. Of the 36 responding companies, 32 firms stated that they have a
safety program that their employees must adhere to. All of the companies responded yes or no to
this question in the survey.
SAFETY PRACTICES OF SMALL TO MEDIUM-SIZED CONSTRUCTION FIRMS
By
SHANE GRAMLICH BIZZELL
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
APPENDIX B
THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION
Hello, my name is Shane Bizzell, and I am a graduate student in the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of
Building Construction at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study on safety programs
in Small to Medium-Sized construction firms. I am gathering information on various aspects of
safety programs. The benefit of this study will provide the most common safety procedures used
in Small to Medium-Sized Construction Firms, and the reasons for implementing them.
I have enclosed a survey with various questions about your safety program. If you decide to
participate in this study, then please fill out the questionnaire, place it in the self-addressed
envelope, and return it as soon as possible. Many of the questions can be answered by simply
answering yes or no. There are no risks associated with participating in this study, and it should
take about ten minutes to complete. Naturally, you are asked to answer only those questions that
you feel comfortable in answering. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the
study.
The results of this study will be compiled and a summary report will be prepared. As a token of
our appreciation for participating in the study, I would be happy to provide a copy of the
summary report to you at no charge. If you would like a copy of the summary please send an
email to sbizzell@ufl.edu stating that you participated in the study and would like a copy of the
summary. This will ensure that your identity will be kept separate from your survey. Upon
completion I will send a copy of the survey to your office. Following this procedure will ensure
that I have no knowledge of who completed the surveys.
Your consent to participate will be implied by the completion of the survey. You may withdraw
your consent to participate at any time without penalty. For questions about your rights as a
research participant, contact the IRB office at 352-392-0433.
The responses you provide will be kept strictly anonymous to the extent provided by law.
Research data will be summarized so that the identity of individual participants will be
concealed. To keep your survey anonymous, please do not include your return address when
returning the survey. The report will include surveys from a maximum of 100 participants, not
just your company. You have my sincere thanks for participating in the valuable study.
The results to the research will be provided to your company upon request. This research will
identify the common safety practices that are used in Small to Medium-Sized construction firms
and the reasons they were implemented. You may withdraw your participation at any time
without penalty.
If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them, and I can also direct you to the
personnel at the University of Florida.
My name is Shane Bizzell
Phone: (941) 312-4972 Email:sbizzell@ufl.edu
Others that can be contacted:
The EMR takes into account the costs of the injuries along with the severity of injuries
sustained by employees of a construction company. A severe injury is not as crucial as if a
company has multiple minor injuries that add up to the same cost of a severe injury. For
instance, if a construction company of a particular size (number of employees) paying a
particular wage has one injury that costs $50,000 the EMR is around .8, but if that same
company were to have five $10,000 injuries totaling $50,000 the EMR would be around 1.09.
This shows that the EMR weighs the frequency of injuries higher that the severity of injuries
(Hinze, Bren, Piepho 1995).
The amount of workers' compensation insurance that a company has to pay is dependent
upon the EMR of the company multiplied by the manual rate that is established each of the
trades employed by the company in a particular state. This shows that the insurance companies
regard the EMR as an acceptable way to measure a company's safety performance (Hinze 1997).
The size of the construction firm plays a factor on the EMR rating when the valuations of
the injuries vary. This is attributed to the annual expenditures on labor. If two construction
firms have the same frequency of injuries, and the injuries cost the same (say $3,000), then the
larger construction firm that spends more on labor annually will have the lower EMR. If the
frequencies stay the same, but the value of the injuries increase significantly, the smaller
construction company will have the more favorable EMR (Hinze et al. 1995). This is why it is
important to look at the factors that are being measured when evaluating a firm's safety
performance.
OSHA Recordable Injury Rate
The OSHA recordable injury rate is another measurement used to evaluate a construction
company's safety performance. This measurement takes into account the number of recordable
injuries that are sustained by employs of a company per 200,000 worker hours of exposure. An
Table 4-2. Company history in the construction industry.
Average Median Mode Range
22.22 3.1 19.5 10 2.5 88
Note: Company history is shown in years.
The survey did not discriminate on basis of the type of construction undertaken or
performed by the companies. The surveys were returned from general contractors and
subcontractors. Even subcontractors may subcontract a portion of their work. An example
would be for an electrical subcontractor that subcontracts the fire alarm installation to another
company. Figure 4-1 shows that the majority of surveys that were returned were completed by
general contractors, with two companies stating that they fell into both categories.
Nunrrer of Firms
General Contractor Subcontractor Both
Figure 4-1. Classification of the type of construction firm.
The survey asked about the type of construction work that was performed by each
responding firm. This was divided into the residential sector and the commercial sector, with
some of the companies stating that they fell into both of the categories. Some firms may have
gained experience by working in both sectors of the construction industry, while others may have
been residential builders who undertook commercial projects when business opportunities in the
residential market began to decline. Working in both sectors could prove to be hazardous
though, because the employees may be subjected to unfamiliar types of construction work.
Figure 4-2 illustrates firms and the projects they complete.
6 R E C O M M E N D A T IO N S ............................................................................. .....................53
APPENDIX
A SU R V E Y ....................................................... 55
B THESIS QUESTIONAIRE INTRODUCTION........................................ ............... 58
L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .............................................................................. ...........................60
B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................61
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....
LIST OF TABLES .................. .....................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8
LIST OF A BBREV IA TION S ......... ............. .............................................................9
A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 10
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................. ............................. 12
2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 15
H history of C construction Safety ................................................................. ........ ................15
Safety Statistics in C onstruction.................................................. ............................... 17
Safety P practices for the Job site .............................................................................. ........ 18
D esign Team s R ole in Safety ................................................. ............................. 18
W worker T raining ...................................... .................................. .......... 19
Pre-w ork M meetings/ Toolbox Talks..................................................................... ...... 20
D ru g T testing ...................................... .....................................................2 1
Safety Incentives ...................................................... ................. 2 1
Safety Personnel/ Safety Inspections......................................... .......................... 23
Leading Indicators ................................ ........................... .... ........24
C osts A associated w ith Injuries............................................. ................... ............... 25
M easurem ents of Safety .................................. .. .... ..... .. ............26
EM R ............................................................. 26
O SH A R ecordable Injury R ate.......................................................................... ....... 27
3 RE SEA R CH M ETH O D O LO G Y ........................................ ............................................29
Introduction ................... .......................................................... ................. 29
R research M eth od s...................................................... ................. 30
D ata A analysis ................................................... 33
4 R E SU L T S .............. ... ................................................................34
G general C om pany Inform action .................................................................... .....................34
Safety P program s and C ontents............................................................................... ........ 38
Safety R record K keeping and Statistics......................................................................... ..... 47
5 CONCLUSIONS ................................... .. ... ...... .... ........... .. 51
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Shane was born in Pensacola, Florida, and that is where he spent most of his life growing
up. Shane moved to Montgomery, Alabama for two years, and Birmingham, Alabama for one
year. This was during the first through third grade. Shane completed the rest of his education all
of the way through high school when he moved back to Pensacola, Florida in 1987.
Upon graduation from Escambia High School in 1996, Shane was accepted to The
University of Florida. This is where Shane completed his undergraduate degree in finance at the
Warrington College of Business in the fall of 2000. After graduation, Shane took a couple of
years off and tried to decide what he was going to do with the rest of his life. One of Shane's
roommates while in undergraduate school was a student in the Rinker School of Building
Construction. Shane was always intrigued with the type of work that his roommate was
completing for his classes.
In the fall of 2003, Shane moved to Gainesville, Florida with his future wife to enroll in the
Rinker School of Building Construction. Originally, Shane planned to receive a post
baccalaureate degree, but after talking to Dottie Beaupied at the school of Building Construction,
he decided to pursue a master's degree.
Shane completed his coursework for the degree in the summer of 2006, but due to the lack
of success with telephone interviews, he did not receive adequate responses for his survey.
Shane moved to Sarasota, Florida and began working for a construction firm that falls into the
category defined earlier as a small to medium-sized firm. Shane has been working for this
company since September of 2006 and has been very pleased with the selection to work in
construction. Shane is now currently married, promoted to Project Manager, and is planning to
purchase his first house sometime around August.
and public industry in construction to improve the overall effectiveness and quality of the
construction industry (www.construction-institute.org). The Construction Industry Institute
issued a report in 1993 that was aimed at providing construction companies with the most
successful safety measures to eliminate injuries on the jobsite (Hinze and Gambatese 2003).
The measures that have been taken to reduce the construction worker injuries on the jobsite
have been helpful in reducing the injury rate, but the fatality rate in construction remains flat
(Broderick and Murphy 2001). The statistics in construction not only provide a bad image in the
public eye, but the skilled workers are now noticing the hazards and it is becoming harder to
attract these workers to construction (Everett and Frank 1996). This is the reason that safety
programs are important to not only the employers, but also the employees. Not only do the
workers feel safe, but they also notice that the company has their best interest in mind by trying
to protect them from hazards on the jobsites.
Safety Practices for the Jobsite
Design Teams Role in Safety
Construction is a complex industry where no two jobsites are the same. There are hazards
that change daily on the jobsite, and when combined with the potential for up to 35 different
subcontractors working in the same areas, the chance for injuries is increased
(www.cdc.gov/niosh/). There are many ideas on the best procedures to be used to prevent
injuries onjobsites, and on ways to improve the safety of employees. One of the first steps that
can be taken by a construction company to improve safety on ajobsite is to provide input to the
designers. This has been referred to as a type of pre-job planning (Broderick and Murphy 2001).
Designers generally have not focused on the safety of the means and methods used during
construction, but if they are made aware of some of these instances where safety will be a
concern, then they might be able to remedy the problem by altering the design. The Construction
|
