A woods crew was talking about safety.

"You think most accidents come from unsafe working conditions and unsafe acts," the logging boss said. "That may be true, but in the woods you can't do much to improve what you find in the woods. Take Joe Sablock. Joe was killed by a widow maker; it dropped on him while he was chopping an undercut. And Jim Mathews—he was killed on a fire when a rock came rolling down the mountain. Falling things kill or cripple lots of woods workers, and we can't do much about it!"

"Yes," I said, "there are reasons why the logging industry has a high injury rate. But we can do many things to improve the record."

"What are you going to do about our Joes and our Jims," he said, "or about the man whose ax slips and he cuts his foot, or the fellow who falls and breaks his leg when he's carrying a stick of pulpwood? We can't change woods conditions much. We can't be around enough to tell 'em how to swing an ax, or lift, or walk carefully."

The logging boss had put his finger on two main reasons why the rates of injury and death in the woods are five times higher than for industry as a whole. Many woods working conditions are beyond the practical control to be had in factories, and supervision is not so close.

The logging boss had also touched on another reason. That is the attitude toward safety that is found among woods workers, from top officials down. These men, working alone or in small groups, give safety little consideration compared with their factory brothers. More thought could well be given to such things as hard hats for the Joes and the Jims in danger areas; clearing limbs, brush, and vines out of the swing of hand tools; getting firm footing; providing protective devices for machine equipment.

"It's just too expensive to prevent all accidents around here," said the woods superintendent. "Besides, the boys in the head office are always pounding us for more production."

"True," I said, "accident prevention does cost money, but accidents cost a lot, too. More, probably, than most of us figure. Lost-time injuries to Federal workers average $205 for direct compensation and medical payments, based on 332,289 cases. Industrial costs are even higher, according to the National Safety Council. In industry, occupational injuries average $274 each for 232,068 cases.

"But that isn't all. The generally accepted 4 to 1 ratio for indirect costs brings the total to about a thousand dollars for each lost-time injury. Indirect costs include time lost by those who stop work to aid or watch the injured; time lost by supervisors and others in investigating causes, preparing reports, and training replacements; lost production due to upsetting other workers; lowered efficiency of the injured person when he returns to the job; and damaged equipment or material."

One of the swampers in the crew spoke up: "You brought out the costs to the company. It sets us workers back plenty, too, when we get hurt. Besides our own injury, our families suffer from less money in the pay envelope while we're laid up. Compensation payments are a lot less than our usual wages."

The logging boss asked, "I wonder just how much good accident prevention costs?"

"Some companies spend as much as $25 per employee each year," I said, "but amounts as low as $2 a year, or less, will produce some results. Of course, it costs more at the start because you have a big selling job with all workers then. An outfit with high hazards like logging must spend more than one where dangers aren't so great. Many concerns pay more for accident prevention than for accident compensation. They believe these large sums year after year are more than repaid by less direct and indirect injury costs, improved production, efficiency, and morale. The National Safety Council has recommended $4.50 to $6 per employee per year for Government operations with high hazards, such as construction and motor-vehicle operation. This includes salaries and travel expenses of all safety personnel, purchase of publications and materials. Some funds should be earmarked for protective equipment such as guards, hard hats, goggles."

"You know," said the cat operator, "when it comes right down to it, every accident we have on the job shows us that something is wrong in the outfit somewhere. Each accident is usually someone's fault—lack of skill, carelessness, poor supervision, wrong design, haywire equipment, poor job instruction, no follow-up on safety, and so forth. We all talk about a right way to do a thing. Isn't the right way the safe way; and the safe way the best way?"

EVERY ACCIDENT is a symptom that something is wrong with men, methods, or material. It should stimulate management at all levels to do something about it. Accident prevention will pay increased dividends in the form of greater efficiency and production, better job satisfaction and morale, financial savings to both the worker and management, less loss and breakage of equipment and materials.

The source of woods accidents is something to consider. An analysis of Forest Service injuries for 1947 shows this, because its conditions of employment are widely varied—construction and maintenance of the roads, trails, bridges, telephone lines, lookout towers, buildings; planting; timber-stand improvement; and forest-fire fighting. Most of the work is done under situations found in typical logging operations—workers largely on their own or with a minimum of supervision in isolated areas far from medical help. As often as not they are in rugged, timbered country, which is treacherous underfoot.

The analysis shows that about one out of four injuries comes from hand tools 93 percent of which are due to unskilled use. A further break-down shows that the ax is the main offender. As one would expect, most of the really serious cases come from operation of motor vehicles, tractors, and graders—machines—especially when they are operating too fast for existing conditions, even though the actual speed may be only 15 miles an hour or less. Disregard for safe practices is one of the primary causes why workers get hurt. Supervision has a direct responsibility here.

Few accidents have single causes. Consider the man who broke his leg. He tripped. Why? He was holding the load in such a way that he could not see. Why? He was carrying the load improperly. Why? He had never been told how. Why? His boss had never told him. Why? Management had not held the boss responsible for accidents. Why? Management did not require bosses to plan for safety, to train for safety, and to follow up on the job to insure that a safe job was being done. That makes seven causes so far, not considering the man's possible physical or mental defects.

A thorough investigation of all accidents is an important part of a good safety program. And before that? A prescription for safety has three parts: Policy, planning, human engineering.

The first, policy, concerns the necessity for the active and full support of the head office. This must go further than just signing directives or making safety rules. A statement on the safety policy is needed that shows the support of management and defines safety responsibilities of each individual. Management must demonstrate its interest in the safety of all workers at all levels. The worker will do a job if he knows his boss wants it done; by the same token, if the boss is in earnest about preventing accidents, the workers will work hard it, too. This principle applies to any operation, regardless of size; aggressive interest by the persons at the top will produce results.

The second, planning, means that if one wants a good safety program, he must provide for it in advance.

What is important to keep the men safe when they work in the next drainage? Who is going to watch out for safety when the planting crew starts? Who is going to handle the safety instruction of the new felling and bucking crews? Is responsibility fixed so they will not work dangerously close together? Has provision been made for safety at the new camp location? What items should be covered there?

Most accidents come from unsafe conditions and unsafe acts. Working conditions in the woods are subject to some control, and this phase of safety should not be overlooked. Within practical limitations, plans should be laid to eliminate hazards on all jobs. Management can control roads, tools, equipment, loading and unloading sites. The workers can control, to some extent, their working areas. A disorderly place is an unsafe place to work. In the more dangerous work situations, hard hats or even lookouts will help.

There is almost no limit to what can be done to prevent unsafe acts. The drive to prevent them is the third part of the safety prescription. Human engineering means better job relations in all parts of the operation.

First, recruit only workers who are physically and mentally qualified, and put them on the jobs they can do best.

Second, instruct them in the safe, most efficient way to do their work as soon as they report for duty. A large proportion of accidents is caused by green hands during their first days or weeks on the job. A new worker will never need help more, nor be more willing to accept help than during the first hours on the job. That is the time to make him fully aware of the need for safety. His support should be enlisted in a thorough effort to eliminate accidents. It is largely a question of job instruction. The pulpmaker must be shown how properly to lift a heavy object. The swamper must learn how-to use his ax safely. The truck driver must be told the rules of safety on the road.

Third, be sure that all work supervisors make it a point to follow through on safety in all their contacts with the workers. Do the men understand the key points of safety? Do they apply all safety instructions conscientiously? Is the right man on the right job? These and similar questions should be raised by all inspecting officers. Many agencies have found that most injuries could have been prevented if supervisors had been more alert to requirements and standards. Failure of supervision is one of the most important of all accident causes, and supervisors are the key men in any accident-prevention program.

THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, in a study of the pulpwood-logging industry in 1933-44, found that nearly half of all disabling injuries happened to fallers and buckers, about 16 percent to employees loading and unloading logs, and another 16 percent to those transporting logs and equipment. Injuries to legs, feet, and toes were most common. Logs, trees, hand tools, working surfaces, and vehicles were the leading injury-producing agencies. Outstanding among unsafe working conditions were rough, slippery, or obstructed working areas, and decayed or dead limbs and trees. The most common unsafe acts were the unsafe use of equipment, particularly hand tools, inattention to footing, and unsafe planning of felling.

In larger companies, a safety staff should be available to analyze facts of accidents, to show the organization how and where its efforts will produce the best results in accident prevention. One of the most important functions of a safety staff is to see to it that training in safety is followed through, that performance follows the precept. The precept is: Injuries can be prevented.

Charles F. Brannan

Copyrighted material; do not reprint without permission.

 

View all articles by Charles F. Brannan