Injury and Illness Prevention Programs

OSHA

The issue in question is that of developing a standard for injury and illness prevention programs. OSHA notes in the white paper that many companies have such programs already, and that some states have also implemented standards for these types of programs. But OSHA also notes that adoption of this type of program is not universal. Many small businesses, for example, find the implementation of such programs to be onerous in particular with respect to cost and manpower. Thus, it is proposed that national standards be adopted as a means of helping more workers receive this sort of training, and to have more companies implement injury and illness prevention programs. The motivation for OSHA is clear. The organization has a mandate to reduce workplace injuries, yet its data shows that 4500 workers die on the job each year, and 4.1 million workers "suffer a serious job-related injury or illness" (OSHA, 2015).

The paper outlines the elements of these programs, based on best practices established in the U.S. and in other countries where there is mandatory adoption of illness and injury prevention programs. The paper also provides data in support of its argument, showing the outcomes in states where such programs are mandatory. They use before-and-after data to show the monetary value of such programs, in terms of reducing illness and injury. It is established that there are very high costs associated with workplace illness and injury, and therefore the programs ultimately deliver cost savings well in excess of their upfront costs. For example "California, Hawaii and Washington, with heir mandatory injury and illness prevention program requirements, had workplace fatality rates as much as 31% below the national average in 2009" (OSHA, 2015).

Thus, I believe that this program will help to reduce workplace injury or illness. This is really not a subjective question, when there is objective research on which my views can and should be based. The evidence is clear that there is a reduction in workplace death and injury when these programs are put into place, and that there are cost savings associated with these reductions that outweigh the initial cost of the program. I believe in evidence-based policy, and the evidence shows that workplace injury and illness prevention programs reduce costs and reduce injuries and illness.

The business community opposes the standard primarily as a knee jerk reaction. Many business owners are of the view that they should not be subject to government intervention, and this program would be that. These owners react the same way every time government proposes something - a program or a regulation -- no matter what the evidence says on the matter. Quite simply, they are not interested in the big picture, and would rather kill workers to save a few bucks than to actually be decent human beings. The objections are not based on evidence, but rather shrill, emotional reactions unfounded in scientific evidence. There is no point in pretending that these objections are rational, because they are not supported by any evidence, just empty rhetoric. When the economic argument made by business -- their main argument -- is proved false and they still stick to that narrative, this does not mean that any credence should be given to that narrative.

From a human resources perspective, this would be a training program that the company has to implement. There are costs and resources associated with that. As the white paper notes, most major companies not only have the resources to implement such a program, but they already have these programs in place. The HR department needs to track which employees have done this training, make a determination of when and where they would implement the training, and by what method the training should be conducted. There are a number of different decisions that need to be made by the HR department with respect to the implementation of injury and illness prevention programs, but that's what the HR department exists for.