Reference no: EM132841371

PROMPT:

Read the following article, "California's COVID-19 Workplace Standards Require Strict Protocols," linked here:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/california-workplace-covid-19-standards.aspx

Also read from the Jennings book Reading 7.1, "Two Sets of Books on Safety" on page 426.

Reading 7.1 Two Sets of Books on Safety

Following a 12-day trial in 2012, Walter Cardin, a safety manager for the Shaw Group, was convicted of eight counts of fraud against the United States, for falsifying injury reports for his company's work at the TVA's Brown's Ferry Nuclear Station. Based on the false reports, the Shaw Group was able to collect safety bonuses worth over $2.5 million from TVA. The jury heard evidence of over 80 injuries, including broken bones; torn ligaments; hernias; lacerations; and shoulder, back, and knee injuries that were not properly recorded by Cardin. The Shaw Group has paid back twice the amount of the ill-gotten safety bonuses, and paid a $1.6 million fine in the Brown's Ferry situation.1

The problem of interpretation of what is and is not an injury has been growing and

seems to be pervasive. A study in the June 2010 issue of Annals of Epidemiology con-cluded that employers have two sets of books when it comes to injuries in the work-place. OSHA reportable figures (as found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics), or those injury stats reported by employers, are 24% to 49% lower than the number of injuries the study found in worker compensation claims. Injuries have declined since 2000, but fatalities have not.

Workers' comp numbers are the real thing. Employees don't care what employers report

to OSHA-they want coverage for work-related injuries. Why the disparity? Some believe that because incentive plans include safety goals related to the injury rate, managers are motivated to put pressure on workers to not report injuries. Some managers even pressure doctors into characterizing an injury as non-work-related. Other managers ask doctors to write different diagnosis so as to avoid a reportable injury. Employees often share stories about their managers going with them to the hospital or doctor to get the injury character-ized in the "right" way.

There is always the wiggle room of technical compliance with the lost workday report-ing requirements. Without question, federal regulations on reportable injuries are confus-ing, and reasonable minds could differ on some close calls. However, this study seems to indicate that something more than just differing interpretations is driving the disparity. Interpretations seem to cut a wide swath. For example, if an employee can return to work, the injury is not classified as a lost workday. Dr. Robert McClellan, formerly the presi-dent of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, often cites an example of a worker being wheeled onto a construction site with his broken leg so as to avoid a lost workday report. So, an employee reported for beam work with a cast and in a wheelchair, and there was no OSHA reportable injury.

QUESTIONS:

1. From a business perspective, what are the benefits of employers implementing these new standards? Try to identify at least two benefits, and explain your reasoning for this view.

2. From a business perspective, what are the drawbacks of implementing these new new standards? Try to identify at least one drawback, and explain your reasoning for this view.

3. Overall, from a business standpoint, do you think that these new standards are a good idea or a bad idea? Explain why you believe.