Falling Hazards in the Construction Industry - Assignment Example

Falling Hazards in the Construction Industry Introduction The construction industry is known for having a generally higher injury rate than any other in most countries. It has a notoriously poor safety record and in the UK, its rate of accidents is only exceeded occasionally by mining and agriculture. In the course of the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of construction accidents despite the attention on the industry’s safety procedures and programs. People working in this industry are particularly vulnerable to injury owing to many outdoor operations at, which in what are often highly complex environments. The operation of various equipment as well as the attitudes, behaviors and even culture of the employees have been found among the factors that are relevant to understanding the high accidents rate (Choudhry & Fang, 2008). In the United States, over 21% of occupation fatalities are attributed to the construction industry although it only has around 8% of the workforce. In the UK on the other hand, the injury rate has escalated in the years between 2004 and 2007 with a fatal industry rate of 16 out for every 1000 workers; in China, construction industry accidents are presently overwhelming on third of the country’s industrial accidents while in Kuwait, they accounted of over 40%. Rationale cum Brief Discussion The foundation of this paper is based on that key stakeholders in the construction industry including employees such as engineers, fabricators and manual workers, as well as owners and contractors stand to benefit from an overall understanding of factors contributing to falls in the construction sector. This way, they are in a better position to practice and direct safety intention efforts that will reduce the number of fall related accidents in the industry. Taking cognizance of the fact that most statistical figures place falls at the top cause of accidental death in the construction industry, policy makers benefit in that they can inform the design of policy. Additionally, owners and contractors gain by increased safety of their investments and the workers in the direct security of their working environment. However, there are myriad factors that are relevant to the understanding of work related incidences; these have been queried through numerous studies; surveys, interview case studies, accident reports and observations (Arboleda and Abraham, 2004). Given the complexity and multiplicity of the underlying factors, it is a very challenging endeavour to build an overall understanding, which has to some extent contributed to the continued risk factor despite the expansive research and publicity on the matter. Amongst the common cause of these construction mortalities are falls. They account for over 30% of the aforementioned accidents in the United States and more than 40% in most other countries with New Zealand leading at 51% (Kaskutas et al., 2009). Consequently, falls are the most costly occupational hazard in many countries; for example in the US, the annual cost of fall related hazards went as high as six billion dollars in 2000. In the Netherlands, the health cost for the same was 1.15 billion Euros in the same period (Gavious et al., 2009). In general, the statistics are the same for most countries around the world with an extraordinary global financial burden resulting as a result numerous falls. This has made the prevention of falls a high priority in most countries. Consequently, the prevention of falls is an important priority in the construction industry as evinced by the many regulations and standards designed to prevent against fall related accidents that are in place both globally and locally. Working at a height can be described as working in any place including, but not limited to below ground level where if the work and height regulations 20051 are not followed, they would fall from a height likely to bring about individual injury or death (Health and Safety Executive-HSE, 2006). When one has to transverse or access a place of work from a height, the risk of fall is also considered. In the definition of fall risks, there is no distinction between high and low falls (Seaman. & Baldwin, 2004). This is because while one may be injured as a result of force of impact from a high fall, in a low fall they could still be hurt although the probability and extent is lower (Lipscomb et al., 2006). Nevertheless, they could land on something sharp or hard even from a low height that could easily result in grave injury or even death. Analysis Employer and Contractor Responsibility To reduce the incidence of falls, employers are required to take precautions so that workers stationed on elevated platforms near holes or in any situation where they are at risk of falling can be protected (Hallowell, 2010). According to OSHA (n.d.) “specification, fall protection must be provided for any general industry workspace, at four feet above surface, five for shipyards and six for construction industry”. However, when one is working over dangerous equipment, OSHA requires that protection must be offered irrespective of the height from which on is working. Some of the steps taken to protect workers from such hazards include; guarding every hole on the floor in which a worker can accidentally fall using railing toe boards covers or any other applicable means. Elevated stands must be provided with guardrails and toe board if it must be open sided. If so required, the employee should be provided with safety nets harness and hand rails. Furthermore, employers are obligated to provide a danger free working environment for their staff and whenever the environment is dangerous, they should ensure to provided them with information on the possible threats in advance. Furthermore, safety equipment should be provided at no cost to the workers. Nevertheless, despite all the awareness and research in the subject not to mention the OSHA regulations, the hazard remains one of the top in the construction industry which suggest that these are not taken as seriously as they ought to by the stakeholders who include the workers, construction manages and concerned governments tasked with enforcing policy. Worker and Contractor Perceptions For obvious reasons, the main actors in respect to the constancy of falling accidents are the workers themselves. Their perception of the risk if often mitigated by several factors ranging from attitude training and even age and health. In some cases as shall later be discussed the cultural ethical conditions of the workers has also been found to make some workers more predisposal to taking risks that others (Chau, 2007). Factors such as age, experience and the occupation of workers have been studied in connection to their contribution to the risk although there has not been what one would call wide consensus on the matter. The effect of experience for example is considered particularly complicated since the direct effect if any, of experience may be improved safety but the indirect effect, overconfidence, which can result in reduced adherence to safety procedures (Cellier et al., 1995). The effect of age is confounded by experience, which is often in direct correlation with it; as a result, the assumptions that may be made about an older worker may also be applied to experienced workers although these are not strictly the same people. Other variable such as construction site terrain, time of the day or month have also in most cases not been found to be very consistent. Construction managers or contractors under whom a worker is contracted are responsible for both providing the safety equipment needed as well as training the workers in the appropriate safety procedures (Rivara and Thompson, 2000). In addition, the management should carry out a risk assessment based on which the previously mentioned training can be conducted. However, studies have shown that in many cases, the risk assessment is done as a matter of course to satisfy bureaucratic requirements rather than for the sake of employee safety. In Ireland, a study showed that some of the sites investigated did not have documented risk assessments for hazards that were relevant to the tasks carried out on them. For example, a particular site had no risk assessment for addressing heights, scaffoldings or ladders although these were all part of the sites day-to-day operations (Niosh, 1992). Daniel Boffey (2014) argues that the reasons there are so many construction injuries in the UK is that the employers and unions do not pay enough attention to the problem. He claims that one of the consequences of the recession from which the UK is even now recovering from is the loss of many skilled workers in the construction industry who will be replaced with inexperienced ones. As a result, there will be an increase in the number of construction accidents since the new staff may not benefit from as much induction and training as their predecessors. Mcdomal and Hyrmayrk (2002) illustrate the non-serious perception of many contractors by pointing out that many of the workers they talked to did not actually undergo any training but rather were requested to “sign off” showing they had. In addition, in many cases it appeared that little time was dedicated to safety training with over 50% of the works quizzed saying it had taken between 10 minutes to an hour. In addition, 11% of the employees claimed not to have received any type of training from the main contractor. The issue of fall hazards was particularly neglected with almost 67% of the employees claiming they had not received any training in safety nets or personal restraining devices although these were constantly in use at the site. According to the study, it is apparent that contractors generally neglect safety matters. This begs the question, why is it that so few of them are ever held accountable for accidents that occur at the site? This is easily explained by the fact that most of the managers admitted that they only conducted the training to cover themselves in case something were to happen to the worker so neither them or the contractor could be held accountable (McDonald and Hrymak 2002). According to industry regulators such as OSHA, one of the key causes of falling hazards is the fact that even though people have the right equipment, they often use it in the wrong way therefore increasing their risk of falling. For example, the top steps of a stepladder should never be used for stepping on yet everyday numerous workers use it to access roofs and ceilings. Leaning ladders on the other hand should extent at least three feet above the top surface on which it is leaning; however, many employees do not see the need for an “oversize” ladder, which once again increased the chance of an accident. In some cases, despite the presence of safety devices and training, employees still expose themselves to the hazard of falling by neglecting to adhere to the safety procedures. This can be attributed to a variety of factors that weigh in on their perception of the particular hazard: For example, some employees view the precautions as too bothersome and unnecessary choosing to instead trust their own ability to keep themselves from falling. In some cases, workers may also neglect the existing safety procedure to prove to themselves “macho” deliberately putting themselves in risky situations such as platforms without railings. A study by Caponecchia and Sheils (2011) on the perception of safety hazards in the Australian construction industry found that most of the workers tended to have a generally optimistic assumption on their safety from the hazards. They based their study on optimism bias for workplace hazards; this is the propensity by people to think that negative events are less likely to occur to them at the work place than to the average person (Caponecchia and Sheils, 2011). The study built on the optimism bias by using heterogeneous risk profile samples to investigate if optimism bias is present in employees exposed to similar hazards. The main hazards interrogated were electrocution, being trapped or falling. The study found that most workers tend to think hazards are more likely to happen to other people than to them however, this is not necessarily, because they follow safety protocols. This presents a safety problem since it may ameliorate the efficacy of safety programs as many people simply imagine they are “careful” or even lucky whether or not they use the equipment of protocol. Case to point would be to consider a situation where an average worker takes for granted that he can maintaining his balance on a runway without a railing, he will be more likely to take the risk and his boss less likely to install the safety future since it is expensive and the employee doesn’t seem to mind anyway. Social Cultural Factors A somewhat surprising consideration about general tendencies for risky activities in construction sites although not limited to falls is the cultural or ethical background of a given worker. A study to investigate why Latin American construction workers in the US appeared to be more likely to be injured than non-Latinos found that they had the highest propensity for risky practices (Bormann et al., 2013). It is a well-known fact that some employers take advantage of non-documented and therefore unionized works so they can cut corners in construction. Apparently, the Latin American population in the US, which is the fastest growing, also has the largest number of undocumented immigrants who are typically more willing to engage in risky practices to secure continued employment (Dong et al., 2009). In the context of the hazard in question, it can be assumed that employees working outside the legal parameters possibly because of immigrations status may have a different perception of risk than regular staff. They will be unlikely to complain about missing safety equipment since they do not wish to antagonize their employers who will on the other hand be just as likely to turn a blind eye. While the ethical and immigration factors have not received much attention in the UK, this brings out the issue of education and poverty levels as well as other factors that may make employees vulnerable to working under unsafe conditions. Unskilled workers for example may take more risks to ensure job security since their options are limited. However, the study also suggested that communication might be a factor at play since many of those involved in accidents were found to have had a problem with language fluency. This calls for more extensive and incisive studies to be carried out so that it can be determined to what extent employees’ social economic conditions make them susceptible if at all to construction hazards. Conclusion In conclusion, given the high statistics, falling hazards are without doubt the biggest risk in construction, yet despite this knowledge, they persist partly because of negligence and ignorance. Managers and contactors are in many cases responsible since as demonstrated above, they do not always provide the necessary equipment or training to their staff. However, the workers themselves should also be held accountable since many of them do not use the equipment even when it is available and when they do, they do not always use it in the correct way. References Arboleda, C. A., & Abraham, D. M. 2004 . Fatalities in trenching operations-analysis using models of accident causation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130 2 , 273-280. Boffey, D. 2014. UK construction industry warned of timebomb from health and safety cuts. The Guardian. [online] Available from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/12/uk-construction-industry-timebomb-health-safety-cuts-building-hse Bormann, K, Clevenger, C,Lopez C and Gilkey, D. 2013. Perception and Cultural Differences of Latinos across Residential, Commercial, and Heavy Civil Construction. 49th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings. [online] Available from http://ascpro.ascweb.org/chair/paper/CPRT64002013.pdf Caponecchia, C., & Sheils, I. 2011 . Perceptions of personal vulnerability to workplace hazards in the Australian construction industry. Journal of safety research, 42 4 , 253-258. Cellier, J. M., Eyrolle, H. & Bertrand, A. 1995 . Effects Of Age And Level Of Work Experience On Occurrence Of Accidents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80,931-940 Chau, N., Gauchard, G. C., Dehaene, D., Benamghar, L., Touron, C., Perrin, P. P. & Mur, J. M. 2007 . Contributions of occupational hazards and human factors in occupational injuries and their associations with job, age and type of injuries in railway workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80, 517-525. Choudhry, R. M. & Fang, D. P. 2008 . Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites. Safety Science, 46, 566-584. Dong, X. S., Fujimoto, A., Ringen, K., & Men, Y. 2009 . Fatal falls among Hispanic construction workers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41 5 , 1047-1052. Gavious, A., Mizrahi, S., Shani, Y. & Minchuk, Y. 2009 . The costs of industrial accidents for the organization: Developing methods and tools for evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of investment in safety. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 434-438. Hallowell, M. 2010a . Cost-effectiveness of construction safety programme elements. Construction Management and Economics, 28(1): 25-34 Hallowell, M. 2010b . Safety risk perception in construction companies in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. Construction Management and Economics, 28, 403-413. Kaskutas, V. et al. 2009a . Fall prevention in apprentice carpenters. Scand J Work Environ Health 36(3):258–265. Lipscomb, H. J. et al. 2006. Injuries from slips and trips in construction. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 267-274. McDonald, N., & Hrymak, V. 2002 . Safety behaviour in the construction sector. OSHII. [online] Available at http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=schfsehrep Niosh Alert 1992 . Request for Assistance in Preventing Worker Injuries and Deaths Caused by Falls from Suspension Scaffolds. Rivara, F. P. & Thompson, D. C. 2000 . Prevention of falls in the construction industry - Evidence for program effectiveness. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 23-26. Winn, G. L., Seaman, B. & Baldwin, J. C. 2004 . Fall protection incentives in the construction industry: literature review and field study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 10, 5-11 OSHA. n.d. "Fall Protection." United States Department of Labor.] [online] Available at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/ Health and Safety Executive. 2006. Health and safety in construction HSG150. ISBN 978 0 7176 6182 2 Read More