i-U. 
 
 r ' 
 
 (^ 
 
 WHAT DO I GET FOR 
 MY MONEY? 
 
 An Employer's Views on Safety Services 
 of Governmental Agencies 
 
 U.S. DEPOSITORY 
 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
 
 DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 1940 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Approximately a year ago the Division of Labor Standards 
 published a pamphlet entitled "Factory Inspection Standards 
 and Qualifications for Factory Inspectors." This statement of 
 some of the problems of factory inspection was the result of more 
 than a year's work on the part of the Division's Advisory Com- 
 mittee on Safety and Health, composed of seven outstanding 
 authorities in the field of industrial safety and health. 
 
 A logical sequel to the matter of factory-inspection standards 
 is the viewpoint of the industrial executive toward the safety 
 service rendered by State factory-inspection agencies. In other 
 words, what does the employer as a taxpayer get for his money? 
 What does he have a right to expect from State factory-inspection 
 service? What are his duties and obligations in this connection? 
 
 At the twenty-eighth National Safety Congress held in Atlantic 
 City during the week of October 16, 1939, a special session was 
 held on governmental safety service in industry. One of the 
 principal speakers in this group was W. H. Winans of the Union 
 Carbide Co., New York City, who set forth the employer's 
 views on safety service of governmental agencies. 
 
 This address was so well received by Government labor offi- 
 cials, workers, and employers that the Division of Labor Stand- 
 ards publishes it herewith as a criterion of what State inspection 
 
 service might well be. 
 
 Verne A. Zimmer, Director. 
 
 Division of Labor Standards. 
 April 2, 1940. 
 
 230080—40 
 
Digitized by tiie Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/whatdoigetformymOOunit 
 
What Do I Get for My Money? 
 
 An Employer's Views on Safety Services of Governmental 
 
 Agencies 
 
 A Talk Given by W. H. Winans at the Governmental Safety Service 
 in Industry Session, 28th National Safety Congress, Atlantic City, 
 N.J., Thursday, October 19, 1939 
 
 To amplify the subject of this address, it might be rephrased in 
 these words: "What accident-prevention service should the 
 employer get from the State in return for his taxes?" 
 
 Accordingly I am not referring here to Federal governmental 
 services, such as those furnished by the United States Bureau of 
 Mines, Division of Labor Standards, Public Health Service, and 
 other Federal agencies. Nor am I including the city departments 
 of public hygiene and other municipal agencies. However, I 
 think it is fair to state that the principles set forth apply equally 
 to all governmental agencies. 
 
 State laws referring to health and safety in industry have a 
 twofold purpose: (1) To protect the worker from occupational 
 injury and occupational disease — to reduce the economic loss of 
 such disabilities to the worker and his dependents, and (2) to 
 reduce wastage of the human resources of the State in lost 
 working time and impaired working capacity, and to reduce the 
 money cost of accidents which comes out of the total production 
 of the State through such expenses as high insurance costs, loss 
 of production and loss of manpower. 
 
 There are two methods necessary to achieve this twofold 
 purpose: 
 
 1 . The policing process which involves the enforcement of law, codes, and 
 regulations. 
 
 2. The research and educational process which involves methods and 
 practices of preventing accidents and occupational disease. 
 
 THREE TYPES OF EMPLOYERS 
 
 Several types of employers must be dealt with in attacking these 
 problems. There are at least three types readily recognized: 
 
1. Those employers whose slogan is "profit at any price" and who evade 
 the law until they get caught. 
 
 2. Those who obey the law but do no more, 
 
 3. Those who strive to prevent accidents, law or no law. These employers 
 realize it is good business and morally right to prevent accidents and occu- 
 pational disease. 
 
 The State department charged with the responsibiUty of 
 accident and disease prevention in industry must keep both of the 
 above stated methods in mind and all of these three types of 
 employers in mind. 
 
 The question immediately arises: "Can the two methods of 
 policing and education be carried on by one State department, 
 by one inspector in his district, or must these methods be followed 
 by separate agencies of Government?" There is, as you know, a 
 difference of opinion on this question. The practice of combining 
 the two functions of policing and education in one department 
 and the practice of separating these functions are both followed 
 in different States. It is not my intention to argue for either 
 procedure. 
 
 THE REAL JOB OF ACCIDENT PREVENTION 
 
 Recently I came across an excellent statement of the real job 
 of the State in accident prevention, and I take the liberty of 
 presenting this statement from the Safety Manual issued by 
 Alabama in 1939: 
 
 Since the full cost of and damage done by all injuries to workers must 
 finally be borne by all the people it is only proper for the State of Alabama 
 acting through the department of industrial relations to take an active part 
 in the effort to prevent such injuries. The board of appeals has been given 
 the duty of adopting rules defining exactly what is meant by "reasonably 
 safe" and the director of industrial relations is required to enforce them 
 through inspection. In fact, his duty goes much farther than this for it is 
 obvious that the larger purpose of this legislation is to prevent injuries to the 
 workers of this State. That is the fundamental reason for the passage of the 
 act. Actually, therefore, the director is required to do everything in his 
 power to keep the working people of Alabama from suffering injury while at 
 their work earning a living. As an agent of the State, he must go much 
 beyond mere law enforcement. He must not only do everything in his power 
 to show the employers and their employees how to eliminate work injuries 
 but he must also encourage and stimulate them to do so by any and every 
 means at his command, including the making of specific suggestions as to 
 practical means of correcting unsafe conditions and practices. He needs and 
 
 6 
 
solicits the full and earnest support of every employer, every employee, and, 
 in fact, every citizen of the State in his efforts to fulfill his duty adequately. 
 The fact that almost all occupational injuries can be prevented and the 
 further fact that everyone — employer, employee, and the State alike — suffers 
 serious loss from the failure to prevent them, is sufficient reason why every 
 employer or other person should obey reasonable rules drafted in the interest 
 of safety. Should any refuse to do so it is the clear duty of the director and 
 his agents to compel compliance under the law. 
 
 WHAT MAY EMPLOYERS EXPECT? 
 
 What has the employer, large or small, with a good or bad 
 safety record, a right to expect and even demand from the State 
 agency or agencies responsible for accident and disease preven- 
 tion? I will attempt to outline some specific items, as follows: 
 
 1 . The employer has a right to expect definite regulations or codes for the 
 application of the basic law of the State. These must be understandable, 
 reasonable, and practicable. They should be drawn up in cooperation with 
 experienced industrial safety men, experienced workmen, experienced 
 industrial physicians, experienced engineers, practical industrial lawyers, 
 and experienced public administrators. You may add more to this list, 
 but you must not omit one of those mentioned if you want to have the 
 best results. 
 
 2. The employer has the right to expect nonpolitical cooperation on the 
 part of the Government officials with employers, with labor, and others in 
 advising the State legislature on changes in the law which have been proposed 
 or may be needed, and in securing from the legislature proper appropriations 
 for the administration of the law. 
 
 3. The employer has the right to expect recognition from the governor 
 right through the entire executive branch of the State government to the 
 factory inspector himself, that safety and health in industry is not a political 
 issue and those charged with this vital State function must stay out of politics 
 and must not be molested for political purposes in the administration of their 
 responsibilities. 
 
 4. The employer has the right to expect intelligent, trustworthy, informed, 
 practical, and enthusiastic leadership and administration on the part of the 
 executive head of the State agency responsible for this work. 
 
 5. The employer has the right to expect that the appointment and re- 
 tention of competent staff members in the State agency shall be on a non- 
 political basis. 
 
 6. The employer has the right to expect fair, uniform, honest, and reason- 
 able enforcement of the law and the regulations. 
 
 7. The employer has the right to expect cooperation from the State agency 
 in applying the most effective known methods of accident and disease pre- 
 vention and in developing better methods for safeguarding old hazards and 
 devising new methods to meet new hazards. Well tried and effective 
 
practices and organization structure along these lines are evident in the work 
 of the division of safety and hygiene of Ohio. The work of this division 
 includes plant surveys without expense to the employer, leadership in arrang- 
 ing safety conferences, safety contests, educational meetings, etc. 
 
 8. The employer has the right to expect sincere and dominating interest 
 of the executive head of the State agency because of his consciousness of the 
 damage to the lives and happiness of human beings caused by occupational 
 accidents and disease. 
 
 9. And last — the employer should feel dead sure that, if he or any other 
 employer in the State violates the law and the regulations, sooner or later 
 he will get caught. In other words, enforcement should be positive, aggres- 
 sive and universal. 
 
 WHAT SHOULD THE INSPECTOR DO? 
 
 How can all this be done? There is only one way that I know 
 of and that is by persistent hard work, intelligent cooperation of 
 all concerned, and the application of accumulated experience. 
 Now, specifically, what should the inspector, the safety engineer, 
 or the industrial hygienist do to carry out his full responsibility? 
 Here are some illustrations: 
 
 1. He must first know the law he is trying to enforce, the codes and the 
 regulations issued thereunder, and must be able to explain their application 
 and the effective known means of compliance. 
 
 2. He must know the mechanical, educational, and organizational methods 
 that are in approved use. 
 
 3. He must know the current accident and disease experience of the in- 
 dustry which is being inspected and must be able to recognize potential and 
 actual accident and disease hazards. 
 
 4. He must have enough practical industrial background to understand 
 practical operating problems, so as to issue compliance orders when necessary 
 that are reasonable and enforceable, both as to cost and effectiveness. For 
 example, he should not make the mistake that a State inspector recently 
 made in a plant with which I am personally familiar. This inspector was 
 anxious to be helpful and, in inspecting a punch press which was equipped 
 with a home-made guard, advised the plant engineer that he had seen a 
 punch-press guard in another plant the previous day, which he felt would be 
 much better and that this guard could be purchased at reasonable cost and 
 could be installed promptly. While he did not issue an order, he did recom- 
 mend the change to the other guard. The engineer followed the inspector's 
 advice and installed the new guard, and the first day it was in use the 
 operator lost two fingers. 
 
 The moral: Let us not permit our enthusiasm for new devices to lead us into new 
 hazards. 
 
 5. He must be able and anxious to supply upon request suggestions, data, 
 and other helpful information regarding accident and disease prevention 
 
 8 
 
devices and practices, but such information when furnished should be based 
 on practical knowledge of its effectiveness. 
 
 6. He must be courteous and respectful in order to merit the respect of 
 employers and workers. Disregarding this item may interfere completely 
 with results he might otherwise secure. 
 
 7. He must be human enough to understand others. He must observe 
 the safety rules of the plant he is in, such as smoking in certain departments, 
 the wearing of goggles, etc. He should commend workers on observed good 
 housekeeping, safe tools, proper clothing, use of safeguards, etc., in order that 
 they may realize the importance attached to such practices by the Govern- 
 ment inspector. He should also be willing to take time to help the plant 
 safety man work out a tough problem which might be presented to him. 
 
 8. He must be firm and aggressive when and where such action is neces- 
 sary — no sliding over the bad spots during an inspection or chatting with the 
 boss in the office without going out through the plant. He must be able and 
 ready to go right to the top plant executive, if necessary, to get proper atten- 
 tion to accident and disease prevention. 
 
 9. He should be able to assist employers in conducting safety meetings, 
 safety contests, educational campaigns, etc. 
 
 10. He should be able to assist the employer in securing observance by 
 employees of necessary and reasonable safety rules and safe practices. 
 
 WHAT SAFETY MEN SAY 
 
 In shaping up my discussion, I wrote some of our safety men 
 at several of our plants who have been on the job for many years. 
 Here is what one of them had to say in regard to his relationships 
 with the State safety inspector who visits his plant: 
 
 1. As a person outside the regular industrial organization, the State safety 
 inspector can bring a fresh, unbiased viewpoint to the industry and perhaps 
 bring to light some genuine needs for improvement. 
 
 2. By his experience in other factories, he can often point out some means 
 of guarding that has been developed by other concerns and which may solve 
 a problem in the factory in which he is making his inspection. Of course, 
 this applies only where no secrets of operation or process are concerned. 
 
 3. In New York State, the factory inspectors have access to accident reports, 
 and with this information they can point out hazards that have caused such 
 accidents. 
 
 4. Mr. B, the State factory inspector for this district, has been making 
 inspections here for some 20 years or more. Our consultations with him 
 have been of considerable value. Usually after an inspection of the plant 
 we just sit down and talk things over. In this way we learn about some of 
 the new stunts that he has seen; these may be of an educational nature, 
 guarding of machinery, sanitation, fire prevention, or dust control. 
 
 9 
 
5. Of necessity, the State factory inspector is conversant with State require- 
 ments. All new codes or rules are discussed with him and quite often he 
 can give an interpretation of just where these will apply. 
 
 6. The psychological effect of a State officer being in the plant often has 
 a good effect on the workers. To this end Mr. B. always interests himself 
 in hand tools and such equipment. He makes sure that the man knows that 
 he is looking at them and when he finds them in good order he compliments 
 the man on the way he keeps them. One can readily see that the effect of 
 this is good. 
 
 Another safety man commented very favorably on the service of 
 the State factory inspection department, but stated that a State 
 safety inspector had not been in his plant for so many years that 
 he had lost all track of how long it had been since the last visit. 
 This plant of 1,500 employees had been fortunate in establishing 
 a fine safety record. This raises the question, "Is it good adminis- 
 tration for the State agency to concentrate its efforts upon the 
 plants with the worst accident experience and pass up almost 
 entirely the plants having good safety records?" Is it not possible 
 that the safety inspectors could gain some definite information by 
 visiting some of these plants with good safety records which they 
 could use in other plants which have not obtained such good 
 results? 
 
 WHAT MAY THE STATE EXPECT? 
 
 Having served as a Government official myself, I have viewed 
 these problems from both sides. We all agree that in the United 
 States compliance with law is not accomplished by military order 
 or by radio announcement. It is our practice in this country to 
 depend primarily on compliance rather than enforcement. 
 Furthermore, in respect to such laws as those which relate to 
 industrial accident and disease prevention, we expect two-way 
 communication between the State agency and the employers. 
 
 Accordingly, I am going to discuss briefly the following ques- 
 tion: What has the competent executive in charge of the State 
 agency responsible for industrial accident and disease prevention 
 the right to expect from the employer, from labor, and from the 
 public generally? I list the following: 
 
 1. He has the right to expect wholehearted cooperation in the proper 
 administration of the law and the regulations thereunder, in a sincere attempt 
 to achieve fundamental objectives of accident and disease prevention. 
 
 10 
 
2. He has the right to expect support in honest, fair, and uniform enforce- 
 ment on all parties concerned. 
 
 3. He has the right to expect support in securing adequate appropriations 
 for proper administration of the law. 
 
 4. He has the right to expect insistence on the part of employers, labor and 
 the public, that appointments and retention in office in this field of Govern- 
 ment work be strictly on a merit basis and that appointees be neither "pro- 
 company" nor "proworker" and that politics be left out of the matter 
 entirely. 
 
 5. He has the right to expect cooperation in drafting needed legislation 
 and regulations which are economically and mechanically feasible. 
 
 6. He has the right to expect cooperation in preparing and conducting 
 training courses for factory inspectors and otherwise upgrading the quality 
 of service of the agency and the staff personnel. 
 
 7. He has the right to expect cooperation in devising and developing new 
 safeguards and safe practices, in conducting safety conferences, contests, etc. 
 
 8. He has the right to expect courtesy and respect in return for both. 
 
 9. He has the right to expect honest records by employers and honest 
 reporting of accidents and disease, in return for fair treatment and honest 
 administration of the law. 
 
 In conclusion, I point out what seems to me one of the in- 
 escapable responsibilities of the State — that the Government 
 itself must set an example of safe practices and safeguarding on 
 all projects of the State, such as construction of buildings and 
 other public works, highway and bridge construction, operation 
 of State institutions, etc. Certainly, Dad had better not spank 
 Junior for fighting if Dad comes home with a black eye himself. 
 We all know the Government has received many black eyes 
 through inadequate attention to this problem in its own direct 
 activities. 
 
 However, I am very glad to state of my own knowledge that 
 both the State and Federal Governments are making a sincere, 
 and I believe successful, effort to improve their own safety records, 
 and it is up to all of us to assist in every way possible toward still 
 further progress. 
 
 Recently I ran across this quotation "To give real service, you 
 must add something which cannot be bought or measured with 
 money, and that is sincerity and integrity." 
 
 11 
 
 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1940 
 
 4^ 
 
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
 
 3 1262 08859 8833 
 
 * 
 
 m\