Thanks to eTraining for the share.
Note we take issue with the illusion of causality by the graph superimposing the fatality rate against OSHA expenditures, see our post HERE.
Author: Miles Free
Industrial Production (IP) increased 0.6 percent in July after having risen 0.1 percent in both May and June.
In July, manufacturing output increased 0.5 percent and was 5.0 percent above its year-earlier level. The factory operating rate moved up 0.2 percentage point in July to 77.8 percent, a level 1.0 percentage point below its long-run average.
Capacity utilization for total industry moved up 0.4 percentage point to 79.3 percent, a rate 1.0 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2011) average.
Revisions to the rates of change for recent months left the level of the IP index in June little changed from its previous estimate. Manufacturing output rose 0.5 percent in July, the same rate of increase as was recorded for June.
At 98.0 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production in July was 4.4 percent above its year-earlier level.
The production index for durable goods increased 0.8 percent in July.
Gains of more than 1 percent were recorded in
- Primary metals,
- Computer and electronic products,
- Motor vehicles and parts,
- Aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment,
- Miscellaneous manufacturing.
Manufacturing is up 5 % from July 2011 to July 2012.
Manufacturing continues to be a strength of the U.S. Economy. The U.S. manufactures more than Brazil, Russia, India, and China combined. If U.S. Manufacturing was a country, it would be the sixth largest in the world.
EHS magazine had a great post on the overuse as abuse of PPE.
Diminished Returns, Diminished Awareness was written by John Olesky.
Apparently John is as tired as I am of seeing everyone wearing whatever they call that high-visibility neon-green regardless of their actual job, hazard, or risk.
I think that this high-visibility neon-green is actually a magical talisman summoned up by the high priests/ witch doctors of safety.
Here’s a brief excerpt from John’s blog dealing with those neon green vests:
Vest Concerns
Why is it when I look at some construction sites, I see EVERYONE on site wearing reflective safety vests? OSHA, in 29 CFR 1926.651(d), sets forth requirements for workers who are exposed to vehicular traffic. OSHA states that “employees exposed to public vehicular traffic shall be provided with, and shall wear, warning vests or other suitable garments marked with or made of reflectorized or high-visibility material.”
And according to DOT, 23 CFR 634.3, Use of High-Visibility Apparel When Working on Federal-Aid Highways: “All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel.”
These vests specifically were designed for use when there is some kind of vehicular traffic on or near the work site, or if heavy equipment such as a dozer or crane is moving around the site AND the workers will be exposed to the dangers of being struck by that traffic.
So I have to ask project managers and project safety managers, “Is there a danger of being hit by a ‘vehicle’ when employees are working on the 15th floor of a 30-story high rise building?” If not, then why are they required to wear reflective vests?
Amen John. And by the way, they are also wearing them in the store, the gas station, everywhere. I am seeing this neon -green assault to the eyes everywhere. It’s become ubiquitous.
The proper PPE is not magic. It is the result of proper analysis of hazards at that occupational location. The guy in the crane high above doesn’t need his visibility improved to protect him from vehicular traffic. The roofer doesn’t need a neon-green shirt, he needs fall protection. Guess which the roofer is actually wearing?
As John Olesky said:
If we did a JHA correctly we would have to ask if the universal use of these vests on site truly makes the workers safe. We need to ask: Does this universal donning of safety vests even when they aren’t needed increase or diminishthe visual awareness for the heavy equipment operator or for the general public driving past the construction site?
It is my belief that the over use of these vests actually will diminish the safety factor that these vests originally intended for both the workers and for the general public.
Do the Hazard Analysis. Require appropriate PPE for the involved employees.
Avoid the if it’s good for one, it’s good for many approach.
After all safety ain’t magic.
Critical thought- like requiring high visibility clothing- ONLY for those who would be protected by it.
What irks you about the perception of magical safety solutions?
Thanks to EHS Today for sharing John Olesky’s great post.
We ought to provide immediately relevant training the best way we know how, today. Insisting on old school manual training just might be why we are short about a million workers in advanced manufacturing today.
George Jetson, Advanced Manufacturing
What exactly is it that we are trying to accomplish with training? Getting competent employees to help us create and add value in our shops today.
Whenever I hear this topic discussed, the battle lines are drawn between those who insist that the applicant MUST have actually done manual machining with the lathe or bridgeport “so they can feel it.”
This argument seems pretty well established in industry, it is absolutely set in stone in Academia, where the faculty, their advisory boards and the administrators are all committed to the curricula, equipment, and instructors to teach whatever it is that they are already teaching.
Chances are, the first thing that they are teaching is something that is manual and was produced in the mid-part of the last century…
I understand the desire to want everyone to have the same shared experience of “cutting metal.” Of learning the “fundamentals.” Of learning the craft the way “I did.”
But the way we learned may not just be an obstacle or difficulty to today’s students, it may be a barrier. A barrier so real, that they elect to go into another program.
Today, insisting that students learn the same way and the same stuff that we taught students in the 1950’s isn’t working.
Think about how we teach our own kids to cook. When you start to teach your kids to cook, do you take them outside and show them how to clear an area for a fire, build a fire ring, collect and chop tinder, kindling and firewood, light a fire, and then do the food prep?
Is that really relevant when all of us, even the unemployed, have microwave ovens available in our homes, workplaces and sitting right next to the vending machines?
I’ll bet you start by showing your kid how to take the packaging off the food item, read the instruction for time and power, and then how to push the buttons on the microwave to achieve that combination of time and temperature.
Imagine if every cooking class started with chopping wood, building the fire, killing and butchering the meat, etc., etc..
I am not asking for us to lower our standards for professionalism, math literacy, or safety.
Is insisting on teaching them exactly the way that we taught Fred Flintstone back in the day the best way to teach people today- especially people who have always had access to computers, calculators and Microwave ovens? People who are practiced and comfortable at pushing the right buttons to get the right answer, to make the thing on the screen do what they want it to.
People who are comfortable pushing buttons to feed themselves.
The way I see it, we ought to provide immediately relevant training the best way we know how, today.
We have almost million jobs vacant in advanced manufacturing today. And maybe, just maybe, it’s because when students see the medieval looking manual lathes and mills in the “machining lab” that they are going to have to endure, it just doesn’t seem to be worth it.
They see it is not a match. Why can’t we?
Your potential students say, “you’re kidding right?”
Actually they say something like “WTF- Cr8z Fred Flintstone cranky thing- im’ outta h3ar” by punching keys on their ‘CNC Phone.’
I do think that manual machine operation is a “Gr8 skilz 2 has.”
But I think that maybe, just maybe, we ought to back fill into it, after our talented trainees have shown themselves and us just how well they can do pushing “buttonz” on the CNC.
Disclaimer: I learned to operate a manual lathe, Bridgeport knee mill, and toolroom grinder at Lorain County Community College. I took a five day Brown and Sharpe set up class about 20 years ago and am confident I could get a ‘Brownie’ “damn near to print” in a couple of days… <LOL> I appreciate the insight into the machining process that my training gave me. But I ask is it the best and most relevant way to this vital task today?
OSHA Director David Michaels has responded to PMPA’s letter challenging several aspects of the OSHA March 12, 2012 Memorandum on Employer Safety Incentive and Disincentive Policies and Practices.
PMPA felt that the guidance document removed employer authorities to use safety incentives and tools (such as discipline for failure to report injuries) to assure that employers could meet their obligations to maintain a safe workplace. We challenged the memorandum in a letter to Director Michaels on April 18, 2012.
Director Michaels replied with a letter July 30, 2012, in which he “whole-heartedly agrees” with the use of incentives to encourage positive behaviors and that OSHA “recognizes the employers’ legitimate interest in establishing procedures for receiving and responding to reports of injuries and nothing in the memo is intended to undermine that interest.”
Employer’s rights to discipline and offer limited incentives are maintained.
However, Director Michaels maintains that “Programs that give awards based on an employee or work unit not having any reported injuries are likely to have the reverse effect of incentivizing workers to simply not report their injuries. When injuries are not reported, as noted above, employers are without information that will help them protect their other employees and insure the injured employee receives appropriate treatment. In programs that penalize an entire workgroup because a single member reports an injury, the effect may be magnified because workers are often especially reluctant to report an injury if the that report will have a negative effect on their colleagues as well as themselves. In addition, if the employer fails to record an injury because the employee does not report it, the employer is in violation of OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements.”
Use of affirmative incentives for achieving safety goals is likely to be targeted by OSHA as discriminatory unless it can be shown that the awards do not dissuade personnel from reporting injuries.
Bottom Line: Employers may continue to discipline employees who fail to report injuries appropriately. Positive incentives for safety performance remain targeted by OSHA as potentially discriminatory and dissuasive of reporting injuries.
PMPA has prepared a one page summary of the Director’s comments.
This post inspired by a comment from John at HyTek Manufacturing in the Chicago suburbs who commented on our post The Most Important Tool.
What is the most important job in a company? In any organization?
What is absolutely the one thing that truly determines organizational success?
Is it Supervision? Operations? Accounting? Purchasing?
Each of these are core competencies without which a company can struggle and ultimately fail.
But what is the most important Job for the organization? Let me quote John:
“The strongest department or skill a company can have is the hiring department. Getting the right person for the job is the majority of the task. The most successful companies always hire the best people for the job. Ones that think and contribute, not just punch in and punch out thinking.”
I think John has this right. Having the right people is key for any organization. After all the organization is those people and their attitudes, knowledge and abilities as demonstrated by their performance.
Thanks John, for leading this conversation.
But I would expand it just a bit.
The most important job in a company is the selection of employees, suppliers, and customers.
A failure at any of these spells trouble in operations, production, and sales.
What do you think about this?
What is the most important job at your company?
A new OSHA Quick Card provides guidance to minimize employee exposure to mercury when cleaning up a broken fluoresecent light.
I think we have all heard the urban legends about broken mercury thermometers being cause of school evacuations that turn out to be true stories of overreaction.
And that the EPA ‘s draconian procedures require hazmat suits (Not true- at least the part about needing a Hazmat suit). There is nothing about Hazmat suits in their EPA CLEAN UP BROKEN CFL INSTRUCTION (Although one Maine couple got some bad advice that cost them over $2000 for the cleanup of a single broken CFL bulb.)
And the MSDS sheet sure can put the fear into you if you don’t understand dosing quantities, air volumes and circulation, and exposure.
So we were pleased to find that OSHA has actually published a quick card to protect workers and companies from bad advice and give authoritative guidance on reducing the risks from broken mercury containing fluorescent bulbs and tubes.
Safe Cleanup of Broken Fluorescent Bulbs
- Notify workers and tell them to stay away from the area.
- Open any windows and doors to air out the room.
- Do not use a broom or vacuum cleaner unless the vacuum cleaner is specifically designed to collect mercury.
- Wear appropriate disposable chemical-resistant gloves.
- Use a commercial mercury spill kit if available, or scoop up pieces of glass and powder with stiff paper or cardboard to avoid contact with the broken glass.
- Use sticky tape to pick up any remaining pieces of glass.
- Wipe down hard floors with a damp paper towel.
- Place all pieces of glass and cleanup materials in a sealable plastic bag or a glass jar with a lid.
- Wash your hands thoroughly after cleanup.
Myself, I’d put the debris collected in a metal paint can type of container. Why put the hazardous debris in a plastic bag which will not contain the mercury vapors? Why put it in another easily breakable glass jar? Metal can is safer.
Maybe it has something to do with recycling?
Disambiguation alert: Don’t confuse this quick card with the fact sheet which is specifically for people working in the fluorescent disposal industry.
In July, the European ISM manufacturing index has now fallen over 12 consecutive months to hit a 37-month low. The rates of decline in manufacturing in Germany, France and Spain were “either at or close to the steepest since mid-2009.” Reporting by Industry Week
In July, the U.S. summary “Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI)” from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) inched up 0.1 points for July, to a level of 49.8. In plain English, “Industrial activity at the nation’s factories remained stalled in July” according to Dr. Ken Mayland, PMPA’s retained Economist.
In July, business hiring slowed while still growing, according to the ADP payrolls report, adding yet another mixed signal to the conversation. ADP said that private-sector employment rose by 163,000 in July, slowing from a downwardly revised June gain of 172,000. The increase in jobs for July beat most analyst predictions which were in the 125,000 area.
In July,”in China and South Korea The Purchasing Managers’ Index in China unexpectedly fell to 50.1 in July, the weakest in eight months, from 50.2 in June, a government report showed today. South Korea’s exports slid by more than double the amount forecast by analysts and inflation moderated to a 12-year low.” –Bloomberg
Below 50, manufacturing is contracting…
According to the Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Notices:
C. Factoryless Goods Producers
The factoryless goods producer outsources all of the transformation steps that traditionally have been considered manufacturing, but undertakes all of the entrepreneurial steps and arranges for all required capital, labor, and material inputs required to make a good.
Characteristics of factoryless goods producers include:
- Does not perform transformation activities;
- Contracts with manufacturing service provider to perform transformation activities to its specifications;
- Owns rights to the intellectual property or design (whether independently developed or otherwise acquired) of the final manufactured product;
- Owns the manufactured product it contracted another establishment to produce;
- Controls and facilitates the production process; and
- Sells the final product.
As noted in NAICS United States 2007, units that perform chemical, physical, or mechanical transformation of inputs into new outputs are usually classified in manufacturing.
Speaking of Precision: Nothing in those bullet points have anything at all to do with actually manufacturing. So why would we call a company that doesn’t transform inputs a manufacturer?
Federal Register: Alternatively, these units could be classified within the wholesale trade sector, because they purchase critical input transformation services from others and are more like a traditional wholesaler who buys and sells goods.
SOP: That’s the ticket!
FR: Classification of factoryless goods producers to either manufacturing or wholesale trade will affect current statistical programs and the estimates that they produce.
SOP: You betcha! Imagine not adding any workers to the manufacturing sector, but now counting all those billions of dollars worth of outsourced goods from China now as somehow magically being “manufactured” here in the U.S. Our worker productivity numbers would soar.
Except it wouldn’t.
Factoryless Goods Producers. Not manufacturing at a location near you.
There seems to be a lot of confusion these days about manufacturing. As a guy who has worked his entire life in manufacturing, I’d like to eliminate this confusion.
The word “Manufacture” is made up from two Latin Roots “manu” and “factura.”
“Manu” means “by hand”
“Factura” is a derivative of “facere” which meant “to perform” or “to do.” Factura means ” a working.”
Those Junior High Latin Classes sure made understanding big words pretty clear.
While the linguistic origins of ‘manufacturing’ were “a working, by hand,” the essence was the creation of something by work into something else. In modern terms, it is “the conversion of raw materials into finished goods by labor.”
Today, with our abundance of machines, and non-human provided energy, we define manufacturing as “the use of machines, tools and labor to convert raw materials into finished goods.”
In North America, (for now) Manufacturing is denoted officially by NAICS codes numbering from 31-33 according to BLS.
So what is the confusion about manufacturing?
There is a move afoot to count the foreign production of Factoryless Goods Producers (FGP’s) as ” U.S. Manufacturing.”
If you don’t actually make something, you aren’t really a manufacturer.
If you don’t make it here, how can you count it here?
-You may be a great designer. Great engineer. Great logistics company. Great sales company.
But if you don’t make what ever it is that you designed, engineer, or sell- it ain’t manufacturing.
So when someone tries to tell you that they are a “factoryless goods producer,” don’t flinch, don’t blink, don’t bat an eye.
And what ever you do don’t call them a liar. (It’s rude to call people liars, even when they are lying.)
Just tell them that they are mistaken, they are an outsourcer, not a manufacturer.
Manufacturers actually make things and often export their products.
Factoryless goods producers don’t make anything themselves.
In some cases however outsourcers EXPORT OUR JOBS.
Tomorrow: What Uncle Sam means when he says Factoryless Goods Producer.