Friday, March 19, 2010

Workplace Weight Loss Contests


For some employees, competition drives weight loss efforts.

On any given day in the Urbana, Ill., office of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), staff members in the Poison Control Center answer up to 700 telephone calls from frantic pet owners. The center “has 45 people who take phone calls all day from people saying, ‘Sparky got into the chocolate’ or ‘Rusty ate the ant bait,’ ” says Danny Groh, a programmer in the office’s Knowledge Management Center.

“Because we’re a knowledge organization, we’re pretty sedentary,” Groh continues. “I have five monitors in front of me.” And desk jobs can lead to extra pounds. So, with the blessing of the organization’s HR department, Groh and his colleagues recently organized, managed and competed in the “ASPCA Fitness Challenge.”


It was an in-house fitness and weight loss contest. Participants vied for cash prizes and used an online “leader board,” much like a leader board in golf, to track individuals’ weight loss and exercise. The competition was open throughout the 85-employee office, which includes an animal behavior center and counseling and client services departments.


The organizers’ first step was to ask the ASPCA Midwest office’s health provider, Health Alliance, to provide information about diet, exercise and wellness programs and to calculate each employee’s body mass index (BMI). The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes BMI as “a number calculated from a person’s weight and height, … a reliable indicator of body fatness for people.”


“One thing we didn’t want to do is tell people how to lose weight, because we couldn’t do that,” Groh explains. “Me, I just ate less. This was a personal challenge, not an employer-mandated challenge. And we wanted to foster some sense of responsibility in the employee to live a healthy lifestyle.”


Employees shared ideas about recipes and fitness, joined one another for walks, and found what worked best for them. And that turned out to be a plus: “There were new relationships formed across department lines, with people getting together and talking about this,” Groh says.


Groh, 35, won $250 for finishing second among men; he dropped to 168 pounds from 195 and says he feels healthier and better about himself. “I have not felt or looked this way since I was in boot camp” in the Navy, he says.


The Variables


In recent years, “reality” shows such as NBC’s “The Biggest Loser” have spawned growth in contests and “challenges” that pit employees against one another, individually or on teams, to lose weight. Such programs are distinct from the noncompetitive weight loss efforts that individuals undertake on their own or with the help of wellness counselors.


Weight loss contests can be organized and run by employees themselves or can be employer-sponsored. Some programs are diet- and nutrition-oriented; others have fitness or exercise components. And some incorporate a mix of those themes.


Employer-sponsored contests can be operated by the company’s health providers or by an independent vendor specializing in contests. Programs vary in number of participants, restrictions, duration, rules for determining winners, types of prizes offered and whether employees pay to participate.


For some workers, experts say, weight loss competitions with prizes are appealing and hence more effective than noncompetitive programs. “Based on employee feedback, the competition aspect is a true motivator,” says Audrey Boone Tillman, J.D., executive vice president and director of corporate services at Aflac, a major insurer based in Columbus, Ga., and a member of the Society for Human Resource Management’s Board of Directors.


“As the competition progresses, em­ployees inspire each other with individual successes and weigh-ins,” Tillman says. “Not only does the challenge bring out the competitive nature of employees, it also encourages camaraderie.”


Avoid Discrimination


But competitive weight loss programs can raise issues for HR professionals. Employers cannot mandate participation or apply punitive measures for nonparticipation. Likewise, most experts say rewards should be offered to all employees, not just those who obviously need to lose weight. Employers should be aware of any potential discrimination risk before addressing employees’ weight.


Implement a contest in a fair, objective and flexible manner,” Tillman says, and ensure that it “doesn’t have a negative impact on any group or class of participants. Also, employers should clearly and routinely communicate to employees that the contests are available on a voluntary basis.


Encourage employees “to seek advice from trained medical professionals before engaging in any physical activity,” Tillman adds. “Also, employees should sign a medical waiver releasing the employer of liability.


In addition, HR professionals should involve em­ployees in planning health initiatives rather than work down from the top, and they should make sure personal privacy is protected, according to the report Weights and Measures: What Employers Should Know about Obesity, issued in April by The Conference Board, a New York-based business research organization.


Employees may be sensitive about disclosure of their weight. Christine Eley, a senior health educator with Kronos Corporate and Community Wellness, a Phoenix-based provider of wellness programs, says that in conducting weigh-ins, Kronos can make certain that “we are the only eyes that see any actual weights for individuals and teams.” She says that “most employees would probably feel a wee bit uncomfortable if they knew that people in HR knew their body weights.”


Deciding Who Runs It


Employers looking for providers of weight loss contests should do thorough research, look for information on industry discussion boards, and get referrals from health clubs, medical centers and trustworthy associations.


“As an outside provider, I’d love to automatically answer, ‘Go with an outside provider,’ ” Eley says. But if your company has its own on-site fitness or wellness program, “you may be fine running it.”


Managers at textile manufacturer BGF Industries Inc. in Greensboro, N.C., decided to run a program rather than hire a vendor. Paula Legendre Stop, PHR, benefits manager, launched a weight loss competition two years ago after data from the company’s on-site wellness clinics, staffed by nurse practitioners, showed that employees’ average BMI was 30 -- the threshold for obesity in an adult. (A BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight; 30 or above is obese. Normal BMI is 18.5 to 24.9.)


Stop saw obesity as “a big problem for my company -- and we need to look at doing something about it.” She did research and talked to colleagues at other businesses and at a conference about how they ran weight loss programs.


BGF recently wrapped up its second weight loss challenge, called “Battle To Get Fit.” Last year, 165 people competed and lost a total of 1,236 pounds on teams with names such as “Fat Guys R Us” and “Show Me the Money.”


Causes and Effects


Although contests vary in details, they generally are similar in purpose and in the motivations that underlie them. For example:


At Action Health, the employee wellness department at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C., “We had several requests from employees for a competition similar to the TV show,” says wellness and nutrition coordinator Christie Hunter, referring to “The Biggest Loser.”


The nine-week contest included two teams, one with seven employees and the other with 10. Participants had to be at least 30 pounds overweight, and they paid $50 apiece. The goal was for each team member to lose one to two pounds per week through diet and exercise, Hunter says. Each team had an exercise coach and a registered dietitian who met with them weekly. Each member of the winning team -- the one with the higher average percentage of weight loss -- received $64.



Rewarding the Winners


Some employers adopt a holistic approach when declaring contest winners. Garden of Life Inc., a whole foods nutrition company in West Palm Beach, Fla., recently wrapped up a 16-week individual weight loss challenge called “Perfect Weight GoL,” based on a program authored by founder Jordan Rubin.


With accountability “came a tremendous amount of commitment, teamwork and camaraderie,” says Teresa M. Miller, PHR, senior director of human resources for Garden of Life.


Top prize was a two-night family trip for four to Disney World, three-day park passes for four, $300 in spending money, a $1,000 shopping spree at a nearby mall, and an extra day of paid time off.


The program was open to all employees as well as their spouses and members of their immediate households 18 years and older.


“If you don’t have multiple people in the same household subscribing to a similar lifestyle, it becomes very challenging, particularly if someone is drinking Coke and you’re drinking organic green tea,” Miller says.


About 50 percent of the company’s 97 employees enrolled, along with about 20 family members. Competitors had to keep journals of everything they ate, and they wrote before-and-after essays. The company partnered with BlueCross BlueShield of Florida, its health care provider, to do biometric screening and to weigh and measure contestants. Contestants had to follow food lists and were provided free Garden of Life supplements and snacks.


In addition to amount of weight lost, the challenge factored in the journal component and “leadership and support of the participants and colleagues during the program,” Miller says. These additional factors helped Vashti Ali, a 41-year-old accounts receivable representative, emerge as the grand prize winner.


“I am now my perfect weight,” Ali wrote in her journal, adding that she hadn’t felt so “happy, healthy, motivated” in a long time and now walks with pride. “I love the way I look and feel.”


by Pamela Babcock, a freelance writer based in the New York City area, reprinted from HR Magazine Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 2008)

Friday, March 12, 2010

US Labor Department's OSHA notifies 15,000 workplaces nationwide of high injury and illness rates

Assistance is available to keep workplaces safe


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration surveys employers to collect workplace injury and illness data it uses to identify employers whose injury and illness rates are considerably higher than the national average. A letter has been sent to about 15,000 workplaces with the highest numbers of injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work, restricted work activities or job transfers, known as the DART rate.


"Receipt of this letter means that workers in that particular establishment are being injured at a higher rate than in most other businesses of its kind in the country," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "Employers whose businesses have injury and illness rates this high need to take immediate steps to protect their workers."


Employers receiving the letters also were provided copies of their injury and illness data, along with a list of the most frequently cited OSHA standards for their specific industry. The letter offered assistance in helping to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses by suggesting, among other things, the use of OSHA's free safety and health consultation services for small businesses provided through the states.

OSHA identified businesses with the nation's highest rates of workplace injuries and illnesses through employer-reported data from a 2009 survey of about 100,000 worksites. (This survey collected injury and illness data for calendar year 2008.) Workplaces receiving notifications had DART rates more than twice the national average among all U.S. workplaces.


OSHA's consultation program is available to assist in addressing safety and health in the workplace for employers with 250 or fewer workers. This program is administered by a state agency and operated separately from OSHA's enforcement program. The service is free and confidential, and there are no fines even if problems are found. Designed for small employers, the consultation program can help an employer identify hazards while finding effective and economical solutions for repairing them. In addition, the OSHA state consultant can assist in developing and implementing a safety and health management system for the workplace.


A list of the employers receiving the letter is available on OSHA's public Web site here. A list of OSHA's consultation services is available here.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.


News Release from the US Department of Labor March 9, 2010

Original DOL posting

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

OSHA Proposes Recordkeeping Change To Improve Illness Data

OSHA is proposing to revise its Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting (recordkeeping) regulation by restoring a column on the OSHA Form 300 to better identify work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The rule does not change existing requirements for when and under what circumstances employers must record musculoskeletal disorders on their injury and illness logs.


Many employers are currently required to keep a record of workplace injuries and illnesses, including work-related MSDs, on the OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The proposed rule would require employers to place a check mark in a column for all MSDs they have recorded.


The proposed requirements are identical to those contained in the OSHA recordkeeping regulation that was issued in 2001. Prior to 2001, OSHA's injury and illness logs contained a column for repetitive trauma disorders that included noise and MSDs. In 2001, OSHA separated noise and MSDs into two separate columns, but the MSD column was deleted in 2003 before the provision became effective. OSHA is now proposing to restore the MSD column to the OSHA Form 300 log.


"Restoring the MSD column will improve the ability of workers and employers to identify and prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders by providing simple and easily accessible information," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "It will also improve the accuracy and completeness of national work-related injury and illness data."


For more information, view OSHA's proposal here

.

by Steve Hudgik
reprinted from http://www.safe-workplace.com/safety-blog/

Monday, March 8, 2010

The Five Threats To Worker's Safety

The 2009 data on the top ten violations of OSHA standards, as well as the top ten OSHA fines in 2009 is available in a new report from Graphic Products. Use this link to get your free copy: Top Ten OSHA Serious Violations.


But... what was the underlying cause?


A new study released today by VitalSmarts found that five threats to workers’ safety are commonly left undiscussed and lead to avoidable injury or fatalities.


The study, named Silent Danger: The Five Crucial Conversations that Drive Workplace Safety, surveyed more than 1,600 frontline workers, managers, and safety directors across 30 safety-conscious organizations in 2009.


According to the data, 93 percent of employees say their company is currently at risk and nearly half are aware of an injury or death caused by one of five avoidable workplace dangers. However, despite being aware of these five threats, only one in four employees speaks up and tries to correct unsafe conditions.


"Silent Danger shows the tragic secret behind most workplace injuries is that someone is aware of the threat well in advance, but is either unwilling or unable to speak up," said Joseph Grenny, co-founder of VitalSmarts and leading researcher of the study. "The greatest dangers to workplace safety are the norms, habits, and assumptions embedded in our corporate cultures that stifle employees’ ability to speak up and confront unsafe practices."


Each of the five threats to workplace safety outlined in Silent Danger was identified as being costly, common, and undiscussable. The five threats are:

  • Get It Done: Unsafe practices that are justified by tight deadlines.
  • Undiscussable Incompetence: Unsafe practices that stem from skill deficits that can’t be discussed.
  • Just This Once: Unsafe practices that are justified as exceptions to the rule.
  • This Is Overboard: Unsafe practices that bypass precautions considered excessive.
  • Are You a Team Player? Unsafe practices that are justified for the good of the team, company, or customer.

However, not all employees remained silent bystanders when confronted with these and similar threats. A small minority, ranging from 25 to 28 percent, say they are able to speak up effectively in these crucial moments and address unsafe conditions. More than 82 percent of this vocal minority says that when they speak up, their actions result in a safer work environment for everyone.

Grenny says additional training, safety audits, and other tools, while important, will never be enough to create a truly safe environment.

"The reason we are seeing safety improvements begin to stall is not because the systems and policies we have implemented don’t work, it's because people don’t speak up and hold one another accountable," says Grenny. "Accidents in the workplace will not be prevented until senior leaders eradicate cultures of silence."

Grenny outlines recommendations senior leaders can follow for teaching their employees to speak up in crucial moments. One year after implementing Grenny’s recommendations, Pride International, an offshore drilling contractor, decreased its total incident rate by 55 percent and reported zero accidents that required employees to miss time on the job.

The full Silent Danger research results and recommendations for leaders are available for download at VitalSmarts

.

About the Silent Danger Study

In early 2009, VitalSmarts began identifying ways to improve workplace safety incidents that led to 4 million injuries and 5,600 deaths per year. The Silent Danger study began with interviews and focus groups with 130 people from eight organizations. Trends unveiled in the interviews were verified through a survey administered to 1,500 employees from 22 organizations to test the impact communication breakdowns had on workplace safety. Full results available at VitalSmarts.com

Taken from www.safe-workplace.com/safety-blog posted by Steve Hudgik

Thursday, March 4, 2010

US Labor Department's OSHA reminds employers of hazards associated with snow cleanup and urges proper worker safeguards

NEW YORK – With the recent spate of snowstorms hitting the Northeast, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) wants to remind workers, employers and the general public of the hazards associated with snow removal and recovery work.


"Cleaning up after a storm encompasses a variety of tasks, each of which can carry risks if performed incorrectly or without proper safeguards," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "We want people to know what those risks are and what steps they can take to protect themselves against these hazards."


Common hazards can include:

  • Electric shock from contact with downed power lines or the use of ungrounded electrical equipment.
  • Falls from snow removal on roofs or while working in aerial lifts or on ladders.
  • Being struck or crushed by trees, branches or structures that collapse under the weight of accumulated snow.
  • Carbon monoxide poisoning from gasoline-powered generators in inadequately ventilated areas or idling vehicles.
  • Lacerations or amputations from unguarded or improperly operated chain saws and power tools, and improperly attempting to clear jams in snow blowers.
  • Slips or falls on icy or snow-covered walking surfaces.
  • Being struck by motor vehicles while working in roadways.
  • Hypothermia or frostbite from exposure to cold temperatures.

Means of addressing these hazards can include:

  • Assuming all power lines are energized, keeping your distance and coordinating with the utility.
  • Making certain that all electrically powered equipment is grounded.
  • Providing and ensuring the use of effective fall protection.
  • Properly using and maintaining ladders.
  • Using caution around surfaces weighted down by large amounts of snow.
  • Making certain all powered equipment is properly guarded and disconnected from power sources before cleaning or performing maintenance.
  • Using and wearing eye, face and body protection.
  • Clearing walking surfaces of snow and ice, and using salt or equivalent where appropriate.
  • Establishing and clearly marking work zones.
  • Wearing reflective clothing.
  • Using engineering controls, personal protective equipment and safe work practices to reduce the length and severity of exposure to the cold.