|
INDEX
|
|
 |
|
| The steep decline of carpal tunnel |
Remember carpal tunnel syndrome? That scourge of workplaces during the computerization of offices in the 1990s seems to be going the way of the dot matrix printer. At least that's what statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show.
The number of cases of carpal tunnel syndrome decreased by 21 percent between 2005 and 2006, the bureau reports. The drop was most dramatic in the professional and business services industry. The number of cases reported by that sector decreased by two-thirds since 2003, including a 50 percent drop between 2005 and 2006. So, what happened, and how can businesses keep the expensive problem from rearing its ugly head again?
First, it's important to recognize that repetitive stress injuries were probably never really the blight on the office they were made out to be at the time. Several studies over the last few years have called into question the link between computer use and repetitive stress injuries. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports much higher rates of repetitive motion injuries among manufacturing and production workers. But that's not to say that it's not a problem in offices or the workplace in general. In fact, some attribute the drop in cases to smarter on-the-job prevention measures.
In an effort to keep workplace injuries in check, here are some tips to help avoid carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive stress injuries:
* Make sure the equipment your employees use is ergonomically sound. That means desks, chairs, tools and manufacturing equipment should be the right size and appropriate for the job.
* Encourage short breaks. Even a few minutes to stop and stretch can go a long way toward preventing repetitive stress injuries.
* Try to avoid situations where employees are asked to bend, lift or move in awkward ways repeatedly. Sometimes workspaces have to be reconfigured to avoid this.
* Train employees on the proper way to sit and work. Safety training for new employees should include repetitive stress prevention. That should include making sure their work area fits them and making sure they know how to use the equipment properly. Veteran employees should also receive regular reminders on ergonomic safety.
Return to Index
| Is swearing ever OK at work |
Most everyone has encountered that hard-charging, foul-mouthed boss who doesn't hesitate to drop an F-bomb when the mood strikes him. The question for businesses is whether a boss like this is a good motivator who fosters teamwork or a potential liability.
It's a question that came up quite publicly recently when Sam Zell, the new owner of the Tribune Co., unleashed a string of expletives that can't be repeated here during a meeting with his new employees at the Chicago Tribune. According to an account in the Tribune, one of the paper's editors later told Zell that his remarks were out of line, saying it made some of the female employees uncomfortable. Zell countered saying: "I'm not disrespecting anybody. I'm trying to make everybody uncomfortable. This business has been eroding before your eyes and you're worried about my language?"
The exchange generated a flurry of discussion on journalism Web sites and blogs about whether Zell had crossed the line or whether a certain amount of swearing was appropriate in businesses like newspapers.
So, who's right, the editor who was concerned about some of his fellow employees or the boss who is trying to motivate his workers? The answer isn't that simple.
There is the traditional thinking that workplace leaders, and their employees, should remain professional in the way they talk to one another. A cuss-free workplace would seem to increase the comfort level of employees and decrease interoffice turmoil. It also would minimize the possibility of harassment and human resource headaches. It would seem obvious that restricting the use of foul language would be a net benefit just about any way you look at it. But there is evidence that that isn't always the case.
A study that appeared last year in the Leadership and Organization Development Journal found that some swearing in the workplace might be appropriate, sometimes even beneficial. Yehuda Baruch, a professor of management at the University of East Anglia in England and the author of the study, says his research shows regular use of profanity can reinforce solidarity among staff. But he stressed that abusive and offensive swearing should be eliminated where it generates greater levels of stress, rather than helping to relieve it.
"Certainly in most scenarios, in particular in the presence of customers or senior staff, profanity must be seriously discouraged or banned," he said. "However, our study suggested that in many cases, taboo language serves the needs of people for developing and maintaining solidarity, and as a mechanism to cope with stress. Banning it could backfire."
So, was Zell right? Probably not. While swearing might be something to permit as long as it doesn't get out of hand, if employees are uncomfortable enough about it to go to management, it probably crossed a line. And when you cross a line like that, you open yourself up to potential liability.
Return to Index
On-the-job eye injuries are one of the more common workplace injuries, but they are also one of the most preventable. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that about 800,000 occupational eye injuries occur every year, and more than 36,000 of those require employees to miss a day or more of work.
Potential eye hazards are found in nearly every industry, but welders, cutters, solderers and brazers incurred the most eye injuries, followed by construction laborers, according to the bureau. But it doesn't have to be this way. The National Safety Council estimates that 90 percent of all workplace eye injuries are preventable.
The organization Prevent Blindness America, in conjunction with their recent push to encourage eye safety at work, issued these common-sense tips:
* Safety eyewear must have "ANSI Z87" clearly marked on all glasses or goggles and should be worn at all times whenever eye hazards are present. The ANSI Z87 label ensures that eyewear meets the American National Standards Institute's standards.
* Workers should know where the nearest eye wash station is at their job site and how to use it.
* Employers should be notified immediately if safety hazards are discovered.
* Employees should have regular eye exams to make sure their vision is adequate to do their jobs safely.
* Those who already have reduced vision should ask their employers if prescription glasses or goggles can be provided.
Return to Index
It's almost a cliché to grumble about longer work days, longer commutes and today's more demanding, go-go lifestyle. But those very things have begun to contribute to a potentially dangerous situation in the workplace. The National Sleep Foundation recently reported that many American workers are too tired to do their jobs properly.
In their annual Sleep in America report the foundation found that:
* 29 percent of those polled fell asleep or became very sleepy at work in the past month.
* 26 percent drive drowsy during the workday.
* 12 percent were late to work in the past month because of sleepiness.
"Nearly 50 million Americans chronically suffer from sleep problems and disorders that affect their careers, their personal relationships and safety on our roads," said Darrel Drobnich, the foundation's acting chief executive officer. "The effects of sleep loss on work performance are costing U.S. employers tens of billions of dollars a year in lost productivity."
Many employers have begun to try to address the situation. A surprising number of businesses have gone so far as allowing naps during breaks. More than one third of Americans reported in the foundation's study that their workplace permits napping during breaks at work, with 16 percent reporting that their employer even provides a place for them to nap. But apart from allowing naps and encouraging adequate sleep as part of a company wellness program, there is little most employers can do apart from recognizing the problem and talking to employees who seem particularly tired at work.
Return to Index
| Good and bad news on the fraud front |
In the area of identity theft, 2007 brought good news and bad news. The latest numbers from Javelin Strategy & Research show that while fewer people are being victimized, those who are defrauded are being taken for more money.
In its report, the group found that in 2007 about 300,000 fewer adults in the United States fell victim to identity fraud than in 2006. The cost of identity fraud dropped by nearly 12 percent over the previous year, from $51 billion to $45 billion, the report found.
Some of the credit for the drop was given to improvements in systems and practices by companies that manage personal information as well as improved consumer vigilance.
"For every headline-grabbing data breach there are many businesses setting good examples, but businesses must continue to fight the issue with more consumer education and best-practices to safeguard customer data," said Steve Cole, president and CEO, Council of Better Business Bureaus. And as good business practices and online commerce becomes more commonplace, Javelin expects the downward trends to continue.
But there is bad news, too. While the total number and total cost of identity theft was down, the cost-per-victim rose. The cost-per-consumer in 2007 averaged $691, an increase of 25 percent, over the $554 recorded in 2006. And as businesses tighten their grip on consumer information, thieves are changing tactics and going after people through more low-tech means. Fraudsters are targeting more people through the telephone and mail. Mail and telephone fraud grew from 3 percent of ID theft in 2006 to 40 percent in 2007. Businesses interested in protecting their customers should keep this in mind when deciding how to interact with them, as mail and telephone contact can be more problematic than a well-designed and well-protected Web site.
Return to Index
| Business briefs: Ex-commissioner shoots man |
Former California Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, who was forced to resign amid scandal in 2000, shot and wounded a man while working as a sheriff's deputy in Lee County, Fla., according to news reports. Quackenbush, who once was considered a possible gubernatorial candidate, was forced to step down as insurance commissioner after admitting that he allowed some insurance companies to short change earthquake victims in exchange for contributions to nonprofit organizations he controlled. He has been a deputy in Florida since 2005. While responding to a domestic disturbance, according to The Associated Press, he Tased and then shot a man who was resisting arrest. The man is expected to recover from his wounds and an investigation is under way.
Return to Index
| Business briefs: Changes under way for 401(k) |
The number of companies that offer automatic enrollment into their 401(k) plans is skyrocketing, according to an annual survey by Hewitt Associates. The study found that 44 percent of companies reported offering automatic enrollment compared with 36 percent last year. Among those plans that do not offer automatic enrollment, 30 percent said they are very likely to offer it in 2008, while 27 percent are somewhat likely. And not only is automatic enrollment becoming the norm, but getting employees into the right plan is also common. Among those companies who offer automatic enrollment, 72 percent plan to convert their default investment fund to a premixed portfolio fund.
Return to Index
| Business briefs: Airbag dangers |
Seatbelts and airbags are important safety devices, but medical researchers have recently shown that using one without the other can be more dangerous than not using either. An article in a recent issue of the journal Spine shows that for those who are not wearing a seatbelt, there is a greater risk of injury when an airbag is deployed. The risk of cervical spine fracture was 70 percent higher for drivers using an airbag without a seatbelt, compared with drivers using both a seatbelt and an airbag. This was even greater than the 32 percent increase in risk for drivers using neither an airbag nor seatbelts. Airbags were specifically designed to be used with seatbelts - serious injuries may result in victims who, because they are not properly restrained by seatbelts, are "out of position" when airbags deploy.
Return to Index
|