Forestry Safety Progress Report Shows There Is Still a High Number of Injuries and Deaths

Thursday, June 25, 2009 04:00 AM

Prince George, B.C. - The B.C. Forest Safety Council has released it’s ‘08/’09 progress report, and there is still an alarming number of fatalities and injuries in the industry.

The report shows that while the B.C. harvesting level in 2008 was nearly 20 million cubic meters of timber less than 2007, there has been virtually no change in the rate of workers compensation claims filed. In 2008, the rate of claims per 100 thousand cubic metres of harvested timber was 5, while in 2007 (when harvesting activity was significantly higher) the claims rate per 100 thousand cubic meters was 5.04.

Even more alarming is that in 2008, there were 21 fatalities. While that is only a fraction of the number of fatalities that occurred in 2005, it is far higher than the number of deaths in 2004, ‘06, and 2007.

Attached to the progress report is the update from the Forest Safeety Ombudsman, Roger Harris. He notes 3 issues which have yet to be addressed and says they must be addressed if the number of injuries and fatalities are to be reduced. Here is Harris’s report:

More work is required to develop definitions and identify training criteria for non-certified trade job-classifications in the forest sector. Despite new forestry training initiatives underway with the Industry Training Authority (ITA) and the Council, there remains a lack of clarity on the role of government in the administration, resourcing and delivery of this training. Many of the non-certified trades have application across other resource and industrial sectors. Making progress towards developing common standards for training and certification in the forest sector for these occupations may provide safety benefits for other industrial sectors as well.
A new public highway designation for resource roads serving as primary or secondary access roads for communities must be established. This continues to be an important safety issue for many communities in British Columbia. While we are pleased that the provincial government has made a number of funding announcements directed at improving the maintenance of resource roads across the province, there continuesto be a systemic issue around the long-term management of resource roads that serve both communities and multiple resource sectors. While the Safety Ombudsman’s Office continues to receive calls on this issue it will remain a key area of interest and will be monitored closely in 2009.
Safety issues arising out of the calculation of cycle-times must be recognized and addressed by either WSBC regulation or through the Council’s SCP. Cycle-times remain a recurring theme and constituted a large volume of calls in 2009. Unfortunately, the current economic environment has only compounded this issue for many companies and individuals. Recognizing the complex calculations required to determine cycle times, this Office still strongly advocates that safety must remain an over-riding priority even in tough economic times. In March 2009 the BC Trucking Association released the report, “Truck Compliance Advisory Panel Report” which identified “Shipper Responsibility” as a major concern.The points identified around “Shipper Responsibility” and how they impact the behaviour of truck drivers in the trucking industrial parallel many of the issues around cycle-times in the forest sector. The report identified this as a difficult issue to resolve with no simple solutions. Our office continues to view the calculation of cycletimes as a complex safety issue and will continue to monitor how the trucking sector manages “Shipper Responsibility” for any relevant solutions that are transferable to the forest sector.

Harris finishes his portion of the progress report by noting his office continues to engage individuals who are reluctant to speak out against unsafe work practices for fear of losing their jobs and/or contracts. harris says his office has met with groups where communication between owner-operators, sub-contractors, contractors, licensees or mills on safety-related matters has been discouraged.

Harris completes his report with this comment "While the economic downturn remains a significant challenge for the forest sector, improving safety in the workplace cannot occur in a vacuum of silence."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, June 25, 2009 04:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 8:17 AM

I hauled logs for Canfor last winter and was involved in an accident involving another Canfor hired truck. Fortunatly neither of us were hurt in this accident.

As soon as it was determined that there were no injuries both contractors with which these two trucks were hired seemed to make an effort to keep the accident silent.

Niether contractor talked to me about it nor was i required to file any report. When I did inquire about any documentation I was told not to worry about it, it is taken care of. Furthermore no one in the Canfor safety department talked or asked for any documentation either.

The whole industry talks the "safety talk" but, do not walk the walk. This is an example of how we will tell you "how to be safe" but we will not "help you to be safe" as the latter may cost money.

As we all know when getting certified for Safe Companies, if it is not documented, it never happened.

Posted by: Jem on June 25 2009 8:30 AM

Having to be safe certified does not make anything safer it just creates jobs, cost a lot of money and makes it a lot harder for the company to make it in this world. We already have WCB so what is next.

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on June 25 2009 9:23 AM

As long as workers keep cutting corners there will always be injuries and death. Truckers ignoring the rules of the road, loggers & millworkers ignoring safety rules and rampant substance abuse can all be blamed on the workers....not the companies.

Blaming the companies is just passing the buck.

Slow down, wait till after work to puff on a joint and use some common sense.....that way you will make it home for dinner every night.

Posted by: just the facts on June 25 2009 9:55 AM

Payhisownway i don't know where you live or if you ever worked in a mill its not the worker that wants to cut corners it's the supervisors who want the production to make them look bad every supervisor have their onw way of getting workers to cut corners if you check there is more mangement and supervisors with drug and other substance problems than there are workers Its people like you who say its ok to abuse drugs at home or after work.
Take off your white hat maybe then you can see that when a supervisor has substance abuse problem nothing happens to them they are left alone and heads turn the other way If companies get their way we all will be working 10 -12 hrs a day for 6 bucks hr and no safety on sites what so ever. you should no listen to the company line and think for yourself

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 10:12 AM

"workers cutting corners", I'll give you another example of corner cutting,PayHisOwnWay.

Log haulers are paid based on tonnage and cycle times in trhe central interior. The cycle times are based on loaded and empty speeds with respect to speed limits, also on average loading and unloading times.

Last winter I hauled into a mill that refused to supply enough equipment to handle the volume of loads per day delivered to thier site. The result was up to 2 hours waiting to offload trucks at times.

When a truck is paid on a tonne/hr basis any delay in the cycle time is the cost of the truck owner only. Therefore in this example the licencee used the system in whick logtrucks are paid to reduce the licencee log yard costs. This exploitation of the logtruck compensation without a doubt contributes to higher speeds by the logtrucks on our hiways and forest roads as almost all log truck drivers are paid on the cycle time as is the truck they are driving.

Another example of how forest safety is all about "telling the worker how to be safe" instead of "helping the worker on how to be safe".

Posted by: foxtrapper on June 25 2009 11:14 AM

duh?? There are dangerous jobs in the world. You can't cure death. To think we can is stupidity.

Posted by: gus on June 25 2009 11:31 AM

"Another example of how forest safety is all about "telling the worker how to be safe" instead of "helping the worker on how to be safe"."

Boy, lost it all, did you ever hit the nail on the head with that one!!!!!

There are tons of courses and safety meetings and most are "tell" "tell" "tell"

That is fine, as long as people do not fall asleep because it is the umpteenth time that they hear the same thing.

A good mentor system is required using direct supervisors and co-workers who excell in doing a safe and a good job.

EVERYONE is responsible for safety and needs to do what they can do in their sphere of influence. If you have to work in a man check system, and your communication equipment does not work, don't blame management. Take charge and do not continue to work until the system is working again. Plain and simple of who is in charge under what circumstances.

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on June 25 2009 1:17 PM

Posted by just the facts - "if you check there is more mangement and supervisors with drug and other substance problems than there are workers"

Really? Where would I find that nugget of knowledge? Tell me which mill has more on site management than employees by number.

Posted by lost it all - "Log haulers are paid based on tonnage and cycle times in trhe central interior. The cycle times are based on loaded and empty speeds with respect to speed limits, also on average loading and unloading times.

Last winter I hauled into a mill that refused to supply enough equipment to handle the volume of loads per day delivered to thier site. The result was up to 2 hours waiting to offload trucks at times."

Find a new Mill to haul for or better yet......negotiate a better contract. Once again.....putting the blame on the company for something that is 100% in your control.

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 1:35 PM

Is that your solution to the problem PayHisOwnWay, by putting your head in the sand?

It is totally not in any control (not 100% but 0% in fact)of any driver driving any logtruck in the central interior. As all negotiations are with the stump to dump contractor with absolutly no cosultation with any logtruck driver. So PayHisOwnWay, before you start spouting off on any subject do some research and get a clue.

Explain to me PayHisOwnWay where I as a logtruck driver can ensure that the mill I haul into will have any ethical code as to not exploit a system of pay for thier own good at the expense of someone else's safety?

To say this is just business is wrong because the rate in which the truck is paid is negotiated with a time alloted to unload trucks. Therefore this exploitation is just that unethical, not only an exploitation of money but of safety, logtruck drivers and other road users as well.

As far as the speed on the road is concerned, yes I can slow the truck down that I drive. That does not however guarantee that the speed of the other 80 trucks that hauled into that mill will slow down. Therefore the condition still exists.

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 1:48 PM

What good would it do to quit and haul into another mill to fix this safety issue, PayHisOwnWay?
Would that ensure that the trucks that were still there had now slowed down because I quit?
Would I then be safer now that I didn't have this delay because the new mill in which I now hauled into didn't exploit me in this way even tho I still shared the same roads as the delayed trucks?

Posted by: gus on June 25 2009 2:05 PM

"putting the blame on the company for something that is 100% in your control"

Hauling prices is not 100% in the contractor's control and you know it. Any contract is a two way street. If the client is not willing to pay what you want, and there are others that will accept it, you know the rest of the story, you're history.

Same with other contractors to licensees. The licensees start of by offering less work and provideing a lower unit cost. If you are a business operator, you know that will hit your bottom line more than a simple cut in total units or a cut in unit price. A double cut like that sends your bottom line into the red if you have already cut to the bone in previous years.

And where is the first place people will cut in order to keep the company operating? Safety. Safety is still considered a frill by many.

Posted by: just the facts on June 25 2009 2:06 PM

is said more mangement have substance abuse problems than do workers in many mills

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on June 25 2009 5:07 PM

lost it all - I suggest you spend some time reading up on "Contract Law". Once again.....it is not the companies fault for negotiating a contract with your employer that you do not like or your employer negotiating a contract with you (as the driver) that you agreed to but, now think is unfair.

As for a solution to the safety problem......grow a set and just say "no".

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 5:36 PM

PayHisOwnWay, did you not read what my previous posts stated.

If the contract is negotiated with an unloading time of 30 minutes and the company takes up to 2 hours to unload, who PayHisOwnWay, is not living up to thier part of the contract.

Like I said before, PayHisOwnWay, do some research before you comment on something you know nothing about.

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 6:05 PM

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 6:31 PM

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 6:48 PM

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 7:04 PM

Do you think if I just said "no" and I no longer hauled logs that this would solve this exploitation of the log haulers that are still there?

Posted by: justhefacts on June 25 2009 7:55 PM

Just slow down Lost it All before you lose it all. You are behind the steering wheel...you are in control.
As for the other 80 trucks they should slow down too, and if you know as much as you think you do then perhaps you can convince the other truck drivers to follow suit.

Posted by: foxtrapper on June 25 2009 10:02 PM

Just to show how silly some things really are. One young guy dies at the hands of a gas thief. The BC government in it wisdom makes 'pay in advance' a law. Many truckers die every year as do forest workers an miners,fisherman etc. For that we get lip service and good jobs for the ones doing the yapping. Does it cure the problem?

Posted by: gus on June 25 2009 10:40 PM

The gas thief solution was one which costs the government little money. It costs some service stations who did not have pay at the pump systems yet and it costs everyone else who did not use credit cards some inconvenience.

Fixing the problems on the forestry roads costs the companies plus the drivers loss in efficiency thus $/hr of work and/or it costs the govenment in the $billion range to bring amny of the resource roads up to some reasonable standard and maintain them better.

It apples and oranges.

Posted by: lost it all on June 25 2009 11:40 PM

Gee, thanks justthefacts, what a brilliant idea, I can't believe your not part of the provincial "think tank" to solve 21 deaths last year in the industry.

Posted by: just the facts on June 26 2009 9:11 AM

I DON'T KWON WHO MADE THE LAST POST UNDER JUST THE FACTS IT WAS NOT ME PLEASE DON'T USE MY USERMANE PLEASE WHO EVER YOU ARE I THINK THAT IS REALLY E COSTUPID HEY LOST IT ALL I NEVER POSTED THAT COMMENT

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on June 26 2009 10:17 AM

Posted by lost it all - "If the contract is negotiated with an unloading time of 30 minutes and the company takes up to 2 hours to unload, who PayHisOwnWay, is not living up to thier part of the contract."

This is precisely why you need to do some research or "book learnin" on the subject. A properly negotiated contract will have provisions to deal with those issues and spell out the remedies and/or the financial compensation penalties. IF the contracts that you are subject to (and negotiated in good faith) do not address the issue then it is once again.......NOT THE COMPANIES FAULT.

Posted by: lost it all on June 26 2009 10:31 AM

I guess your missing the point there bud, the company was fully aware of the breach in the contract. I myself addressed it in writing, some of the contractors did as well.
The result was if you don't like it leave.

I am sure court action could have been an option. If you are a contractor and your truck makes X amount of dollars a day whether it takes 12 or 14 hours, why would you risk losing everything because the guys who are being exploited safety-wise are only a few truckdrivers relatively speaking of the whole industry?
So once again the licencee takes advantage knowing full well the guys who are affected really only have one option, take it or leave it.

I guess PayHisOwnWay, in the perfect world where you live and work you get to play with people and business that respect values and have a moral compass, legal or not.
If it was as simple as you seem to think it is,why is it PayHisOwnWay, has the issue not resolved and every forest worker comes home at the end of every season?

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on June 26 2009 5:51 PM

Darwin.

Posted by: lost it all on June 26 2009 6:50 PM

Like I said without a clue.

Posted by: editor on June 26 2009 9:10 PM

This letter was received from the CEO of the B.C. Forest Safety Council with a request for publication:

Thank you for publishing an article on the BC Forest Safety Council�s 2008/09 Progress Report and for highlighting the importance of safe practices in the forest industry. You correctly point out that the data shows only a modest improvement in the reduction of claims per one hundred thousand cubic meters of wood harvested. In light of the difficult market conditions in 2008, this is a positive change. Injury rates usually increase with higher stress due to decreased job security, and the inconsistent shutdown and start-up of operations responding to uncertain markets. To see them decrease at this time is an early indicator that safety improvement efforts by the industry are beginning to have an effect.

The good news also continues with the industry�s commitment to keep improving its safety performance. In spite of the difficult markets, more companies are investing in the training and audits to become SAFE Certified.

Here are some other highlights from the Council�s Progress Report that may be of interest to your readers:

1,299 companies were SAFE Certified at the end of 2008 compared to 530 companies in 2007 when the program began. That trend continues this year with another 886 companies becoming SAFE Certified by mid-June for a total of 2,185
4,158 companies of all sizes were registered by year end 2008 to earn SAFE Certification
2,163 companies participated in SAFE Companies training while 578 took part in worker training initiatives

Yes, much remains to be done. Our goal is to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries and we will continue to work with industry to achieve that goal. WorkSafeBC strongly supports the continued effort, and expects positive changes. The provincial government is also actively involved through BC Timber Sales requiring SAFE Certification by contractors operating on their timber sales, being just one example.

It is worthwhile to recognize how much effort has been put forth and to applaud the achievements that have been made by the now thousands of people in many forestry companies who are working to reduce injuries in their operations. Their efforts are beginning to make a difference.

Reynold Hert

CEO, BC Forest Safety Council