BCT “news” article – 11/3/13

Below is a detailed critique of portions of this column.

In case you still wonder where the BCT stands regarding industry in this area, consider the following.

The story title above is what appears on the BCT website.  It was worse in the print edition.  On the front page of the Sunday (11/3/13) BCT print edition, the title is “DANGEROUS JOBS - Plants provide work, but they can be deadly.”  Elsewhere in the print edition was a third-page title of “CHEMICAL PLANTS BRING DANGER, AS WELL AS JOBS, TO COMMUNITIES” and a “spotlight” stating, “YOU’RE TALKING HIGHLY HAZARDOUS FLAMMABLE CHEMICALS.  TAKE A COFFEE CAN, FILL IT ABOUT HALF FULL OF GAS AND PUT IT ON YOUR BARBECUE. THAT’S NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT’S GOING ON IN THESE FACILITIES.  IT’S A DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS OPERATION AND IT NEEDS TO BE WATCHED CAREFULLY.”  The “spotlight” quote came from a United Steelworkers staffer.  Guess who wants to do the watching.

Despite the above, there’s a section in the story with the heading “A GOOD SAFETY RECORD.”  Yes, to maintain any shred of credibility, the author had to concede, “Despite high-profile mishaps like the two this summer, the industry’s safety rate is better than many others.  Chemical manufacturing results in a death rate of 1.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers, according to OSHA records.  That’s lower than the nationwide average of 3.2 for all sectors and a much lower number than jobs such as mining, forestry, or agriculture.”  The story then returns to its theme.

What about nonfatal injuries?  I mentioned this story to an out-of-state reader and by happy coincidence he recently reviewed safety metrics for his own business and he was kind enough to provide me with some data and insights from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  BLS Table SNR05 shows the “Incidence rate and number of nonfatal occupational injuries by industry and ownership for 2011.”  The reader also selected some industry sectors for comparison, shown in the table below, and I highlighted a few.

You’ll note the retail industry incidence rates are above and below manufacturing in general and much higher than petrochemical manufacturing.

Now let’s go back to the USW statement.  According to the article, “Kim Nibarger, health and safety specialist for the United Steelworkers, which represents thousands of chemical and refinery workers, said the industry needs better scrutiny.  ‘You’re talking highly hazardous flammable chemicals,’ he said.  ‘Take a coffee can, fill it about half full of gas and put it on your barbecue.  That’s not much different than what’s going on in these facilities.  It’s a dangerous, dangerous operation and it needs to be watched carefully.”  Compared to petrochemical manufacturing, how’s that “better scrutiny” working for iron and steel mills?

According to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Mr. Nibarger allegedly “worked as a chief operator for Shell Oil Products, US, at the Puget Sound Refinery in Anacortes, Washington prior to taking a leave of absence in 2004 to work for the former PACE Health and Safety Department as a Triangle of Prevention (TOP) program coordinator.  Mr. Nibarger has 17 years in refinery operations and served as a member and co-chair of the Joint Health and Safety Committee for 8 years.”  I mention this only because I found his description of the refining process to be odd.

On a side note, truth in advertising would require the United Steelworkers management to change its business’ name.  According to “Steelworkers a minority within their own union,” as of 2005 less than one-third (about 180,000 out of about 600,000) of USW “members [are] employed in the primary and fabricated metals industries.”

Finally, when can we expect an exposé on the danger to employees working in the newspaper publishing industry, maybe something like “NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING BRINGS DANGER, AS WELL AS JOBS, TO COMMUNITIES?”  As shown in the above table, newspaper publishing has over four times the injury rate of petrochemical manufacturing and in 2011 had 52 times as many injuries.  Maybe we now know the real reason the BCT closed its print shop in 2012 and outsourced its printing to West Penn Printing in New Castle.  Rather than do the right thing and cease operating an obviously “dangerous, dangerous operation … [that] needs to be watched carefully,” the BCT simply outsourced the danger to an adjacent county.  What about those employees?  Where is labor union management?  I’m not surprised by the unacceptably high injury rate.  As a paperboy for the BCT in the 1960s, a customer’s dog bit me while I was delivering my papers one day and I got a real nice trip to the Aliquippa Hospital ER for a tetanus shot.  The aforementioned reader wrote, “I am curious about the safety statistics for newsrooms!”  With all the contortions required to twist the news to fit various agendas, I suspect a high incidence of back, joint, and neck injuries.

Just to be clear, in some of the previous paragraph I was having fun at the BCT’s expense.