Establishment size and risk of occupational injury

Abstract

For many years, the annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has consistently reported, without explanation, that injury rates in the smaller establishments (< 50 employees) are substantially lower than those for midsize establishments (100-499 employees). Also during those years, a remarkable increase has been reported in the injury rate in large companies, following the imposition of stiff fines for failure to keep required injury records. The rate patterns are identical for Michigan and the country in general. We investigated possible causes for lower injury rates in small establishments since such rates are inconsistent with reports of higher fatality rates in small establishments in the mining, construction, manufacturing, and transportation industries and higher, or at least comparable, injury rates for small establishments in the mining industry. They are also inconsistent with increased turnover and decreased availability of occupational safety services in small companies. Moreover, injury severity, as measured by missed worktime, is greater for workers in small establishments. We investigated the possibility that interactions of workforce or injury characteristics with establishment size could explain the rate differences. We also reviewed the available literature to see whether differences in labor turnover rates could explain the BLS findings. Graphical and statistical analyses of the 1988 CPS Annual Demographic File, a sample of employed persons in the U.S. workforce, failed to identify any associations between workforce characteristics and enterprise size that would explain the lower rates. Similarly, graphical and statistical analyses of all Michigan workers incurring a compensable injury in 1986 failed to indicate any associations between injury characteristics and establishment size that would explain the lower rates. The potential role of labor turnover on the injury rate was analyzed from data in the literature on turnover rate by establishment size and risk of injury by time on the job. None of these analyses explains the lower injury rates reported for small establishments. This leaves underreporting of injuries from small establishments as a substantial possibility. If small establishments were subject to the same injury incidence rates as midsize establishments, then the 1986 survey for Michigan may have missed as many as 54,000 injuries (and far more nationally). We suggest that BLS undertake methodological studies to validate the completeness of reporting from small establishments.

Identification of Ergonomic-Related Hazards in an Industrial Sample Using the National Occupational Exposure Survey

“…Twelve of the ergonomic and physical-agent hazards occurred most often in establish ments of this size. These findings not only replicate the results for occupationally-related injuries obtained by Oleinick et al (1995), but indicate that the lower rates of occupational injuries experienced among small establishments compared to larger establishments may result, at least to a substantial degree, from lower hazard exposure, and not just to under-reporting as Oleinick and colleagues had surmised (1995).…”

“…The rationale for this assumption is that small establishments, compared to large establishments, have poorly-organized employees (i.e., union representatives are not available to intercede on employees' behalf to correct health and safety problems) and cannot afford adequate safety and health programs. Prior analysis of occupationally-related injury and illness reporting data, however, found that small establish ments (<50 employees) have significantly lower injury and illness rates than establishments employing between 100 and 499 workers (Oleinick, Gluck, & Guire, 1995). These researchers, however, attribute the lower rates for small establishments to underreporting of illnesses and injuries.…”

Small Businesses and Workplace Fatality Risk: An Exploratory Analysis

“…We also know that smaller establishments are less likely to engage in safety training. Safety training programs were reported by 28.3 percent of small (8-99) plants, 53.2 percent of those with 100-499, and 80.5 percent of those with 500 or more workers (Oleinick, Gluck, and Guire, 1995). The cost of training would presumably be lower at larger establishments and firms because of the potential for economies of scale.…”

“…As for the underreporting hypothesis, Oleinick, Gluck, and Guire (1995) examined workplaces in Michigan to see whether smaller workplaces tended to have fewer risk factors than did larger workplaces. They found the opposite.…”

For better or worse? Changing shift schedules and the risk of work injury among men and women

“…Occupational characteristics (ie, job permanency, usual weekly hours worked, physical demands, and number of employees in the organization) provided information about working conditions that may be associated with the risk for a work injury. Those new to a work situation, such as those starting a job, who work a greater number of hours, or who work in large organizations have been found in previous research to have increased risks of work injury (29)(30)(31)(32)(33).…”