Robert Pence and Howard Rosenberg
One of the first steps of an outreach project on farm safety training, sponsored by the Agricultural Health and Safety Center at Davis,1 was a survey about prevailing practices of growers and resources available to support them. While its purpose was to inform the subsequent development of safety training programs, the survey found that efforts to achieve safe operations on farms were tied to various aspects of personnel management. Workplace injury and illness rates are affected by management attitudes, employee selection, layoff and recall policy, first-line supervision, and incentives, as well as by training.
Information was collected in the winter and spring of 1990 through some 35 hours of semi-structured interviews with 17 growers, as well as with representatives of the Farm Bureau, the Farm Employers Labor Service (FELS), and 8 companies that write workers' compensation insurance. The farming operations, in 14 California counties and 1 Arizona county, ranged in size from 6 to 1,300 yearly employees, leased and owned from 240 to 100,000 acres, and produced vegetables, agronomic and orchard crops, grapes, and livestock.
Injury Rate Differences and Management
As size of operation, location, and commodities produced ranged widely among farms in the sample, so did management strategies, insurance company involvement, formality of training, use of educational materials, and safety records. Although it is difficult to generalize from this limited a survey, a common element among most of the interviewed growers with lower than average on-farm injury rates appeared to be respect and appreciation for their workers. This was seen in the language these growers used to describe their workers and in such practices as offering generous benefits (including health insurance) and extending harvest schedules to provide more consistent work. One insurance company representative observed, "The commitment to worker safety probably indicates an all-round approach of the owner that goes beyond specific issues of safety."
All but one of the farming operations with below-average injury rates had a stable workforce. Those growers reported that seasonal employees returned to work for them year after year, resulting in job familiarity and stable supervisory relationships. Some growers considered a thorough hiring process to be the first step in their safety programs: "You have to make sure you get and keep good healthy people right from the start."
Three of the growers provided health insurance to their full-time, year-round workers. They cited that as a factor in reducing their reported on-farm injury rates, speculating that workers were less likely to file a workers' compensation claim for a non-work-related injury if they had insurance to cover medical costs.
Farm management decision making ranged from highly centralized and hierarchical to relatively participatory styles. But all growers interviewed underscored the critical importance of a commitment to safety at the highest level of management, which sets priorities for in-field supervision and puts farm resources into safety programs. Safety service providers noted that the most important part of their work with top management was to focus on simply developing such a commitment. An owner decision to substantially increase dedication to worker safety was frequently cited as the key to effectiveness of on-farm safety programs. All interview participants agreed that a commitment to safety filters down from the top.
Some growers described their commitment to safety as a gradual process of improving farm management ("after 40 years of farming, I've learned that safety is important"). Most, however, despite other differences, were motivated to increase their investment in worker safety because of at least one period of frequent accidents resulting in high experience modification rates and insurance premiums. Some mentioned a specific crisis, such as an especially severe worker or family injury, as the turning point in their commitment to safety. One grower said that pressure from the Agricultural Commissioner had inspired him to increase attention to worker safety. Five of the interviewed growers did not know their current experience modification rates. Two did not know the name of their current workers' compensation insurance carrier.
Most of the survey participants mentioned that foremen and workers, as well as owners, are critical to the success of a safety program in any medium or large farming operation. A commitment to safety and reliable information to carry out that commitment are needed at all three levels of the organization, yet it appears that the content emphasis should be slightly different for each group.
All safety service providers and many growers recognized the critical role that foremen play in safety on the farm. The daily interaction between foremen and workers is where most information about safe work procedures is translated into practice. Three growers stated that high injury rates on their farms could be traced directly to supervision problems with specific foremen. All insurance companies and three of the largest farms offered workers' compensation training programs specifically for foremen. These programs focused on the importance of foremen continually reinforcing safe work practices in the field and having reliable information and skills to train their workers.
The most obvious targets for safety intervention are farm workers themselves. The AHSC outreach team is currently developing a program to communicate health and safety information to both full-time and seasonal workers in the Fresno area, with particular emphasis on reaching them through foremen and supervisors.
Regardless of training content emphasis, it is clear that all three segments of the farming operation - owners, foremen, and workers - must "buy into" safety if any program is to be successful. All three need to be addressed, since no one segment alone is sufficient to prevent injuries and illnesses. At a recent meeting, this same point was stressed by safety coordinators from 20 other farming operations in the Fresno area.
Safety Programs
Although the relationship was not linear, larger farm organizations generally had more structured safety programs than did smaller operations. Four of the seven farming operations with over 160 yearly employees had designated safety coordinators. Owners or ranch managers administered the safety programs at the remaining farms. About half of the growers interviewed considered insurance company support as critical to the development of their safety programs. The rest relied on their own personal experience and ingenuity.
Among growers with lower than average injury rates there were examples of both structured and less structured safety programs. Smaller growers frequently saw close daily personal supervision rather than formal training sessions as the most effective.
Safety training ranged from formal (safety committees and regular, documented safety meetings) to informal (occasional, nondocumented, personal interactions between owners and individual workers). Fifteen of the growers sent at least some of their full-time, year-round employees to an off-site training meeting in the past 3 years. Most sent some of their workers annually. Safety training for seasonal workers ranged from the same formal sessions attended by full-time workers to none at all. Most growers gave substantially less safety training to seasonal than to year-round employees, and none provided safety training or safety supervision to workers supplied by labor contractors.
Incentive programs had been used by 5 of the 17 growers. Four were continuing such programs at the time of the interviews, offering workers prizes such as belt buckles, hats, and jackets with the company logo in recognition of injury-free work days. One large grower raffled off a college scholarship each year to workers with no lost work days due to injury. All of these incentive programs were developed in-house with minimal outside assistance. Incentives appeared to decrease high reported injury rates initially, but three of the four growers with continuing programs reported that injury rates leveled off or began to increase again unless some form of safety training was also provided. The fifth grower had discontinued his incentive program to spend more money on improved on-farm safety training.
Resources for Training
Interviewed growers received information on farm safety and regulations from various sources. The most frequently mentioned sources were Farm Bureau and FELS newsletters and workers' compensation field representatives. Less frequently mentioned were other farming magazines, Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Commissioners, and chemical and equipment manufacturers.
Eleven of the 17 growers used written or audio/visual educational materials in their safety programs. Nine had some form of written employee safety manual. Five used safety videos, and three used slides with audio as part of their formal safety meetings. Most had received these materials from their workers' compensation insurance companies. Two of the videos and all three of the slide presentations had been produced on-site showing the farms, foremen, and equipment the workers would actually encounter on the job.
All insurance companies from which representatives were interviewed offered safety services to their clients, ranging from information upon request to complete on-site safety program development, weekly safety inspections, and safety training for all levels of employees as part of a total labor management package. In general, they provided on-site safety services only to policy holders with premiums over $25,000 per year (yearly payroll of about $250,000).
Smaller policy holders frequently had little personal contact with insurance carriers through the life of their policies. Their policies, in many cases written by independent insurance agents, were often small enough to not be subject to experience rate modification, which serves as a safety incentive for many larger growers. One insurance representative noted that most California farms are so small that they are not reflected in any systematically collected injury records. No one seems to know how big a problem farm safety may be for California's small farmers.
All contract safety services had some sort of field representative and provided safety education materials to their clients. Most such materials were obtained from outside sources, including UC Cooperative Extension, equipment manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, and safety media firms.
The workers' compensation insurance representatives expressed varied feelings about farm labor contractors. One saw contractors as high risks for insurance, while another carrier aggressively sought labor contractor clients and insured 80 percent of the contractors in the state. All carriers had offered safety services to farm labor contractor policy holders, although one representative had stopped providing such services ("It just doesn't seem to work. We can't make money by lowering their injury rates, so we have to raise their premiums.").
All interviewed contract safety services agreed that medium-size farms frequently had the most on-farm safety problems. Large growers are scrutinized by regulatory agencies and have the resources to develop structured safety programs. Smaller growers frequently have few employees, more owner involvement with workers, and less complex farming operations.
Notable Program Features
At one farming operation, the implementation of a safety program with worker safety committees had helped to develop avenues of communication used for nonsafety issues, such as scheduling and worker complaints. The safety coordinator reported that employees seemed to enjoy working at the ranch more since the safety committees had begun to meet ("Since the workers have seen some of their suggestions put into practice, they're more concerned about the ranch operation. The owners have seen the workers' new concern and are listening to them even more."). The safety program may be a vehicle for increased communication and respect between owners and workers.
The five growers who used safety slides or videos produced on their own farms reported strong positive responses from their workers. All planned to produce other videos on-site or periodically update those they were using. The two videos were produced with insurance company equipment and support. One slide presentation was produced by the Farm Bureau; the other two were produced completely in-house by the ranch manager and safety coordinator.
One large corporate farm was implementing a new safety program in which foremen were to develop their own safety training curricula for the workers they supervised. They would analyze all jobs supervised, listing potential hazards and steps that could be taken to avoid injuries. The analyses would provide the agenda for foremen-led safety meetings. The safety coordinator hoped that worker safety training would become more practical and foremen would develop a greater interest in safety supervision as a result of their "ownership" of the training agenda. Another large grower reported success with a similar process of having foremen develop safety training procedures.
Unmet Needs for Training Resources
Not surprisingly, survey results showed a need for additional educational materials to support safety training programs designed to reduce injuries and illness. All interview participants noted the lack of adequate bilingual safety training materials relevant to modern California agriculture, and four growers requested more bilingual on-site safety trainers.
Virtually all those interviewed agreed that Cooperative Extension could be active in developing a wide range of training materials. Participants specifically requested (l) brief commodity and task-specific written safety instructions that could be distributed to individual workers, (2) brief "canned" safety scripts for foremen to use in tailgate meetings (some individual growers and workers' compensation companies have already developed similar materials), (3) audio safety tapes that foremen could use for general in-field tailgate meetings (pull up the pickup truck, put in the tape, turn up the volume and open the doors), and (4) inexpensive commodity- and task-specific videos for use in formal safety meetings.
Conclusion
The limited survey discussed in this report was designed to provide preliminary information on growers' safety training needs, not to generate broad conclusions. Nevertheless, it is apparent from the responses of growers and those who work with them on safety that, while training for managers and workers is instrumental to safe farm operations, so is good personnel management more generally.
Back to: Contents | LMD Main Page | APMP Home