It is hard to find a contractor who does not at least pay lip service to safety which can make it difficult to separate the companies that walk the walk from those that merely talk the talk. Results are the only sure way to differentiate walkers from talkers, and a company's Experience Modification Rating (EMR) provides the most objective measure of these results. Small and mid-sized contractors striving for a better EMR face some difficulties, while also enjoying some benefits as a result of their size.

CAM Magazine recently conducted extensive interviews with safety managers from three small to mid-sized contractors (100,000-500,000 annual man-hours) with above average safety records (EMR less than 1). The following profile of the safety programs of these companies - Adamo Demolition Co. Detroit; DeMaria Building Company, Detroit; and Environmental Maintenance Engineers, Inc., Inkster - should provide contrac­tors with an excellent model to follow in improving their own safety performance. Interviews with Joe Forgue, CAM's man­ager of education and safety services, and Patricia Meyer, safety manager for the Construction Safety and Health Division of MIOSHA, also provided valuable insights on why the methods used by these three contractors work so well.

MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT

Management commitment stands out as the most often citied reason why successful safety programs work. Having senior managers out into the field checking up on safety performance sends a clear message that unsafe conditions will not be tolerated.

Management commitment stands out as the most often cited, among why successful safety programs work. Having senior mangers out into the field checking up on safety performance sends a ear message that unsafe conditions will not be tolerated.

"People really appreciate seeing the safety manager, CEO and resident out in the field going through checklists or the pre-­task plan to make sure that everyone is on the same page," said Eugene Rupp, vice president of safety for Adamo Demolition. Any manager can serve as another set of eves to eradicate jobsi­te hazards, but simply throwing people out of the office and into the field can backfire. Forgue believes that all senior man­gers should complete basic safety training. Managers need to be able to recognize safety violations in order to eliminate them.

Managers who think that safety rules do not apply to them can also become a jobsite haz­ard that should be avoided at all costs.

"A company's safety manager or director needs to be the voice of the owner and answer directly to the owner," said Forgue. "In a corporate flow chart, the safe­ty position isn't too close to the top, but the number two person at the company still needs to answer to the safety director. When a VP shows up without wearing safe­ty equipment, the safety director needs to have the authority to take charge."

Safety professionals also need to be able to suspend opera­tions when needed. Forgue cited an example where a safety director confronted a subcontractor who was contributing to unsafe conditions. Even in the face of a fierce tirade, the safety director refused to budge. The subcontractor called the owner of the construction company with the hope of overriding the safety professional, finding only unflagging support for safety procedures on the other end of the phone.

"Something like that will only happen one time, but safety directors need to be able to say, 'I'm right' and then get the back­ing of top management," said Forgue.

Safety directors should never move away from their convic­tions, but they often do need to move from site to site. They need to know that safe work will continue when they leave.

"DeMaria Building Company structures their safety program so that the project superintendents are responsible for the day to day safety activities on their projects," said Jody DeHaan, safe­ty director for DeMaria Building Company. "They are held accountable from how they manage safety to how they react in certain situations."

Management commitment stands out as the most often cited, among why successful safety programs work. Having senior mangers out into the field checking up on safety performance sends a ear message that unsafe conditions will not be tolerated.

"People really appreciate seeing the safety manager, CEO and resident out in the field going through checklists or the pre-­task plan to make sure that everyone is on the same page," said Eugene Rupp, vice president of safety for Adamo Demolition. Any manager can serve as another set of eves to eradicate jobsi­te hazards, but simply throwing people out of the office and into the field can backfire. Forgue believes that all senior man­gers should complete basic safety training. Managers need to be able to recognize safety violations in order to eliminate them.

Managers who think that safety rules do not apply to them can also become a jobsite haz­ard that should be avoided at all costs.

"A company's safety manager or director needs to be the voice of the owner and answer directly to the owner," said Forgue. "In a corporate flow chart, the safe­ty position isn't too close to the top, but the number two person at the company still needs to answer to the safety director. When a VP shows up without wearing safe­ty equipment, the safety director needs to have the authority to take charge."

Safety professionals also need to be able to suspend opera­tions when needed. Forgue cited an example where a safety director confronted a subcontractor who was contributing to unsafe conditions. Even in the face of a fierce tirade, the safety director refused to budge. The subcontractor called the owner of the construction company with the hope of overriding the safety professional, finding only unflagging support for safety procedures on the other end of the phone.

"Something like that will only happen one time, but safety directors need to be able to say, 'I'm right' and then get the back­ing of top management," said Forgue.

Safety directors should never move away from their convic­tions, but they often do need to move from site to site. They need to know that safe work will continue when they leave.

"DeMaria Building Company structures their safety program so that the project superintendents are responsible for the day to day safety activities on their projects," said Jody DeHaan, safe­ty director for DeMaria Building Company. "They are held accountable from how they manage safety to how they react in certain situations."

lf DeMaria superintendents complete the OSHA 30-hour course and DeHaan does this training in-house, so she can make sure that each person knows exactly what is expected. Safety performance is also a part of the evaluation process for superin­tendents, and the requirements in this area go far beyond merely avoiding incidents. MIOSHA violations, if any, are also taken into consideration, along with how toolbox talks are performed and documented. Since managers regularly visit jobsites, they often sit in on toolbox talks just to make sure they are being handled properly.

No matter how well these toolbox talks are handled, some people may still violate safety rules. Disciplinary actions for safety infractions should be put in writing to make sure they are applied uniformly, even for employees who perform well in other areas. Written safety plans, as required by MIOSHA, also provide another opportunity for management to reinforce its commitment to safety. A written plan should start with a management statement making it clear that unsafe conditions will not be tolerated. Many other components should be incorporated into a written plan.

WRITTEN PLANS

Written safety plans are essentially blueprints for the safe operation of a company. Some people refer to them as jobsite bibles, which can be an accurate analogy considering how few people read them cover to cover and how much dust they can collect in a jobsite trailer. For written plans to be effective, they must be read, understood and followed. Employees are asked to sign documents to this effect at some companies, but this approach can only be successful if it taken seriously. Handing a person a three-inch binder and accepting a signature indicating that the materials were received and understood minutes later sends the wrong message.

"Sometimes people just want to get on with their lives, so they just give the piece of paper right back to you," said Dave Silva, project manager and safety director for Environmental Maintenance Engineers. "I don't accept signatures right after I hand the materials out. I tell people to take the materials home and read them. If I need to, I read the materials with them. Then I accept their signature."

Of course, what they are signing is even more important than how they are signing it. Basic written programs are readily available from associations and other sources, but they must be customized to represent the work being performed by the contractor. According to Meyer, MIOSHA inspectors regularly find jobsites where no written plan is available. Simply having the plan onsite only fulfills a portion of the MIOSHA requirement.

"When we do find written safety programs, they are typically very generic," said Meyer. "It's ok to start with a generic plan, but you need to add things that are specific to your operations. Sometimes they don't even have the name of the company on them."

When MIOSHA visits a jobsite, the inspection starts in the trailer. Finding a hastily thrown together written plan there lets safety officers know they should look for a similarly lackadaisical approach out in the field. So, if MIOSHA inspectors are looking for specifics in written plans, what specifics are they looking for?

First and foremost, many written safety plans could benefit from a thorough cleaning. A good safety program can originate from a generic written program, but things that do not apply to the work being done should be weeded out. Painting contractors, for example, can safety eliminate excavation requirements. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on products that are no longer used can be removed and kept in a separate file, but they must be retained as an exposure record. After this extraneous information is removed, the material that is left can be reorganized to make it easier to use.

“Our written safety program has changed since I started working at DeMaria," said DeHaan. "We wanted to make sure that we didn't have one of those written programs that was chock full of everything. We wanted to focus on structuring it around what we actually did on a day-to-day basis. It took a couple of years for us to develop something that we felt was user-friendly, but still conveyed the same message."

Once a working draft of this written plan was developed, a superintendent was brought in to provide a viewpoint from the field.

“We asked him if he would pick it up and use it," said DeHaan. "Will you be able to find what you need without searching through chapter after chapter? I didn't want to end up with something that would just sit on a shelf. I wanted it to be used."

For many contractors, the written program will still be rather lengthy even after the superfluous information is weeded out. Written site-specific plans are a more user-friendly option on the jobsite.

“The written program provides the framework for the development, implementation and use of a site-specify plan,” said Rupp. “A site-specific safety plan is oriented towards the activities of a particular job, whereas the corporate safety policy covers a broad spectrum of things.”

More owners are requesting site-specific safety plans on their sites. Many construction managers are likewise requesting site-specific plans from their subcontractors. Activities on an increasing number of jobsites are governed by a series of site-specific safety plans generated from multiple sources. Written plans must acknowledge this fact and address how they interact with other plans to succeed. Unless an agreement can be reached by all parties involved, it is generally a good idea to abide by the strictest set of guidelines set forth when more than one written plan is in use.

Written plans should also address a company's safety training requirements, as training is a vital component of any safety plan.

SAFETY TRAINING

Construction is a very broad industry that encompasses a wide variety of activities. MIOSHA regulations generally reflect this by being somewhat vague. Employers are directed to inspect worksites for hazards, for example, but they are not given specific information on how often they need to do this. A common sense appraisal of the work being performed is used to determine the required frequency of site inspections geared towards identifying and eradicating unsafe conditions. The diverse spectrum of construction activities mandates this approach. A crew laying a large asphalt parking lot does not need the same level of safety oversight as a crew setting steel 15 stories up, although hazards are involved in each case.

Unlike many MIOSHA standards, training requirements are very specific. The knowledge and skills a worker must possess to perform a given task safely are easy to identify and MIOSHA training requirements take all of these needs into account. It is ultimately the responsibility of the employer to make sure that all employees complete the necessary training as required by MIOSHA. The MUST - Management and Unions Serving Together - training program offers a series of 18 online training modules for union contractors to assist safety managers with awareness training.

The MUST training program has been very helpful, especially when I have someone come in who hasn't worked for me in the past year," said Rupp. "I may not know too much about what this worker has done recently, but if the standing and membership in the MUST program has been maintained, I am just a couple of computer strokes away from being able to pull up a complete record. I can see if the drug screening is current and what training modules have been successfully completed."

Rupp combines these training records with an extensive database that he developed to show the training status for everyone who has worked for Adamo Demolition during his tenure. He also adapted standard computer software to prompt him when any employee is due for training, physicals, or any other safety-related activity.

Although MUST training is a valuable tool, it is not the only tool safety manager should be using. MUST training may not meet all MIOSHA requirements. MUST’s aerial lift platform module, for example offers general information on the safe operation of aerial lifts. MIOSHA require general training, plus specific training on the aerial lift being used and a signed card issued by the employer certifying that all this training has taken place.

Online training, in general, also has it critics. Everyone who spoke about the MUST program for this article offered high praise for the content of the modules, but some admitted having a preference for the level of interaction that is only possible in a classroom setting. Forgue also pointed out that final exams are not administered and no proctor is required, so there is tic guarantee that the person sitting in front of the computer is even the same person signed up for the training. Forgue stressed that he has not heard of such abuses taking place, but they are possible. Even though final exams and proctors are not required by MUST, they can be implemented by employers, which would eliminate these concerns.

No matter where employees are trained, safety managers need to do their homework to ensure the quality of the program. Reputation of the entity offering the training is also an important consideration, and instructors should have all the required credentials, but nothing provides as much credibility as field experience. By having access to a network of member firms, associations, like CAM, offer some of the best safety training available. The recently introduced MIOSHA Training Institute (MTI), a program sponsored by several community colleges to offer training modules including the MIOSHA 10-hour and advanced training for both construction and general industry, offers another opportunity to get safety instruction from an expert source.

Contractors who make sure employees complete all training and keep accurate training records as required by MIOSHA can go a long way towards preventing citations for their training efforts, which is not the point of safety training in the first place. Fostering an understanding of safety principals should always be the end goal. Making every day a training day can assist in this effort.

"I quiz people all the time," said DeHaan. "When I walk up to someone who is doing something the right way I'll ask them what the doing and why. When I do that, I don't want to hear, 'Because someone told me to do it this way.” I want to see if they understand the hazards themselves."

No one interviewed for this article felt that small to medium-sized contractors were at a disadvantage when it comes to safety performance. In fact, many felt that the small size of their companies helped them stay focused on the operation of the entire company. Every new employee at DeMaria, for example, sits down for an hour interview with DeHaan, and no one goes out into the field until she is sure that they understand the company's safety policy. DeHaan also works to maintain good relationships with field supervisors. She schedules training around their needs with the understanding that when training does occur, the employees being trained belong to her. Cell phones are turned off and all attention is focused on classroom activities. Cooperation between DeHaan and field supervisors maximizes the effectiveness of training while minimizing disruptions on jobsites.

Safety training does not need to be confined to classrooms and jobsites. Fun activities can also be planned to reinforce safe work habits. Environmental Maintenance Engineers recently suspended operations for a day to hold the company’s first annual “Safety Day." Employees were paid to come in and lunch was provided while they watched an OSHA safety video that was specifically chosen because it addressed the work performed by Environmental Maintenance Engineers. Don DeRoo, vice president of Environmental Maintenance Engineers, has a daughter who teaches at a Florida elementary school. Each of her students "adopted" an Environmental Maintenance Engineers employee and the group encouraged their new "family" to work safely in another video shown on Safety Day. Students made posters for every employee, and these are prominently displayed along with safety bulletins in the company's shop.

Employees were also split up into three separate crews for a scaffold erection contest. This wasn't a race to see which crew could get done the fastest, but rather a contest to see who could do it correctly. Silva inspected the final results, pointed out discrepancies, and handed out small prizes for good work. Although this was a fun activity, the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) demo was probably the highlight of the day.

"We had Mike [Kelly, president of Environmental Maintenance Engineers] suit up incorrectly, and the employees got to point out what was wrong," said Silva. "'That really went over well. You don't often get to see the president of the company in a respirator and a suit."

Some employers might chafe at spending time out of the field to conduct safety training, but it is time well spent.

"We get better productivity out of people who have first hand knowledge of their particular tasks," said Rupp "They're more proficient at what they do when we insist on safety performance because they have a higher degree of confidence."

Training can ensure that every employee knows how to perform safely as individuals. Providing a safe work environment to benefit the entire group is another key responsibility of a safety director.

SAFETY IN THE FIELD

Some safety infractions are obvious to an uninformed observer, while even seasoned professionals may miss others. The best way to find all of them is to have more eyes looking for them. Safety audits provide a low cost, or in some cases no cost, way to enlist the service of qualified professionals in this effort. Companies can hire safety professionals or call upon associations to perform site audits (CAM provides this service). Insurance providers also encourage site audits for policyholders, as they keep incident rates down, and some even hire an industry professional to provide this service.

Safety managers can even tap MIOSHA expertise through the Construction Education and Training (CET) program. CET trainers will survey a single site or an entire safety and health program, or even assist with the creation of one, free of charge. Information gathered by CET trainers is never shared with MIOSHA's enforcement division, although trainers often sit in on enforcement training to find out exactly how the rules are being interpreted. CET trainers know exactly what the enforcement division looks for on a jobsite because most CET trainers have experience with the enforcement division.

An increasing number of owners are also requesting pre-task planning at their sites. Generally speaking, this involves breaking a job down into individual tasks, identifying the hazards involved with these actions and developing a plan to address these hazards in advance.

"Pound for pound, I think pre-task planning, or job hazard analysis, provides the best return on investment in any safety program," said Forgue. "This has been done forever in construction. At the beginning of the day, you need to ask, ‘How are we going to build this wall?’ All you are doing is adding a safety component."

Taking a few minutes to visualize hazards can make operations more efficient. Asking if hearing protection or safety glasses will be required puts project managers on notice if they will be. By the time they are needed, protective devices can be standing by. Without visualizing the task first, project managers might scramble for these items, which can eat up precious time on the jobsite.

Time spent developing safety plans and the purchasing of safety gear represents a monetary cost for employers. Economic realities can cause pressure to reduce safety expenditures, especially in a competitive bid environment. An experienced safety director who understands the entire construction process can make these cuts safely.

"You work around what you have," said DeHaan. "You might look at different ways of putting safety cables in. or using harnesses and lanyards for fall protection. There are ways of working with-in a budget while still keeping people safe.”

Avoiding MIOSHA citations should never be the focus of a safety program, but working towards this goal can result in safer jobsites. MIOSHA strives to conduct every inspection thoroughly and fairly, but experience has taught Meyer what "red flags" indicate a jobsite where a little extra scrutiny might be warranted.

"Housekeeping is a pretty simple one," she said. "How can we inspect if the place is a pigsty? Whatever your work operation is, you can't see hazards if the place is a mess. If I see housekeeping not being taken care of, it tells me other things probably aren't being taken care of either. You might have to dig a little deeper to find them, but it is amazing how many more violations you can find on a messy jobsite."

Sloppy conditions or insufficient planning in the field can contribute to recordable incidents, every one of which is preventable. When incidents occur, they signal the need for an investigation of what went wrong. How companies approach this process can go a long way in preventing a recurrence.

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS

Actions taken immediately after an accident can save lives. The safety plan for every jobsite should include written instructions on what to do in any emergency situation. If the orders are "call 911", the safety manager simply is not doing his or her job properly. Someone at the site tasked with safety needs to know the location of the nearest trauma center and who needs to be notified in the event of an emergency. This person should also be able to start an investigation of the incident, but the thorough analysis needed to prevent recurrence will likely involve the efforts of many people.

Assigning blame should never be tile goal of an accident investigation. Answering the question "Who is at fault?" should take a back seat to important questions like "How did this happen?" and "What can we do to prevent this from happening in the future?” It is too easy to simply point a finger at a superintendent if fall protection is left off a scaffold, but was the proper equipment available? Was the person trained on how to use it? Was the superintendent pressured to place productivity above safety? Simply throwing a new superintendent into the same dysfunctional situation will not correct the problem.

Safety managers can tap MIOSHA expertise through the Construction Education and Training (CET) program. CET trainers will survey a single site or an entire safety and health program, or even assist with the creation of one, free of charge.

Finding the root cause of an accident involves asking "why" over and over again with the tenacity of a five-year-old. Forgue cited an accident that occurred in Texas as an example. Two employees were retrieving a company truck from a recently fired employee's house. A flat tire forced a stop along the freeway on the way back to the office. Shortly thereafter, a car crossed the median, striking and severely injuring the worker while he fixed the flat.

A safety manager might be tempted to chalk this accident up to "being at the wrong place at the wrong time," which would be the wrong answer. What if the two employees never had to make the trip? The accident investigation revealed that the fired employee was rehired after being fired before. Constant firing and rehiring of employees places needless risks on others who must retrieve company property, and hiring practices were reevaluated as a result of this accident. Another great question to ask, "What if the flat tire never happened?

A minor freeway incident served as a similar wake-up call for Environmental Maintenance Engineers. The company developed a written policy for vehicles that outlines scheduled maintenance, safety inspections and mandates monthly driver’s license checks on all drivers. This innovative fleet management program garnered a letter of commendation from the company's insurance carrier and also resulted in a rate reduction.

Any accident should be treated as a learning opportunity, one that probably came at a very high price. Near misses, on the other hand, offer the same lessons without the butcher's bill. Like accidents, near misses are caused by a preventable condition on the jobsite. This condition must be identified and eliminated before someone's luck runs out.

The best approach to accident investigation is to never have to do it. A well thought out safety plan can help a company achieve this goal. The prospect of creating a comprehensive plan may be daunting, but the rewards make it worth the effort.

"I've never talked to an owner who wants his employees to get hurt on the job," said Forgue. "Of course, money is also an important consideration. A lot of safety people are squeamish about putting money and safety in the same sentence, but they shouldn't be. If you do the research, you can show an owner where a safety program can actually make a company more profitable."

For assistance in developing or improving a safety program, contact Joe Forgue at
forgue@cam-online.com or 248-972-1141.
 

The safety programs profiled in this month's issue contain many common elements. The biggest factor differentiating the programs is the presence, or absence, of a safety incentive program. Safety professionals should carefully evaluate the arguments on both sides of this controversial issue before making decisions regarding their own programs.

THE CASE “FOR”

Incentive programs are popular because they give every employee a practical reason for participating in the safety process. Of course, it can be argued that the risk of losing life or limb should be incentive enough, but employees who take unnecessary risks are obviously working with an "it will never happen to me" mindset. No one would set foot on a jobsite where they knew they would get hurt, so they obviously think that they will be safe, even as they put themselves in needless danger.

Incentive programs work best when they reward proactive behavior. Simply rewarding employees who manage to not injure themselves or others may not have the desired effect.

"I'm a proponent of safety programs that offer incentives for the right reasons," said Joe Forgue, CAM's manager of education and safety services. "We want to reward proactive safety behavior, like conducting toolbox talks on a regular basis and doing them properly. Laborers can be rewarded for reporting and correcting unsafe working conditions or making suggestions on how to improve safety.

Since 1997, CAM Workers' Compensation has encouraged safety at the grassroots level with the Built On Safety program. Employees are organized into "safety" teams, and teams that go claim-free for a month earn safety awareness cards for each member. These cards are not merely an entitlement program for not getting hurt because they include questions based on information presented in toolbox talks, and correct answers are needed to earn gift cards or other prizes. Incentives are denied to employees who cannot demonstrate their understanding of the material. Claim frequency dropped 30 percent in the program's first year, along with a significant reduction in claims costs.

Built On Safety, or any other incentive program, needs to exist as a component of a comprehensive safety plan to be effective. Adamo Demolition Co., Detroit, uses an incentive program as a tool to communicate an overall commitment to safety.

"Incentive programs are only a good investment when employees can see that you are serious about safety," said Eugene Rupp, vice president of safety for Adamo Demolition Co., Detroit. "An incentive can be a great motivator, but it needs to be given out as an end result of a performance based evaluation. An incentive program that exists just for the purpose of giving out incentives can become a joke."

When an incentive program does become a joke, the result can be far from funny.

Safety incentive programs work best when they reward proactive behavior. For example, workers should be able to demonstrate an understanding of material presented in toolbox talks before they earn an incentive.

THE CASE “AGAINST”

Safety incentive programs work best when they reward proactive behavior. For example, workers should be able to demonstrate an understanding of material presented in toolbox talks before they earn an incentive.

The biggest argument against incentive programs is the belief that they encourage employees to keep quiet about incidents. All accidents are avoidable, but when they result in a minor injury that goes unreported, the employer is deprived of the opportunity to identify and correct the problem. The next worker injured by the same condition may not be as lucky. In fact, the first worker may not have been very lucky either. Seemingly minor injuries can increase in severity when they are not properly treated. The end result can sideline a worker for an extended period while driving up claims costs.

DeMaria Building Company, Detroit, has an incentive program, but it includes numerous safeguards to prevent non-reporting of injuries. The value of the incentive is an important consideration. Small incentives are coupled with a thorough written plan that spells out severe penalties for not reporting injuries. Few workers would risk loosing their job for a flashlight or sweatshirt, but the promise of a small reward might encourage a worker to wear a hardhat or tie-off properly. Jody DeHaan, safety director for DeMaria Building Company, has heard of trucks being given away as incentives at other companies, but she sees a hazard with this approach.

“It may work for them, but I would start to wonder if things were being hidden or covered up,” she said. “If someone gets hurt, there is obviously something going on that we need to address.”

Evaluating the pros and cons of incentive programs is not easy. The management team at Environmental Maintenance Engineers, Inc., Inkster, attended a seminar where both sides of the safety incentive controversy were presented.

“After attending the seminar, we decided against an incentive program because employees may not report injuries to get the inventive,” said Dave Silva, project manager and safety director for Environmental Maintenance Engineers. “That might help our safety record in the short term, but when an employee has back problems 10 years down the road because of something that wasn’t reported, that isn’t doing the employee, or us, any good.”

CONCLUSION

Objective evidence on the effectiveness of safety incentive programs is hard to come by. No one can prove that an incentive program ever prevented an accident, it would almost be like proving that washing your car caused rain.

 Maybe it was going to rain anyway and maybe an employee would have worn proper PPE without a reward for doing it. Those who decide against incentive programs likewise cannot prove that employees are covering things up just to get rewards, but even the possibility that information is being withheld casts doubts on any documentation linking incentive programs to claims reductions.

Given the exemplary safety record of each company profiled for this article, it is obvious that a company can incorporate safety incentives into a good overall plan, like Adamo Demolition and DeMaria Building Company, or not, like Environmental Maintenance Engineers. The best approach is to focus on a comprehensive safety plan first, and then consider an incentive plan. If a company implements an incentive plan, it should encourage proactive steps taken by employees instead of merely avoiding injury.

He’s hurt, but will he report it? The biggest argument against incentive programs is that they encourage employees to keep quiet about incidents. When accidents are not reported, employers are deprived of the opportunity to identify and correct problems.

“Telling an employee, ‘We’ll give you 50 bucks if you don’t get hurt for six month’ is ridiculous,” said Forgue. “That employee hasn’t done anything to earn the money, so it just becomes an entitlement program.”