Employees pressure from

Employers, at a minimum, must have an emergency action plan that will facilitate the prompt evacuation of employees when there is an unwanted release of a highly hazardous chemical. This means that the employer s plan will be activated by an alarm system to alert employees when to evacuate, and that employees who are physically impaired will have the necessary support and assistance to get them to a safe zone. The intent of these requirements is to alert and move employees quickly to a safe zone. The use of process control centers or buildings as safe areas is discouraged. Recent catastrophes indicate that lives are lost in these structures because of their location and because they are not necessarily designed to withstand over-pressures from shock waves resulting from explosions in the process area. 

Cf. Die Welt, May 15, 1995 Unterstiitzen Unternehmer die rechtsextremen Szene (Do Businesses Support the Right-wing Extremist Scene ). As a result of this broadcast, Germar Rudolfs employer was placed under such pressure from his customers, suppliers, competitors, and employees that he terminated Herr Rudolfs employment contract. 

Pressures from Employees. Employees want to be paid well, with competitive wages and salaries, benefits, and increasingly, stock. They want the resources to do their jobs well. And, equally important, they want an employer who treats them fairly and with respect and values their knowledge and different life experiences. Employee perceptions about how a company accepts and manages its social responsibilities are also increasingly part of employee decisions about where to work. Furthermore, unions and related institutions put pressure on companies to reform their labor practices to meet global labor standards. 

An ethylene unit at an unnamed facility was preparing for startup following a planned turnaround. Employees in the unit typically worked 12-hour shifts during startups as opposed to the 8-hour shifts that were scheduled for normal operations. This allowed for the availability of additional staff members to handle the increased number of tasks required during a startup. There was pressure from management, as well as within the unit, to complete the turnaround and resume operations within three weeks. (Note The name of the company, location, and date for this case study were not specified in the reference.)... 

To avoid the immense peer pressure and pressure of the safety culture that calls for zero harm, employees suffering injury often take their injury home and report it as a home injury or an injury incurred during a sporting or recreational event. Not only is the injured person under pressure from his peers, but from the entire organization as well. 

Between 1933 and 1938 the situaton of Jewish employees in a company depended to a large extent on the behavior of the company director. The director s room for maneuver was eliminated only in 1938, when pressures from the National Socialist state and party could no longer be resisted. Fritz Gajewski, who was head of Sparte III (Division III) of I.G. Farben, had been director of the Filmfabrik Wolfen since 1930. ... 

Gajewski s actions as director of the Filmfabrik Wolfen between 1933 and 1938, and beyond, are representative of the company s evolution from a position of respect and support for its Jewish scientists and scientists married to Jews, to the company s decision to dismiss all Jewish employees under pressure from state and party. In the following sectons we will document this evolution and in so doing lend support to Peter Hayes findings on the Filmfabrik Wolfen. ... 

In the past, SMEs could not consider purchasing ERP software due to the huge cost. Some vendors offer limited implementation methods that have a lower cost but only limited functionality (e.g. SAP Business One, designed for companies of less than 250 employees). Using ASPs, can be a lower priced alternative to achieve the functionality that the SME needs. Other reasons for SMEs outsourcing ERP functions through ASPs is pressure from large suppliers or customers in order to tie into their systems. 

Another example would be responding to the fears associated with OSHA inspections and citations or to pressure from an insurance company to fix hazards or reduce costs. Short-term, Band-Aid approaches will not build a safety culture supported by employees. Workers recognize when budgets are provided for quick fixes and behave accordingly. Company motives are more transparent to employees than some managers believe. 

Employees feel pressure from co-workers to keep quiet so that nobody gets into trouble and nobody loses the safety bonus or spoils the safety record. They are under pressure to maintain a clean incident/accident/injury record so that the team will get the safety bonus or reward. 

Employee involvement follows closely with the leadership team s commitment. Your task is to provide the means for employees to develop and/or express their commitment to safety for themselves and their fellow employees. Most employees want to do the right thing with regard to their assigned duties and tasks. They know that they must safely complete their specific task however, they must in turn balance what they feel is safe vs. perceived risk that can be accepted to get the job task completed. This may not stem from any perceived pressure from the leadership team but rather the desire or gratification to complete a task and move to the next activity. 

I believe, and 1 have observed, that workers will not report or will underreport injuries when reporting injuries disqualifies them, their coworkers, their supervisors, or others from collecting an award. Peer pressure can be substantial in these cases. If departments are lumped into a reporting group, and each department member would receive an award if the department is accident free for a year, how much pressure would be placed on an employee who was injured at work not to report that injury And how much extra pressure would be placed on that employee if the program were in the last month of the reporting period This pressure from co-workers can be substantial. 

All firms are now under greater pressure from their various stakeholders (shareholders, financing institutions, employees, customers, etc) to demonstrate that they care about the environment. The enviionmentally-aware company will find it easier to attract the best managers and workers, and to obtain external funding on better terms. This positive image can be reinforced by employee educational programmes, improved workplace practices and the fullest possible public disclosure of information. 

The reactive approach may also result in unintended consequences. An injured employee could find himself subject to pressure from coworkers and even his spouse not to report the injury for fear of losing the prize. Some companies have experienced incidents of coworker intimidation and harassment related to hiding injuries. An atmosphere of fear and pressure is not what a safety incentive program is intended to evoke. 

Normal Operation. The designer of a chemical plant must provide an adequate interface between the process and the operating employees. This is usually accompHshed by providing instmments to sense pressures, temperatures, flows, etc, and automatic or remote-operated valves to control the process and utility streams. Alarms and interlock systems provide warnings of process upsets and automatic shutdown for excessive deviations from the desired ranges of control, respectively. Periodic intermption of operations is necessary to ensure that instmments are properly caUbrated and that emergency devices would operate if needed (see Flow measurement Temperaturemeasurement). 

For some substances safety considerations play a large role in deciding operating conditions. For instance, the pressure within equipment containing a toxic substance may be kept below atmospheric pressure to prevent it from coming in contact with employees. On the other hand, some highly explosive materials may be kept a pressure above atmospheric so that air cannot enter the equipment and cause an explosion. 

As of the early 1990s, annual worker fatalities ran about 9 per 100,000 employees annual lost-time disabling injuries ran about 4,000 per 100,000 employees (1). Property losses increased fourfold from the 1970s (2). The trends in fatalities and property losses can probably be ascribed to the increasing complexity and productivity of the highly automated chemical plants, where personnel are isolated from processes. Whereas exposure to health and safety hazards maybe reduced, the ability of experienced operating personnel to sense process problems and to correct these problems frequently is decreased. Another aspect of process management which has tended to increase hazards is the effort to reduce the formation of wastes and undesired by-products. This effort requires dose approach to temperature and pressure limits, at which points loss of control can be catastrophic (see Process control). Process and plant safety issues have been discussed (3—8). 

---