DuPont must fix own safety woes before advising others

It’s time for DuPont to end its safety charade.

The global chemical giant claims to be a leader in workplace safety and earns millions selling its so-called safety “expertise” to other companies. But the consulting service DuPont sells to other firms are worse than useless; it can actually make workplaces more dangerous.

DuPont certainly isn’t looking very “expert” on safety issues after four workers died at its chemical plant in La Porte in November. Earlier this month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will classify DuPont as a “severe violator.” The company’s plants will be seeing OSHA inspectors more frequently, because the agency isn’t confident DuPont will keep its workers safe otherwise.

Companies tagged as “severe violators,” according to OSHA, have shown “indifference towards creating a safe and healthy workplace by committing willful or repeated violations, and/or failing to abate known hazards.”

The families of four Texans — Crystal Rae Wise, Wade Baker, Robert Tisnado and Gilbert Tisnado — can’t be very impressed with DuPont’s safety credentials. All four workers were killed when a faulty valve inside the La Porte plant exposed them to deadly chemical gas.

Wise, Baker, and the Tisnados — who were brothers — were hit by the first blast of a massive leak of 23,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan, a deadly chemical used to manufacture insecticide. It attacks the central nervous system and in large doses can cause respiratory paralysis. Wise, Baker and the Tisnado brothers died because their bodies were crippled by a lack of oxygen.

In May, OSHA proposed fines of $99,000 against DuPont for safety violations that led to the tragedy, including failure to upgrade defective equipment. DuPont is contesting the penalties. Last week, after a follow-up inspection, the agency added another $237,000 in proposed fines for other serious problems in the La Porte plant. Violations include failure to properly inspect equipment and lack of proper safety procedures.

A company where workers died on the job because of bad equipment, failed inspections and flawed procedures has no business advising anybody on safety. The International Chemical Workers Union Council, which represents workers at DuPont’s La Porte plant, has called on the company to get out of the consulting business.

“DuPont,” says the ICWUC, “should focus on safety in its plants before it markets its flawed safety practices as protecting workers in other companies.”

We agree. DuPont’s consulting arm sells the “Safety Training Observation Program” or STOP. The STOP program should be stopped, because it’s based on a baseless management idea: “If anything goes wrong around here, it must be the fault of the workers.”

In consultant-speak, this self-serving concept is called “behavioral safety.” Whatever it’s called, the concept is truly awful, suggesting that workplace illnesses, injuries and deaths result from errors made by rank-and-file workers. It does not consider the management’s decisions to cut costs, disinvest in new equipment, forgo maintenance, and put production over safety.

DuPont’s STOP ignores all this. It tells companies that workers get hurt because they don’t follow safety rules. They preach the way to fix safety problems is to monitor and discipline workers for “unsafe acts.” The scheme also provides incentives for a “good” safety record. This only discourages workers from reporting injuries and hazards.

This approach directly contradicts the best practices developed and promoted by safety professionals worldwide, including those at OSHA and the National Safety Council. A solid safety program must focus on management’s responsibility to eliminate hazards by getting rid of toxic chemicals, improving ventilation, re-engineering jobs to reduce stress on workers’ bodies and other measures that fix the workplace.

DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman must fold up the company’s fatally flawed safety consulting business. She should toss the “behavioral safety” concept in the trash and focus on a systems approach to workplace safety.

Listening and responding to safety concerns raised by workers requires real effort. It’s hard work — but it’s a lot better than going to more funerals.