Table 2. Private sector industries with the highest incidence of work injuries, by type of case,’ 1995.

Annual
Type of case, industry, and (SIC code) on toe {00 fame
(in thousands) workers*

Days away from work
Total, all industries .... 96,886.0 24
Anthracite coal mining (123) 13 92

nonferrous metal: 15.8 83
Trucking terminal facilities (423) 44 77
Airtransportation, scheduled (45 626.3 69
Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work ( 208.3 ~ 67
Wood containers (244) ..... 50.6 65
Local and suburban transportation (4 181.2 63
Bituminous coal and lignite mining (122) 973 62
Logging (241) 82.0 64
Trucking/courier services, exc. air (421) 1,728.1 59
Restricted work activity only
Total, alt industries 96,886.0 1.0
Ship and boat building 1583, 60
Meat products (201) 4705 53
Tires and inner tubes ( 80.0 5.1
Wood buildings and mobile homes (245) 80.6 49
fron and steel foundries (: — 130.2 42
Leather tanning and finishing (311) 13.7 39
Flat glass (321)... 153 39
Secondary nonferrous metals (334) ... 15.8 3.9
Public building and related furniture (253) 427 37
Motor vehicles and equipment (371)... 967.6 37
Without lost or restricted workdays
Total, alll industries ..... 96,886.0 41
Iron and steel foundries (832) 130.2 142
‘Wood buildings and mobile homes (245) 80.6 129
Ship and boat building and repairing (373) 158.3 125
Secondary nonferrous metals (334) 158 12.1
Flat glass (321)... 183 10.9
Metal forgings and stampings (346) 2515 10.7
Nonferrous foundries (336)... 86.9 96
Motor vehicles and equipment (371 967.6 9.5
Nursing homes (805)... 1,692.5 92
Fabricated structural metal products (344) 4279 92

* Cases with days away from work may also involve days
of restricted work activity. Cases with restricted work ac-
tivity only, by definition, do not involve missed workdays.
‘Cases without lost or restricted workdays primarily involve
medical treatment beyond first aid.

? Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition.

55 Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 1997

Ranking of industry rates is at a three-digit level, as defined
in the Manual.

? Annual average employments derived primarily from the
BLS Covered Employment and Wages program.

* See table 1 for method of calculation.


Table 1. Incidence rates for work injuries in private Industry, by type of case,’ 1976-95?

Cases per 100 full-time workers?
Total With days Without lost or
Year injuries Withdays | ofrestricted | restricted
away from work| work activity workdays
only
8.9 32 02 55
9.0 35 2. 53
9.2 37 3 52
9.2 39 3 5.0
85 3.6 3 46
BA 34 3 44
78 32 3 41
75 34 3 4.
78 33 3 42
77 33 3 42
77 33 3 42
8.0 3.3 A 43
83 34 5 44
82 33 5 44
83 33 6 45
79 34 & 4.2
83 29 7 47
79 27 8 44
77 26 9 42
75 24 1.0 41
* Three types of nonfatal injuries are included in the BLS EH = total hours worked by all employees

survey; Cases with days away from work, which may also in- during the calendar year

volve days of restricted work activity; cases with restricted work 200,000= —_ base for 100 equivalent full-time

activity that do not involve missed workdays; and cases with- workers (working 40 hours per week,

out lost or restricted work activity, which primarily involve medi- 50 weeks per year).

cal treatment beyond first aid.

? Data for 1976-1987 are based on the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, 1972 Edition; and data for 1988-1995.
are based on the Standard Industrial Classification Manual,
1987 Edition.

°® Cases per 100 full-time workers were calculated as: (N/-
EH) x 200,000, where:

N = _ number of injuries by type of injury

“To maintain historical comparability with the rest of the se-
ties, data for small nonfarm employers in low-risk industries that
‘were not surveyed were imputed and included in the survey
estimates.

NOTE: The 1992-95 surveys measured only non-fatal inju-
ties while prior BLS annual surveys covered both fatal and non-
fatal injuries. Because fatalities account for less than 0.1 per-
cent of total injuries, they have little or no impact on the total
injury incidence rate.

Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 1997

54


Tabte 3. Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers" for work injuries in private Industry, by employment size group and type of case,?
1995

Establishment employment size (workers)
Type of case and industry division Al
estabish- | 11010 | 111049 | Soto24a | 25010909 | 1-000,
ments
Days away from work
Private industry’..... 24 12 23 34 25 24
3.3 26 34 3.6 33 34
32 24 36 34 27 _-
41 32 48 45 “29 7
26 19 31 33 23 18
28 24 36 37 24 2.0
23 Ww 22 29 24 1S
37 17 34 45 37 38
23 Ww 24 29 32 a4
7 6 8 2 7 4
2.0 7 14 27 23 23
Restricted work activity only
Private industry’. 1.0 2 5 12 16 16
9 2 7 12 13 19
& 2 4 8 6 -
7 2 6 9 14 8
20 3 1.0 24 22 23
20 3 ww 23 22 22
19 3 8 19 23 24
13 2 5 Ww 15 26
8 3 4 1 18 13
2 3 a 2 2 a
7 a 3 an! 1.0 Wt
Without lost or restricted workdays.

Private industry’..... 41 16 3.7 53 44 41
‘Agriculture, forestry, 5A 33 56 59 47 36
Mining‘. 22 1.6 27 24 W7 =_

57 3.0 67 69 53 1.3
5.3 24 55 63 48 52
6.2 32 67 74 5.3 59
42 12 3.6 5.0 44 36
37 19 35 48 33 34
Wholesale and retail trade .. 42 15 38 57 5.3 42
Finance, insurance, real e: 14 2 16 18 1.6 1.0
Services ... 3.4 Wt 23 48 44 40

* See table 1 for method of calculation.

? Cases with days away from work may also involve days of re-
stricted work activity. Cases with restricted work activity only, by defi-
nition, do not involve missed workdays. Cases without lost or re-
stricted workdays primarily involve medical treatment beyond first aid.

* Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees.

“Data conforming to OSHA definitions for mining operators in coal,
metal, and nonmetal mining and for employers in railroad transporta-

tion are provided to BLS by the Mine Safety and Health Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Labor; and the Federal Railroad Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Transportation. Independent mining contrac-
tors are excluded from the coal, metal, and nonmetal mining indus-
tries.

NOTE: Dashes indicate no data or data that do not meet publica-
tion criteria.

Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 1997 56


Safety and Hea

Three Measures
of Nonfatal
Injuries at Work

BY MARTIN E, PERSONICK

“Injury at work” conjures up images of workers killed,
permanently impaired, or suffering a temporary disabling
injury resulting in lost worktime.' These images are simi-
Tar to the actual types of injuries reported by employers in
the BLS surveys. Although death and disability are the most
serious outcomes of work-related injuries, many safety and
health experts suggest that other incidents merit study. For
example, injuries can be serious enough to require medical
treatment or a temporary change of job duties or schedule,
or both. However, it took an Act of Congress to enable
BLS to measure the frequency of “all disabling, serious, or
significant injuries and illnesses, whether or not involving
Joss of time from work.”?

This article summarizes trends in incidence rates for the
three classes of nonfatal injuries measured by BLS: Cases
with days away from work; cases resulting in restricted work
activity only; and cases without any lost or restricted work-
days. Industries with the highest rates for each of the three
classifications of nonfatal injury are also identified and dis-
cussed.

Definitions
The Department of Labor defines the three classes of
nonfatal injuries as: °

Injuries involving days away from work result in
time away from work, beyond the day of the incident.
Such cases may also result in days of restricted work
activity and/or medical treatment.

Injuries involving days of restricted work activity
only result in days of restricted work or motion, be-

Martin E. Personick is an economist in the Office of Safety, Health and
‘Working Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Telephone (202) 606-6168,
James Bamhardt of the same office provided valuable assistance in preparing
special tabulations.

51 Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 1997

yond the day of the incident. Such cases may also
require medical treatment, but do not require days
away from work.
Restricted work activity meets at least one of the
following criteria:
1, The employee was assigned to another job
on a temporary basis due to injury;
2. The injured employee was assigned a short-
ened work schedule; or,
3. The injured employee worked a regularly-
assigned job, but could not perform all of
the duties normally associated with it.

Injuries without lost or restricted workdays typi-
cally require medical treatment other than first aid.*
These cases include loss of consciousness.

Injury trends

The timing and direction of changes in nonfatal injury
rates vary by the type of case. As of 1995, each type of
injury contributes a distinct portion of total injuries: A third
for days-away-from-work cases, an eighth for restricted-
work-activity cases, and slightly over half for cases without
lost or restricted workdays.

Although rates for injuries resulting in missed workdays
are lower now than they were 20 years ago, there were pe-
riods of rate declines and rate increases during the two-
decade span. The lost-worktime case rate slightly rose dur-
ing the late 1970s to 3.9 per 100 equivalent full-time workers
in 1979, then declined during the early 1980s to a rate of
3.1 before edging up to 3.4 per 100 workers in 1988. Since
then, lost-worktime rates have declined steadily to their low-
est level, 2.4 per 100 workers in 1995. (See table 1 and
chart 1.)

In contrast to lost-worktime incidents, rates for injuries
involving restrictions to a workers' duties were much higher
in 1995 (1 case per 100 full-time workers) than in 1976


Chart 1. Incidence rates for work injuries in private industry, by type of case,
1976-95
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers
6
L
sk
| Cases without lost or restricted workdays:
ak
L ee
a Cases with days away from work.
2b
thE ---
| Cases with restricted work activity only, | fe ae O°
a
1876 1977 197% 1879 1000 1061 1082 1909 190 1065 1098 1967 1088 1060 1000 1901 Touz 1000 top 1006

(0.2 per 100 workers). Almost all of the increase took place
since 1986, while at the same time the Federal Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration stepped up efforts
to educate employers to recognize such cases. In 1995,
these cases accounted for more than 13 percent of all non-
fatal injuries, compared with fewer than 5 percent in 1986.

Rates for cases without lost or restricted workdays were
lower in 1995 than in 1976, usually tracking the longer-
term trend for lost-worktime injuries. But there were dif-
ferences between the two trends within that 20-year period.
Rates declined from 5.5 cases per 100 workers in 1976 to
4.1 cases in 1982 for injuries without lost or restricted work-
days. During most of the 1980s and early 1990s the rates
Tose, peaking at 4.7 in 1992. Since then, rates have dropped
to 4.1 per 100 workers in 1995.

A variety of factors influence the level of injury rates
over time, These include shifts in the industrial and occu-
pational composition of the workforce, changes in the level
of business activity, working conditions and work practices,
the number of hours worked, worker experience and train-
ing, the regulatory environment, and employers’ under-
standing of the types of cases to record under current
recordkeeping guidelines. When the country is experienc-
ing a recession, as in the early 1980s, injury rates tend to
decline. This is due in part because less experienced work-
ers, who are relatively injury-prone, tend to be laid off be-
fore experienced workers. In the recovery employers hire
new workers and injury rates rise.> The effect of the afore-
mentioned business cycle is evident for days-away-from-
work cases and for cases with lost or restricted workdays,
but not for injuries involving restricted work activity only.

Industry injury rates

The rate of work injury varies by industry division and
type of case. For all types of injuries combined, construc-
tion and manufacturing had higher rates in 1995 (10.4 and
9.9, respectively) than other industry divisions; for injuries
with missed workdays, construction and transportation/pub-
lic utilities dominated the list (rates of 4.1 and 3.7); for
cases with restricted work activity, manufacturing and trans-
portation/public utilities led (2.0 and 1.3); and for cases
without lost or restricted workdays, construction and manu-
facturing ranked highest (5.7 and 5.3). Manufacturing’s
rate of restricted-workday injuries was twice the combined
total industry rate, suggesting that manufacturing workers
are at much higher risk of such injuries than workers in
other industries. (See table 3.)

Although manufacturing industries filled almost all of
the top 10 rankings for injuries involving restricted work
activity only and those without lost or restricted workdays,
non-factory work settings mostly had the highest rates of
lost-worktime injuries. (See table 2.) Five manufacturing
industries—Ship and boat building, wood buildings and
mobile homes, flat glass, secondary nonferrous metals, and
motor vehicles and equipment-—appeared on the lists of .
rates for restricted work activity cases and cases without
lost or restricted work days. Only the secondary nonfer-
Tous metal industry was cited on all three lists.®

Establishment employment size

Taken together, the three measures of work injuries com-
prise a distinctive pattern by establishment employment size.
All-industry rates rise from the smallest size to the mid-size

Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 1997 52


establishment, then decrease from mid-size to the largest-
size groupings, as shown below for total nonfatal work in-
juries per 100 full-time workers in 1995.

Employment size Injury rate
All sizes 15
1 to 10 workers 3.0
U1 to 49 workers 6.5
50 to 249 workers 9.6
250 to 999 workers 8.5
1,000 or more workers 78

This pattern holds for injuries involving workdays lost
and for injuries without lost or restricted workdays, although
injuries involving restricted work activity have rates that
are higher in large establishments than those in mid-size or
small-size ones. (See table 3.) Small-size establishments
barely registered a rate for injuries resulting from restricted
work activity, suggesting that they are unfamiliar with or
unable to provide light work duties or schedules to injured
workers. For each type of injury, size patterns by industry
division commonly correspond with all-industry patterns,

Survey scope and methods :

The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is a
Federal/State program in which employer reports are col-
lected from about 250,000 private industry establishments
and processed by State agencies affiliated with the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Occupational injury and illness data
for coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and for railroad ac-.

tivities are provided by the Department of Labor’s Mine
Safety and Health Administration and the Department of
Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration. The
survey excludes all fatalities at work and work-related non-
fatal injuries and illnesses to the self-employed; workers on
farms with fewer than 11 employees; private household
workers; and employees in Federal, State, and local gov-
ernment agencies.

The survey estimates of occupational injuries and ill-
nesses are based on a selected probability sample, rather
than a census of the entire population. Fhese sample-based
estimates may differ from results obtained from a popula-
tion census. The variation in the sample estimates across
all possible samples that could have been drawn is mea-
sured by the standard error. For example, the 1995 rate of
6.0 per 100 full-time workers for injuries resulting in re-
stricted work activity in ship and boat building and repair-
ing has an estimated relative standard error of about 2.7
percent or a standard error of less than 0.2.

The data are also subject to nonsampling error, such as
mistakes in recording data or in transcribing the data to
BLS survey forms. BLS also has quality assurance proce-
dures in order to minimize nonsampling errors in the sur-
vey.

Beginning with the 1995 survey, modifications were
made in the. methodology used to adjust for survey
nonresponse and data outliers and to benchmark the sur-
vey results. These changes had a minimal impact on the
survey estimates.

—ENDNOTES—

"Because work-related illnesses continue to be difficult to recognize and
report, illness data were not combined with injury data cited in this article.
Injuries account for more than 90 percent of the injury and illness totals re-
ported in the Bureau's safety and health surveys.

2 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596),
section 24(a).

> See Recordkeeping Guidelines for Occupational Injuries and linesses
US, Depatrcat of aber, Bureau of Labor Satisics, September 1986) pp.

59-68. Photocopies ofthese excepts are avalable upon request tothe Bureau's

53 Compensation and Working Conditions Winter 1997

Office of Safety, Health and Working Conditions.

4 See Recordkeeping Guidelines, p.79, for recordkeeping distinction for
medical treatment and first aid.

* For more discussion of the possible effects of the business cycle and
other factors on injury rates, see U.S. Department of Labor, Report on the
American Workforce, 1994, chapter 3, pp. 97-99.

Establishments classified in this industry are primarily engaged in re-
covering nonferrous metals and alloys from new and used scrap and dross or
spre oe aioe ees anovs from new an