Simple Process To Review Safety Programming


Periodic review of safety programming (i.e. written plans, programs, procedures, training, PPE, etc.), at least annually, is a best practice for ensuring an effective program. Even the best safety programming, designed to both prevent injuries and ensure regulatory compliance, needs to be reviewed and updated to remain relevant and effective.

Below are seven steps for guiding organizations through the review process:

Assign one person as a Review Coordinator.

Delegate parts of the safety program review to others, as appropriate. Don’t hesitate to get others involved and let their expertise benefit the whole organization. Involving others, especially in safety efforts, has positive impacts on job satisfaction levels.

Require Reviewers to calendar (used as a verb) date(s) and time(s) for their review part, and set a deadline for completion.

Ensure Reviewers have the following information for their review part:
• Copies of written programs, procedures, forms, etc., (either paper or electronic), which can be used for personal notations.
• List of top injury types by frequency (i.e., number of claims) and severity (i.e., total claims dollars paid), which is essential for determining if current programming is focused on the actual areas of loss and if changes may be needed. This information can be extracted from workers’ compensation loss runs for the past 5 years.
• MIOSHA Safety & Health Management System Evaluation for General Industry, MIOSHA #512-GI (FREE), which is an Excel spreadsheet. This form evaluates the elements of the current program against the five critical elements of effective programs.
• MIOSHA Spotlight listing (a section on the MIOSHA website) displays the safety and health standards that have been recently amended. Those applicable standards that have changed can be readily identified and factored into the process.
• Michigan Guide to Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulations, which contains a Self-Assessment Survey (both FREE), may be used to help determine which regulations are applicable to the organization. Use this essential guide to navigate through the maze of state and federal regulatory programs.

Require Reviewers to list their findings, which may be anything needing attention such as additional programs/training, revisions to existing documents, and other areas of concern.

Require Review Coordinator to compile all review findings into one master list. This master list can be prioritized and used to aid in the updating work.

Ensure all persons are sincerely recognized for their roles in the process. In these situations, recognition improves job satisfaction levels and reinforces safe work cultures.


Should you require assistance with safety programming in your workplace, please contact Gary Smith, CRM, at (517) 338-3367 or


MIOSHA Safety & Health Management System Evaluation for General Industry, MIOSHA #512-GI:

MIOSHA Spotlight list on Standards & Legislation webpage:,4601,7-154-11407_15368—,00.html

Michigan Guide to Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulations and Self-Assessment Survey:,4561,7-135-3308-15820–,00.html

Posted in 2017, February 2017 | Comments Off on Simple Process To Review Safety Programming

Advocacy Update

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAWritten by Forrest Wall, CAE, Staff Vice President and Industry Relations

Governor Signs Bill Allowing Medical Marihuana Prohibition
Governor Rick Snyder has signed an important rental property amendment to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. As you may recall from last month’s column, in the final days of the 2015-16 legislative session the Michigan Legislature passed Senate Bill 72. The amendment allows a landlord to prohibit the smoking and/or growing of medical marihuana, as long as the prohibition is in the written lease. When signed by the Governor in early January it became Public Act 546 of 2016. The new law takes effect on April 10, 2017, so please wait until after that date to make changes to your leases.

2017 AAM Priorities
As the focus shifts to the 2017-18 Michigan Legislature, here are the initial legislative priorities of the Association for this session:

Apartment Inspection Reform – After successful passage of “Reform Bill #1” (inclusion of townships under the law) in the last session, we were disappointed by Senate inaction in the final days of 2016 on “Reform Bill #2.” This bill focuses on a resident’s right to provide permission prior to local government inspection. AAM is seeking quick reintroduction of the legislation and will push for approval this year.

Bed Bugs – Legislation based on model National Apartment Association legislation was agreed upon in the last session, but ultimately did not pass. The bill would, among other things, establish the responsibilities of both landlords and residents in bed bug infestations, and allow lease provisions to assign responsibility for costs. This legislation will again be a priority for the industry.

Rent Control – AAM continues to vigorously defend the preemption of local rent control, which this organization successfully lobbied for back in the 1980s. Every legislative session we face bills to undo the preemption, and the coming session is expected to be no different.

Posted in 2017, February 2017 | Comments Off on Advocacy Update

AAM 2017 Michigan Forecast

room-for-webAttendees listen to panelists at the AAM 2017 Multifamily Rental Market Outlook


Panelists included Kevin Dillon (left) of Berkadia, David Wilkins of Pillar, Matthew Lester of Princeton Enterprises, Michael Tobin of Group Five Management and Cary Belovicz of Commercial Property Advisors.


Jerry Amber (left) of Amber Properties Company receives his Apartment Building Management Workers Compensation Self-Insured Fund dividend check from Brenda Boomer of Peabody Insurance.

Thank You Generous Sponsors

  • Berkadia
  • Commercial Property Advisors
  • First American Title Insurance Company
  • Peabody Insurance
  • Pillar


Posted in 2017, January 2017 | Comments Off on AAM 2017 Michigan Forecast

ABMWCSIF Six Year Returned Premium Comparison


Posted in 2017, January 2017 | Comments Off on ABMWCSIF Six Year Returned Premium Comparison

Distracted Driving Danger


Distracted driving continues to be a top danger in U.S. workplaces. Many drivers have a false sense of security while using hands-free technology, but they remain highly vulnerable due to cognitive distraction during cell phone calls. So, consider these distracted driving statistics:

Motor vehicle crashes are the No. 1 cause of work-related death (CDC) and account for more than 35,000 deaths each year in the United States (NHTSA).

Driver distraction is a significant contributor to crashes and cell phone use has played an increasingly larger role. More than 1 in 4 drivers admit to typing or sending text messages while driving and more than 1 in 3 report reading a text message or email while driving (AAAFTS).

The National Safety Council (NSC) offers us the following insights into cognitive distraction.

What are the risks?

The three types of driver distraction are:

• Visual (eyes on road)

• Mechanical (hands on wheel)

• Cognitive (mind on driving)

Cell phones are unique from other forms of driver distraction because they usually involve all three forms of distraction. Many people tend to focus on visual and mechanical distractions. However, cognitive distraction is very risky because people do not always recognize they are cognitively distracted and this distraction lasts much longer than the other two types. There is a false perception that hands-free phones are safer than handheld. But research has found no safety benefits to hands-free phones.

Multitasking is a myth

Driving and cell phone conversations both require a great deal of thought. When doing them at the same time, your brain is unable to do either well. For example, it’s nearly impossible to read a book and have a phone conversation. While driving, this often results in crashes due to delayed braking times and not seeing traffic signals.

Passenger conversations are different

A common myth is talking on a cell phone while driving is not different than talking to a passenger, but paying attention to a conversation with a disembodied voice contributes to numerous driving impairments. This is in part because an adult passenger can make an adult driver safer because adult passengers can see the driving environment and often point out things the driver may not see.

Delayed reaction

Cell phone use substantially decreases a driver’s reaction time. One driving simulator study conducted by the University of Utah found that drivers using cell phones had slower reaction times than drivers with a .08 blood alcohol content, the legal intoxication limit. Braking time also was delayed for drivers talking on cell phones – hands-free or handheld. The difference, of course, is a driver talking on a cell phone can eliminate his risk immediately by hanging up the phone whereas an impaired driver is impaired for the duration of the drive.

Decreased brain activity

A study done by Carnegie Mellon University showed a decrease in brain activity when drivers use a cell phone while driving. The parietal lobe activation, which is associated with processing moving visual images while driving, decreases by as much as 37 percent with sentence listening.

Solutions available to employers

Even when people know the risks, voluntary compliance is very difficult. Education alone is not an effective solution. Safety, human resource and employment law experts recommend employers implement and enforce policies banning cell phone use while driving that include:

Clear policy language

Documented training and employee communication

A requirement that employees read and sign the policy

Disciplinary action with firm enforcement

Currently, no state law addresses both hands-free and handheld phone use among all drivers for both talking and text messaging. Because no state law provides optimum prevention, NSC recommends employer policies exceed state law requirements.

Should you require assistance with distracted driving prevention in your workplace, please contact Gary Smith, CRM, at (517) 338-3367 or


National Safety Council (NSC) – Cell Phone Distracted Driving:

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) – Motor Vehicle Safety at Work:

The Official U.S. Government Website for Distracted Driving:

Posted in 2017, January 2017 | Comments Off on Distracted Driving Danger