Minnesota

Department of Labor and Industry

Minnesota OSHA Compliance Service

Customer service survey – 2001

Final report

Prepared by Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry

Research and Statistics
Feb. 8, 2002

1
Background: Minnesota OSHA is responsible for enforcement of occupational health and
safety laws for private and nonfederal public employers in the state. Inspections of individual
businesses may be scheduled for one of several reasons. A worksite accident, fatality or
complaint of an imminently dangerous work situation will be cause for an immediate visit from a
MNOSHA inspector. A formal employee or employee representative complaint, or a referral
from another agency, will cause an employer to be added to the inspection list. Finally, as time
permits, a certain number of "programmed" inspections are performed. Industries subject to
programmed inspections are selected based on high injury and illness experience within the
industry and as a result of state and federal special-emphasis programs.

By law, the MNOSHA investigator is not allowed to pre-schedule or forewarn business officials
of MNOSHA’s intent to visit their site. So, all of the initial inspection visits start with a surprise
visit to the business site. MNOSHA calls inspected businesses "customers," but they may be
considered reluctant customers. The MNOSHA investigator provides a brief opening-conference
explaining the purpose of the visit, providing a summary of the employer’s rights and
responsibilities, and collecting basic information about the work and worksite. After the opening
conference, the investigator conducts a worksite inspection and a brief on-site closing
conference. The employer and a representative of the employees are invited to participate in the
entire inspection process. If the investigator has found violations of the occupational health and
safety regulations at the worksite, citations and/or fines may be proposed. Regular administrative
procedures allow an employer to formally or informally object to either the citations or fines.
After all objections are settled, the employer is responsible for paying fines and correcting all
identified violations. The employer submits paperwork to inform MNOSHA of completion of the
violation corrective activity.

Approximately 2,250 inspection visits take place every year. However, there are approximately
150,500 worksites in the state. So chances that an individual business will be hosting an
inspection are small. Compliance with workplace safety and health regulations then must be part
cooperation, part employer-goodwill and part regulatory-enforcement.

In 1988, a survey was conducted of both MNOSHA consultation and compliance customers.
Customers of both consultation and compliance were satisfied with the investigators they dealt
with, though consultation services received slightly higher ratings than compliance. There were
two areas where compliance customers exhibited some confusion on the 1988 survey. First,
businesses subject to compliance inspections rarely understood why their business had been
selected for inspection. Second, business representatives reported little understanding of their
rights and responsibilities during and following a MNOSHA investigation.

This 2001 survey again follows closely on the heels of a survey of MNOSHA consultation (now
called Workplace Safety Consultation) customers. The survey format is adapted from a federal
OSHA consultation customer-service survey administered throughout the country in 2001.
Additional questions on the MNOSHA Compliance survey were included to discover whether
MNOSHA had made progress in clearing up areas found to be confusing on the 1988 survey.

2
Methods: This was a sample of 125 addresses randomly selected from a list of 1,058 inspection
visits conducted by Minnesota OSHA in the six months prior to the survey (approximately April
1, 2001 to Sept. 30, 2001). Surveys were sent to the inspection address for general-industry
businesses and to the business home-office address for construction-industry inspections. The
survey was addressed to the name of the business, without an individual addressee’s name.

Surveys were mailed to all 125 business addresses Oct. 10, 2001. Reminder postcards were sent
to nonrespondents one week after the initial mailing. Approximately two-and-a-half weeks after
the initial mailing, a second survey packet was mailed to those businesses not yet responding. A
final postcard-reminder was sent about four weeks after the initial survey mailing.

A few survey packets were returned as undeliverable; MNOSHA attempted to correct the
mailing address. Ultimately, MNOSHA was unable to deliver surveys to 13 addresses, so there
were 112 businesses that could have participated in the survey. Sixty-four of the potential
participants were construction-industry employers; 48 of the potential participants were general-
industry or public employers.

Eighty-three businesses returned useable surveys, for an overall response rate of 74 percent. The
response rate varied only a bit by industry, with a 75 percent response rate from construction-
industry businesses and a 73 percent response rate from the remainder.

Survey limitations: The primary limitation is that the survey participants were all from one
stakeholder group – business owners that received an inspection visit from MNOSHA. This
survey does not capture the opinions of any other constituent group. Most of the businesses
MNOSHA inspects, and most of the businesses participating in this survey, are small. So the
survey results are more reflective of the opinion of owners of small businesses than the opinions
of representatives of large corporations or government employers. This survey does not capture
the opinions of any other constituent group. It is possible that employees or employee-
organization representatives in the surveyed businesses would have opinions that differ from
those received.

The survey provides feedback about one of Minnesota OSHA’s main function: that of
inspecting businesses for compliance with workplace safety rules. It, however, does not evaluate
any of Minnesota OSHA’s other services. Other MNOSHA functions include: training and
outreach; individual employer/employee telephone assistance; dispute-resolution procedures;
discrimination investigations; and general assistance to the public.

Survey results: Overall, businesses responding to the survey request were small employers.
Construction-industry sites were overwhelmingly small, with 94 percent of the sites inspected
having fewer than 50 employees. General-industry sites were more evenly distributed across
business size, but 44 percent of the sites had fewer than 100 employees, while an additional 12
percent each were in the size ranges of employee counts of 100 to 140, and 150 to 199.
Construction sites were about twice as likely to be represented by unions than general-industry
sites. Sixty-seven percent of construction-industry respondents reported employees were

3
organized, while 32 percent of general-industry respondents had union representation for their
employees.

The majority of all businesses had operating safety committees, although the percentage in
general industry was higher than in the construction industry (85 percent for general industry, 60
percent for construction).

Most survey respondents had received citations from MNOSHA. Two-thirds of all businesses
responding to the survey either expected or had received citations as a result of a MNOSHA
visit.

As shown in Table 1 (below), survey respondents were quite satisfied with both the usefulness of
the information provided during the inspection and with the usefulness of the inspection itself in
improving workplace safety and health. General-industry survey respondents were, on average,
slightly happier with this inspection aspect than were construction-industry respondents. When
examined across all industries, businesses not receiving citations were more satisfied than
businesses receiving citations.

Table 1: Improving the safety and health of the workplace

Question: All General- Construction Businesses Businesses Comparison
Scale: respondents, industry -industry receiving not receiving score from
5 = very satisfied average score only, average only, average citations, citations, Workplace
4 = satisfied score score average score average score Safety
3 = neutral Consultation
2 = dissatisfied survey
1 = very dissatisfied

How satisfied or
dissatisfied were you
with the usefulness of
the information from
the inspection for
improving workplace
safety and health?
(five-point scale) 3.96 4.06 3.87 3.77 4.33 4.46
How satisfied or
dissatisfied were you
with the usefulness of
the inspection in
improving workplace
safety and health?
(five-point scale) 3.96 4.03 3.90 3.81 4.25 4.46

Table 2 (below) summarizes how the survey participants judged the investigator conducting the
inspection visit. MNOSHA inspectors received "very good" ratings in response to questions
about their helpfulness, competence and professionalism. Average scores for Compliance visits
were lower than corresponding scores for Workplace Safety Consultation visits, however. There
are probably several reasons for the difference in scores between Compliance investigators and
WSC consultants. First, WSC consultants are able to schedule appointments in advance and are
4
able to ask a great deal about the site they will be visiting before ever arriving there. This allows
a consultant to look up specific reference material and be thoroughly prepared ahead of time.
Second, WSC consultants, on average, have more years of experience than Compliance
investigators, so it is more likely they’ll have experience with the industry. Finally, it appears the
function of issuing citations colors an employer’s evaluation of the investigator. Employers not
receiving citations consistently gave an investigator higher ratings than employers receiving
citations or citations and fines.

Table 2: Satisfaction with investigator and investigator’s preparation

Question: All General- Construction Businesses Businesses Comparison
Scale: respondents, industry -industry receiving not receiving score from
5 = very satisfied average score only, average only, average citations, citations, Workplace
4 = satisfied score score average score average score Safety
3 = neutral Consultation
2 = dissatisfied survey
1 = very dissatisfied

How satisfied or
dissatisfied were you
with the
investigator’s
understanding of
your industry?
(five-point scale) 3.86 3.85 3.88 3.69 4.35 4.44
How satisfied or
dissatisfied were you
with the
investigator’s ability
to provide advice
about workplace
safety?
(five-point scale) 4.05 3.97 4.13 3.86 4.46 4.53
How satisfied or
dissatisfied were you
with the
investigator’s
willingness to
provide advice about
workplace safety?
(five-point scale) 4.11 4.06 4.15 3.92 4.5 N/A
How satisfied or
dissatisfied were you
with the
investigator’s
knowledge of OSHA
rules and
regulations? (five-
point scale) 4.11 4 4.21 3.98 4.5 4.61

5
The 1988 survey of Compliance customers revealed some confusion about two points: 1) the
rights and responsibilities of employers during and following a MNOSHA visit; and 2) the
reason for the MNOSHA visit. Information from this survey, summarized in Table 3 (below),
suggests MNOSHA has made progress on providing information about employer rights and
responsibilities. In addition, the survey specifically asked, "If you received citations or penalties
as a result of the MNOSHA inspection, do you understand the rights and obligations that
accompany the citation or penalties?" Of the 54 respondents answering this question, 52 said
“yes” they understood, two said they were “unsure” and none indicated a lack of understanding.

Table 3: Employer’s understanding of investigation procedures

Question: All General- Construction- Businesses Businesses Comparison
respondents, industry industry only, receiving not score from
average score only, average score citations, receiving Workplace
average average citations, Safety
score score average Consultatio
score n survey

How clear or unclear were

the investigator’s answers to
your questions.
Scale:
4 = very clear
3 = somewhat clear
2 = somewhat unclear
1 = very unclear 3.47 3.45 3.48 3.33 3.75 3.80
How clear or unclear was
the investigator’s
explanation of your rights
and obligations as a
Minnesota employer?
Scale:
4 = very clear
3 = somewhat clear
2 = somewhat unclear
1 = very unclear 3.47 3.53 3.41 3.40 3.71 3.76
How satisfied or dissatisfied
were you with your
involvement in the
inspection process?
Scale:
5 = very satisfied
4 = satisfied
3 = neutral
2 = dissatisfied
1 = very dissatisfied 4.02 4.15 3.92 3.90 4.3 4.48

Not as much progress has been made on employer understanding about why MNOSHA visited
the business. We invited survey respondents to tell us the reason the inspection was scheduled.
Fifty-three of the respondents said they either "just came up on the list" or they didn’t know why
their business was scheduled for inspection. Seven businesses understood MNOSHA’s visit to be
in response to an accident and 15 thought the inspection visit was triggered by either an

6
employee complaint or a referral from another agency. In reality, about half of all MNOSHA
visits are in response to an accident or complaint. This difference between employer perception
and reality suggests survey respondents continue to be unclear about what triggered the
inspection. Perhaps MNOSHA management feels this lack of employer understanding about the
reason for the inspection is of no particular concern. If so, then no action is required.

Discussion: Several of the survey questions provided an opportunity for survey participants to
provide responses in their own words. MNOSHA asked for information about what aspect of the
inspection the business representatives found most useful in improving safety and health. The
survey asked how MNOSHA could improve its services to the employer and requested feedback
about the department Web site. Comments from the survey respondents are summarized below:

· The presence of a MNOSHA inspector is valuable to employers. In some cases,

employers felt the appearance of a safety inspector emphasized the importance of
employees’ observation of safety rules. Construction-industry employers felt their
subcontractors took safety rules and regulations more seriously after the MNOSHA visit.

· Employers appreciated tapping the knowledge of MNOSHA inspectors during the

inspection process. Employers liked the acknowledgment that some aspects of their
safety programs were in compliance. Some employers valued the help they received with
a specific safety program or issue, even if the help was accompanied by a citation. Others
remarked about their appreciation for having the inspector’s opinion about where their
safety priorities should be placed.

· A few employers remarked they wished MNOSHA would only issue warning tickets
during the first visit. They suggested fines should be forgiven if the business promptly
corrects any violations. Obviously, these employers do not understand that Workplace
Safety Consultation can provide just what they’ve asked for.

· Some employers felt it was unfair for MNOSHA to issue citations when the violations
on-site were caused by "employee misconduct" or "faults of a subcontractor." For several
years, federal OSHA has emphasized that an employer is responsible for everything that
goes on at the worksite. Apparently the message continues to be unheard by some.

· Several survey respondents remarked that the fines were too large or the time period for
corrective action was too short. Though employers reported they felt apprized of their
rights and obligations, perhaps some do not understand their option to contest citations or
fines or to negotiate abatement timeframes when citations are proposed. Additionally, it
is important to remember who was – and who was not – included in the survey, when
interpreting these remarks. The survey results primarily reflect the opinion of owners and
representatives of small businesses. The opinions of employees, union representatives,
legislative members, large-corporation employers and survivors of employees killed on
the job are not reflected here.

· Survey participants had mostly favorable opinions about the professionalism and

7
 helpfulness of the inspectors they dealt with. Representatives of inspected businesses
were unhappy when the impression they had at the close of an inspection visit differed
from the citation paperwork received subsequent to the visit. Some business owners felt
the inspector had closed with an indication no violations had been found or small fines
would be proposed when, ultimately, they received notice of citations and substantial
fines. Perhaps it is important to make sure the message received at the close of an
inspection is consistent with the ultimate paperwork. If there is a discrepancy that goes
against the employer, a courtesy contact may be in order.

· Some construction-industry employers felt the inspector visiting their site did not
understand the pacing and limitations of a construction project. Sometimes it seems the
investigator visited a construction site at a time that not much was going on, and the
employer felt the visit would have been more useful at a later date. On other occasions, it
appears the employer was complaining about the MNOSHA investigator’s insistence on
adhering to the law. These employers felt "close to compliance" or being in the "spirit of
compliance" should have been sufficient to avoid citations.

· A couple of survey participants remarked they would like to see more consistent rule-
interpretations from one investigator to another. Providing copies of MNOSHA policies
and compliance guidelines to employers could help reduce confusion about rule
interpretation in some cases. However, it is asking a lot for inspectors to be flexible
enough in judgment to evaluate the safety of all situations and yet consistent among
themselves when presented with the same situation. This may be an ongoing internal
training and management issue.

· Both happy and unhappy survey respondents wanted MNOSHA investigators to focus on
the most important employee health and safety issues, and to provide as much helpful
assistance as possible. Of course, happy survey respondents thought the inspector did just
that.

· Feedback about the agency's Web site was limited. The limited feedback echoed other
comments from survey responders. Specifically requested was provision of
training/education materials that could be easily adapted to the worksite.

· Several comments emphasized the importance of making sure the employer understands
what paperwork will be issued, what the employer’s expected response to the paperwork
is and when the inspection case will be considered closed. It appears some construction
supervisors may not notify their home office when a MNOSHA inspector has visited.
Several survey participants called with questions about (or to request copies of) their
inspection report when they received the survey. Some survey participants expected to
receive an "all is OK" letter in response to submitting abatement paperwork (such a letter
is not routinely issued).

Conclusion: MNOSHA Compliance customers give high marks to MNOSHA investigators in

spite of being surprised by the inspection visit and in spite of being subject to citations and fines.

8
Employers found the experience to be valuable in improving workplace safety and health, and
felt information provided and explanations offered during the visit were worthwhile. Some
survey respondents submitted comments that suggest they do not know of the availability of the
Workplace Safety Consultation service. A few construction-industry employers felt enforcement
of the rules was inappropriate in their situation.