the true injury-frequency rate for the longshore industry in 1942 was more nearly 160 than the 138 indicated by the tabulated reports.

OCCUPATIONAL DIFFERENCES

Holdmen, as a group, have by far the most hazardous assignment among all the longshore occupations. In 1942 this group of workers experienced an average of 294 disabling injuries in every million employee-hours worked-more than double the average for all longshore work. Warehousemen had the next highest frequency rate (182), but this rate was based upon a comparatively small sample and cannot be considered entirely representative. It is pertinent, however, to note the wide difference in the relative seriousness of the injuries experienced by the holdmen and the warehousemen. Out of 162 reported injuries to warehousemen all but 1 resulted only in temporary disability, and the average time lost per temporary injury was only 19 days. On the other hand, 89, or 8.7 percent of the 1,020 injuries reported for holdmen, resulted either in death or in permanent physical impairment, and the average time lost per temporary disability was 41 days.

TABLE 1.-Injury Rates and Extent of Disability for Longshoremen, by Occupation, for 258 Stevedoring Establishments, 1942

Includes time charges for permanent disabilities and fatalities. The standard time-loss ratings for fatalities and permanent disabilities are given in "Method of Compiling Industrial Injury Rates," approved by the American Standards Association, 1937.

The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked. The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand employee-hours worked. Severity-rate data were not furnished by all reporting establishments. The severity rates shown are based upon reports from 193 establishments.

Most of the other major occupational groups of longshoremen had frequency rates of more than 100, but ranging somewhat below the industry average. Dockmen had an average of 132 disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked; hand truckers had an average of 131; car loaders averaged 130; and the miscellaneous group, which includes winch drivers, hatch tenders, cargo repairmen, gear and lockermen, watchmen, foremen, and other less numerous groups, averaged 112. Checkers, as might be expected, had a comparatively

low frequency rate-25. Surprisingly, however, the trimmers had the lowest occupational frequency rate, averaging only 14 disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.

GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES

The striking differences in the average injury-frequency rates for the four main coastal areas, as shown in table 2, graphically portray the variations in the safety activities carried on in the different regions. All of the regional rates were very high, however, and even the lowest indicates that much more intensive safety work must be done before the industry can take much pride in its safety record.

The lowest regional frequency rate in 1942 was 122 for the Pacific Coast. In comparison with the rates for the other regions, this rate reflects the incorporation of the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code into the working rules of some ports and the continuous accidentprevention activities of the Accident Prevention Bureau of the employers' association. In the North Atlantic area the average frequency rate of 125 undoubtedly was lower than it would have been if the Maritime Association of the Port of New York had not compiled and distributed its Maritime Safety Code. In the South Atlantic area safety conditions are influenced in some degree by the activities in the North Atlantic area, with the result that the average injury-frequency rate there (160) is not nearly so high as that of the Gulf Coast where this influence is not effective. The exceedingly high average frequency rate of 258 for the Gulf ports clearly reflects the complete absence of safety activites noted in that area during this survey.

TABLE 2.-Injury Rates and Extent of Disability for Longshoremen, by Region, for 258 Stevedoring Establishments, 1942

1 Includes time charges for permanent disabilities and fatalities. The standard time-loss ratings for fatalities and permanent disabilities are given in "Method of Compiling Industrial Injury Rates," approved by the American Standards Association, 1937.

2 Not available.

Causes of Accident

Most of the circumstances which lead to accidents in longshore work could be corrected very easily were it not for the industry's two outstanding characteristics-casual employment for short periods and continuous pressure for speed. Comparatively few of the hazards encountered in the industry are such that extensive engineering or mechanical guarding is necessary for their elimination. On the contrary, nearly all of the unsafe physical conditions revealed by analysis. of over 1,360 longshore injuries are hazards which are not inescapably

a part of the work, but rather are created by the way in which the work is performed. The evidence that longshore work is carried on with very little consideration for safety is amply borne out by the general pattern formed by the unsafe acts which contributed to the occurrence of these accidents. By and large these unsafe acts represent violations of the most elementary rules of safety; in short, they are the type of unsafe acts which are committed by persons entirely untrained in safety and condoned only by supervisors who are unconcerned with safety. It seems evident that most of the injuries to longshoremen could be avoided if the workers were thoroughly instructed in safety and were given safety-minded supervision.

The difficulties involved in teaching and practicing safety under the existing system of casual employment are readily apparent, but in the final analysis these difficulties differ only in degree from those encountered in many other industries in which much safety progress has been achieved. To ascribe the failure to develop a successful safety program in the longshore industry entirely to these difficulties, therefore, is tantamount to questioning the ability of the longshore industry to solve its own problems as well as do other industries, which obviously is not the case. All of the evidence collected in this survey, however, points to one outstanding fact: neither longshore management nor longshore labor is yet fully convinced that safety pays, not only in moral values but also in the material savings which alone are usually greater than the expenditures necessary to insure safety. Safety can be made a reality in longshore work, but it will require continuous effort and full cooperation between management and the workers' leaders to make it effective.

UNSAFE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

Hazardous arrangement or procedure.-Nearly 43 percent of all the accidents analyzed resulted directly from hazardous arrangement in and about the workplaces or from hazardous working methods. To pile or stow cargo in such a manner that the piles are not stable and are likely to topple, or to build the piles irregularly so that corners project to be struck by passing trucks or workers, presents not only great possibility of injury but also the probability of material damage to the cargo items. Resort to such piling or stowing methods usually results from a desire to save time, even though it should be obvious that the effort required to rebuild a toppled pile consumes far more time than would be required to build it correctly in the first place. Nevertheless over 13 percent of the accidents were caused by unsafely piled or stowed cargo items.

The exposure of workers to the hazard of being struck by loaded slings while working on the apron of the dock or in the hatchway of the vessel arises largely from the fact that both of these areas are frequently highly congested with cargo, making it difficult for the workers to withdraw from the danger area when the load is raised or lowered. The pressure for speed also frequently results in sling loads being swung over the heads of workers who are engaged in moving in the items for the next load or moving away the items from the previous load. Some sacrifice in operating speed may be necessary to eliminate this exposure to being struck by sling loads. It is axiomatic among safety experts, however, that the safe way of performing any

operation is almost invariably the most efficient way. The fact that nearly 13 percent of all disabling injuries to longshoremen result from exposure to being struck by loaded slings indicates that any attention to the organization of work on the dock apron or in the hatchway, based upon safety, would be very productive in the reduction of longshore accidents.

Defective agencies.-Mechanical defects in the hoisting apparatus itself produced relatively few injuries. Improperly built and improperly slung loads, however, led to a considerable volume of accidents. These included instances in which the load was too heavy, or was improperly attached to the hook, or was unevenly piled in the sling so that articles of cargo spilled out and fell on the workers below.

Slippery, worn, and uneven working surfaces produced nearly 5 percent of the injuries by causing falls and near falls. Some of the slippery conditions were due to ice or snow which might have been made much less dangerous through the liberal use of sand. Attention simply to good housekeeping, such as better maintenance around the docks and prompt attention to the cleaning up of spilled materials, however, would have prevented most of these injuries.

The handling of defective cargo, particularly broken cases with rough and splintered edges, accounted for over 3 percent of the injuries. In large measure these items became defective through improper handling, and the most effective way to avoid the hazard which they present would be to prevent their being broken in the first place. Once they are broken, however, the workers who must handle them should be equipped with protective gloves and aprons.

Unsafe lifting. The cases included in this category of unsafe mechanical or physical condition include accidents resulting from manual lifting of objects which should have been lifted mechanically, from individuals' lifting objects which should have been lifted by a team, and from the lifting of objects in cramped or crowded quarters which should have been cleared before the operation started. În a few accidents resulting from individuals' lifting what appeared to be excessive weights there was some question whether the injury actually might not have occurred because of improper lifting procedure; when this question could not be specifically answered the case was considered as involving the lifting of excessive weight and was included in this group. A substantial volume of injuries, 15 percent of all cases analyzed, resulted from the unsafe conditions falling in this classification. Accidents of this type are primarily due to inadequate supervision. In all work involving lifting the supervisor should be required to see that proper space is provided for the operation and that adequate teams or proper mechanical lifting equipment are available.

UNSAFE ACTS OF PERSONS

Taking unsafe position or posture. Nearly a third (32 percent) of the injuries analyzed were the direct outcome of the injured person's placing himself in an unsafe position or posture. Most prominent of the specific acts in this general group was that of working or standing under or in the path of suspended or moving sling loads. Other unsafe acts in this category involved such actions as working, standing, or walking in front of moving vehicles; riding the sling or the hook; working or walking too near the edge of the dock, deck, or hatchway;

and working in a cramped position. The injuries resulting from these unsafe acts included a high proportion of fatalities and a considerable volume of very severe temporary disabilities. The average recovery period for temporary disabilities in this group was 41 days, as compared with an average of 34 days for all temporary disabilities experienced by longshoremen.

Using unsafe equipment, hands instead of equipment, or equipment unsafely.-Relatively few injuries resulted from using unsafe mechanical equipment or from using mechanical equipment unsafely, but nearly 24 percent of all the cases resulted from the unsafe act of gripping objects insecurely or taking hold of objects incorrectly. These were principally cases in which cargo items slipped from the hands of workers and fell upon their feet.

Operating or working at unsafe speed.-"Shortcutting" accidentsaccidents which occurred because someone took a chance in order to save time produced more than 18 percent of the injuries. These unsafe acts included running; sliding down or climbing ropes instead of using ladders; jumping from piles and platforms instead of climbing down; operating platform trucks at high speed in congested areas; and throwing materials instead of passing or carrying them.

Failure to wear safe attire.-About 5 percent of the accidents resulted directly from the failure to wear safe clothing or proper personal safety equipment. The cases involving failure to wear safe clothing included workers who handled lime while working without shirts and as a result received severe body burns when their perspiration slaked the dust on their shoulders; workers who wore trousers with torn and ragged ends which finally tripped them; and workers who wore loose clothing which caught on projections and in the lines of the sling. In respect to the failure to use personal safety equipment, only accidents in operations for which such equipment is essential were included in this group. Cases in which the wearing of safety shoes, hard hats, and similar equipment would have prevented injury, but would not have prevented the accident, were not considered as falling within this category of unsafe act. The failure to wear safety shoes while removing copper bars from an unstacked heap in which the bars shifted and rolled down whenever one was pulled from the pile, however, was considered an unsafe act of this type. Similarly, the failure to wear gloves when handling wire cables which had broken strands was also considered as a failure to wear safe attire.

In a great many instances the specific unsafe acts which led to injuries were the result of conditions over which the individual worker had little control. In others the individuals could have elected to act safely, but either through lack of safety understanding or because safety seemed unimportant they chose to take a chance. Basically, however, every unsafe act, regardless of how designated, is management's responsibility. As long as the supervisors do not plan the work to avoid unsafe conditions and insure strict observance of safe practices on the part of the workers there are bound to be many accidents and many injuries.