View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave)
A. F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner

Injuries and Accident Causes in the
Slaughtering and M eat-Packing
Industry 1943

Bulletin 7slo. 855

For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents,. U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 15 cents







Letter o f Transmittal

U n it e d

States D
B

epartm ent

ureau

of

of

Labor,

L a b o r St a t is t ic s ,

Washington, D. C., December 11, 1945.
The S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on the occurrence and causes
of work injuries in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry.
This report was prepared in the Industrial Hazards Division by Frank S.
McElroy and George R. McCormack. D. R. Blenis and Joseph Pochcp, safety
engineers in the industry, assisted greatly by suggesting specific methods of
accident prevention drawn from their experience. The American Meat Institute
and the United Packinghouse Workers of America participated in the prepara­
tions for the survey; the American Meat Institute also provided technical
assistance to check the accuracy of the process descriptions contained in the report.
A. F. H i n r i c h s , Acting Commissioner.
Hon. L. B . SCHWELLENBACH,
Secretary of Labor.




(ill)




Contents
P age

Summary______________________________________________________________
The industry record:
Comparison with other groups______________________________________
Industry record for 1943 and 1944___________________________________
Hazards of the industry_________________________________________________
The principal operations and their hazards---------------------------------------Livestock handling-----------------------Dressing departments_________________________________________
Warm fancy-meat separating---------------------------------------------------Casings departments__________________________________________
Coolers_______________________________________________________
Trimming and cutting departments-------------------------------------------Sausage departments---------------------------------------------------------------Smoked-meat processing-------------Record of plants participating in special study:
Departmental injury records:
Dressing departments_________________________________________
Cutting and trimming departments------------------------------------- - - Sausage departments------------------------------------------------Smoked-meat processing----- ---------------------------------------------------Other production departments_________________________________
Service departments_____ ___
Regional and state differences in injury frequency---------------------------Integrated plants________
Packing plants__________________________
Abattoirs______________________
Injuries by size of plant___________________________________________
Injury record, by type of plant________________________________
Disabling injuries______________________________________________________
Types of disabling injuries-------------------------------------------------------------Nondisabling injuries__________________________________________________
Repeat injuries------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Agencies of injury, and accident types:
The '‘agencies” —_------------Types of accidents_________________________________________________
Accident causes________________________________________________________
Unsafe working conditions_________________________________________
Defective agencies!____________________________________________
Hazardous arrangements or procedures------------------------------------Inadequately guarded agencies------------------------------------------------Unsafe acts_______________________________________________________
Using unsafe equipment or using equipment unsafely-------- 1-----Unsafe position or posture. ----------Unsafe lifting_________________________________________________
Other unsafe acts________________________________________
Typical accidents and suggestions for their prevention---------------------------Elevator and conveyor accidents___________________________________
Hand-truck and motor-truck accidents_____________________________
Miscellaneous machinery accidents-------------------------------------------------Grinder accidents-------------------------Poor-housekeeping accidents_______________________________________
Hand-tool accidents_______________________________________________
Miscellaneous accidents____________________________________________
Appendix.— Statistical tables___________________________________________




(V)

1
3
4
4
5
5
6
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
14
15
1517
10
10
20
22
24
25
26
27
27
29
30
32
32
33
34
34
35
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43

CHART I

INJURY FREQUENCY RATES
IN SLAUGHTERING AND MEAT PACKING
COMPARED WITH RATES FOR
A L L FOOD INDUSTRIES AND A LL MANUFACTURING

1940-1944

1942

1943




(VI)

B ulletin 7^o. 855 o f the
U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
[Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R eview , November and December 1945, with additional data]

Injuries and Accident Causes in the Slaughtering and
Meat-Packing Industry, 1943
Sum m ary

It is axiomatic in safety circles that the elimination of work acci­
dents can be achieved only as a result of carefully planned and exe­
cuted efforts on the part of all persons concerned. Both management
and workers benefit from a successful safety program and both
groups must cooperate to make any program successful. Such cooper­
ation, however, depends upon conviction that there is a definite
problem to be solved and that there is a reasonable possibility that
improvement can be accomplished through practical measures.
The emotional appeal, typified by the “ horror” method of depicting
the extremely unpleasant physical consequences of a disregard for
safety, no longer constitutes the approved method of instilling safety
consciousness or of driving home the realization that there is a safety
problem. It may well be said that the safety movement has come of
age and that the approach to safety now is generally based upon
rationalized study of accident records with particular attention to
the detailed analysis of the facts and conditions upon which those
records are based. This study was designed to bring together such
accident records for the slaughtering and meat-packing industry and
to present as much detail as possible concerning the causes of the
accidents in the industry. It was not intended to develop a safety
program for the industry nor for any individual plant. The purpose
is to measure the extent of the accident problem in the industry as a
whole; to indicate specifically the sections of the industry in which
the problem is greatest; and to show, wherever possible, what are the
outstanding sources of injuries, thereby permitting a conclusion as to
whether or not improvement is practicable.
Summary reports on accidents in 1943 were obtained from 177
plants doing slaughtering only, 400 plants doing packing only, and
389 plants carrying on both types of activity.1
Analysis revealed a considerably higher injury-frequency rate in
slaughtering and dressing plants than in establishments carrying on
meat-packing operations only— 60.5 as compared with 29.7. In
general, it appeared that the large plants and the very small plants
had better safety records than the medium-size plants; the proportion
of accidents resulting in permanent partial disabilities, however, was
generally greater in establishments with 1,000 or more workers than
in the smaller plants.
1 See appendix, table 1.




(1)

2
Slaughtering and meat-packing operations during 1943 appeared
to have been conducted most safely in the Middle Atlantic region,
where the average frequency rate was 40.5. In contrast the relative
volume of injuries was greatest in the South Atlantic region, where
the average rate was 64.2. The East North Central region, from
which the largest number of reports were received, had an average
rate of 42.0. Among the 31 States for which separate average fre­
quency rates were computed, Delaware had the lowest (9.4) and Georgia
the highest (118.4). The Pennsylvania average of 38.5 was based
upon a larger number of reports than was received from any other
State. The Illinois rate of 41.4, however, was based upon the ex­
perience of a much larger number of workers than was reported from
any other State. Various factors enter into these regional and State
differences. State safety laws and the extent to which they are en­
forced, the general size of the plants in an area, the predominating
type of operations performed by the plants, and the general interest
in safety as evidenced by the safety activities of local associations all
have much to do with the general level of frequency rates in any area.
In addition to providing summary reports, which were included in
the general study of injury-frequency rates, 30 of the plants partici­
pating in the survey also furnished details concerning each of their
reported accidents.
A representative of the Bureau .visited each of these plants and, as
far as possible, transcribed from their records the following items
regarding each accident: Place where the accident occurred; nature
and extent of the resulting injury; type of accident; the unsafe con­
dition and the unsafe act which led to the accident; and the object
or substance (agency) which caused the injury. These data were
then analyzed according to the American Recommended Practice for
Compiling Industrial-Accident Causes, approved by the American
Standards Association.
In some instances all the desired details were not available. For
this reason, the number of cases analyzed in respect to particular
accident factors varied considerably. All parts of the cause analysis,
however, were based upon the records of at least 29 plants. The
plants visited were all integrated establishments carrying on both
slaughtering and meat-packing operations, so that all phases of the
industry were represented. The entire group employed approxi­
mately 60,000 workers. The plants were in 18 States, providing a
cross section representing practically all the centers of the industry.
The detailed analysis indicated thiat 37 percent of the injuries were
hand or finger cases, 15 percent were foot or toe injuries, and 11
percent were back injuries. In the main, the hand and finger injuries
were cuts or lacerations, the foot and toe injuries were sprains, bruises,
and fractures, and back injuries were sprains. The principal agencies
involved in the accidents which produced the injuries and the pro­
portion of injuries ascribed to each were as follows: Hand tools,
including knives and meathooks, 19.8 percent; vehicles, principally
hand trucks, 15.3 percent; and working surfaces, 15.1 percent.
Broadly speaking, the principal unsafe working conditions involved
in the injury-producing accidents studied—slippery working surfaces
and tools or materials placed unsafely— may be characterized as
failures to maintain good housekeeping. Among the various cate­
gories of unsafe acts which contributed to the occurrence of accidents,




3
that of gripping objects insecurely or taking a wrong hold was out­
standing. Specifically, the most common unsafe act in this group
consisted of mishandling knives.
The Industry Record
C O M P A R IS O N

W IT H

OTHER

GROUPS

Throughout the 5-year period 1940-44, the injury record of the
slaughtering and meat-packing industry compared unfavorably with
the records of most other industries of the food group and of most
manufacturing industries in other groups.
In 1940 the reports submitted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
indicated that workers in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry
experienced an average of 26.8 disabling injuries in the course of every
million employee-hours worked, which was considerably higher than
the average of 20.2 for the entire group of food industries, and 75 per­
cent higher than the average of 15.3 for all manufacturing activities.
Similarly in 1941, the average injury-frequency rate for slaughtering
and meat packing was 30.9, as compared with averages of 23.4 for the
food-industry group and 18.1 for all manufacturing. In 1942, the
injury-frequency rates for most manufacturing industries again rose
sharply, reflecting the operating difficulties occasioned by conversion
to an “ all-out” program of war production. From the safety view­
point the most important of these difficulties were (1) the loss of trained
workers to the armed forces or to the new war industries, (2) the intro­
duction of large numbers of workers who were entirely new to indus­
try, (3) pressure for greater production, and (4) lack of materials and
facilities to accommodate the expanded work force adequately, which
resulted in crowding, and the deterioration of machines and equipment,
caused by excessive use and the absence of adequate repair or replace­
ment parts. As a result of these factors the all-manufacturing fre­
quency rate in 1942 was 19.9; the average for the food group was 27.3;
and that for slaughtering and meat-packing was 44.8. In 1943 there
were indications that the wartime safety problems were being brought
under control; although frequency rates generally continued to rise,
the rise was much less drastic than in 1942. In that year the all­
manufacturing average was 20.0 disabling injuries per million em­
ployee-hours worked; the average for the food industry group rose to
29.7; and the slaughtering and meat-packing average reached 47.6.2
In 1944, the upward trend in injuries was generally reversed; the
all-manufacturing average frequency rate declined to 18.4 and that
for the food-industry group, to 27.1. In line with this trend but
stimulated to greater achievements by a national safety campaign
sponsored by the U. S. Department of Labor, the slaughtering and
meat-packing industry reduced its average rate even more impressively
to 35.9.
2 This 1943 industry average, taken from the Bureau’s regular annual survey from which all the other rates
used in the above comparisons were also taken, differs substantially from the rate of 39.0, which was the aver­
age for all plants participating in the special slaughtering and meat-packing survey of 1943, reported upon in
this article. The difference reflects the much broader coverage of the special survey, particularly the inclu­
sion of many plants engaged in processing poultry, other small animals, and casings, which do not regularly
participate in the annual surveys. For the purpose of comparison, however, either of the rates will serve to
emphasize the greater incidence of injuries in slaughtering and meat packing than in most other industries.
682055°—46----- 2




4
INDUSTRY RECORD FOR 1943 AND 1944

Injury-frequency rates are considered to be the most reliable gauge
for evaluating the safety record of any particular plant or industry.
Their implications become more apparent when it is stated that 1 in
every 9 slaughtering and meat-packing workers experienced a disabling
injury in 1943, and that in 1944 this ratio was 1 for every 12 workers.
In actual numbers, it has been estimated that 19,400 slaughtering and
meat-packing workers were disabled by work injuries in 1943 and
18,300 in 1944. In the single year, 1944, about 35 workers in the
industry were killed in the course of their employment and about 470
others were injured so severely that they will be physically impaired
for the rest of their lives. Even these large figures tell only a part
of the story for 1944. In addition to the 18,300 disabling injuries,
there were untold numbers of minor injuries which were not recorded
because they did not cause the injured employee to remain away from
his work beyond the day of injury. In the aggregate, these minor, or
nondisabling, injuries represent a tremendous loss to the industry in
terms of working time taken for first-aid treatments and of direct
cash expenditures for these treatments.
No accurate estimate of the volume of nondisabling injuries in the
slaughtering and meat-packing industry is possible, because of the
lack of sufficient records. Such evidence as is available, however,
indicates that the commonly quoted ratio of 29 nondisabling injuries
for every disabling case, which is considered a reasonable average
for all manufacturing, is probably much too low for the slaughtering
and meat-packing industry. As an example (although not presented
as a generalization), an exhaustive review of the medical records in
three of the large plants visited in the course of the survey revealed
that, in a period of 12 months, 30,499 injuries were reported to the
medical offices, and of these, only 337 were disabling. In other words,
there were in these three plants 90 nondisabling injuries for every
disabling case.
Without any allowance for the continuing loss in production and
earning power arising from the deaths and permanent impairments,
it is estimated that the actual employment losses resulting from the
disabling injuries experienced by slaughtering and meat-packing
workers amounted to at least 366,000 man-days during 1944. When
the standard time charges for deaths and permanent impairments are
included, it is estimated that the future economic loss accruing from
the more serious injuries will eventually bring the total loss to at least
673,000 man-days. This evaluation of the loss arising from the dis­
abling injuries of 1944 takes no account of the losses in time and
money resulting from the vast number of nondisabling injuries which
also occurred, nor of the collateral or hidden costs connected with the
injury-producing accidents. As a monetary cost item, these hidden
losses undoubtedly exceed the direct injury cost several times over.
Hazards o f the Industry

Although the hazards faced by the workers in any particular de­
partment are primarily related to the specific operations of that de­
partment, certain hazards affect to some extent practically all workers
in the industry. Slippery floors, which cause many slips and falls,
are particularly common in dressing, cutting, and trimming rooms.




5
Grease, carried on the workers’ shoes, however, frequently makes
slippery floors and stairways a hazard throughout an entire plant.
Water is used freely in slaughtering and meat-packing plants for
cleaning floors and equipment, as well as for washing carcasses.
Unless it is promptly removed from the floor, this water adds appre­
ciably to the slipping hazards in many parts of the plants. Inadequate
plant maintenance is frequently a contributing factor in the creation
of slipping hazards, particularly in respect to rough and uneven floors,
on which the water collects in little pools.
Crowded working conditions and improper lay-out of traffic also
contribute to many accidents in various parts of the plants. Although
the use of conveyors is widespread, many of the products and trim­
mings must be transferred from one place to another in hand trucks.
The movement of these trucks through the aisles presents a hazard
to all employees who use the passageways or who work adjacent to
the trafficways. Poor maintenance of the passageway floors and
poor housekeeping in the aisles may add greatly to these hazards, as
the trucks are easily deflected from their course by uneven flooring
or by material lying in their way. Poor routing and inadequate
planning for the transportation of materials also contributes to many
injury-producing accidents. A case illustrating this point was ob­
served in a plant where the indicated route for tractor-trailers passed
through a doorway which was so low as to require each driver to
duck his head as he went through. As might have been expected,
one driver eventually forgot to duck and was severely injured when
his head struck the top of the doorway.
Knives are used to some extent in nearly all of the operating
departments, and practically all employees on occasion must move
or help to move relatively heavy materials. As. a result, the possi­
bility of knife cuts and of injuries from overlifting are hazards com­
mon to most of the departments.
THE PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS AND THEIR HAZARDS

The depaitmental organization reported by the participating plants
varied extensively— from no departmentalization at all in some small
plants to 20 or more departments in the larger integrated plants.
For this reason there were many differences in the number of units
and in the operations and occupations included in the various depart­
mental groups. This was particularly true in respect to the various
meat-processing and by-products operations. Generally, however,
most of the plants were able to furnish comparable data for the
principal types of operations, such as beef and hog dressing, trimming
and cutting operations, sausage making, and smoked-meat processing.
Other departments frequently reported separately included curing
cellars, hide cellars, rendering departments, and the various plantservice departments, such as boiler and engine room, maintenance,
shipping, and watchmen.
Livestock handling.—Most of the larger slaughtering plants reported
separate livestock departments, which are responsible for the care
of the animals during the period between their arrival at the plant
and their delivery to the killing floor. The smaller plants generally
reported that this function was included in the duties of the dressing
departments. The principal hazards connected with this work con­
sist of the possibility of forcible contact with the animals, falls on



6
the irregular and sometimes slippery surfaces of the pens, and strains
or sprains arising from overexertion in the handling of ieed and
water for the animals.
Dressing departments.—Although there are marked differences in
the detailed procedure in slaughtering and dressing various kinds of
animals, the operations generally follow the same basic pattern.
After the animal has been killed and the blood drained from the
carcass, the hide or hair is removed, the head and entrails are also
removed, the carcass is divided into halves, washed, inspected and
stamped, and then placed in the cooler for approximately 24 hours
to remove the body heat. Production-line methods are used exten­
sively. To eliminate unnecessary handling of the carcasses or cuts
of meat, the killing floors are frequently situated at the top of the
building, to which the live animals are driven over ramps. Chutes
can then be used to pass the cuts of meat to successive operations on
the lower floors. The use of these chutes sometimes constitutes a
definite hazard in that there are usually tables at the foot of the
chutes on which the meat is further cut or trimmed. It is not unusual
for a cut of meat to slide with considerable force from the chute
and to strike one of the workers at the bench.
In dressing operations the carcass is transferred from one point to
another by the use of shackles attached to wheels which run on
overhead monorails. These wheels usually are held on the rail only
by the weight of the carcass, and swinging loads frequently throw
the wheels off the rails. Switches, built into the rails at various
points to permit diversion of the loads, present a similar hazard
unless they are properly equipped with dogs or lugs to prevent the
wheels from running off the end of the rails when the switches are
open. It also happens at times that improperly suspended loads
will come loose from the hooks or shackles and fall from the con­
veyor. In any of these cases workers near the conveyor line may
be struck either by the falling carcass or by the equipment with
which it was suspended. For protection against head injuries in
such accidents, many plants encourage the wearing of hard hats or
helmets by all employees who work in coolers or near conveyor lines.
In none of the plants visited, however, was the wearing of helmets
mandatory, and most of the plant officials who were interviewed
stated that it was very difficult to persuade workers to wear helmets
or other personal protective devices.
The usual procedure in killing hogs is to drive the animal into an
enclosed area on the killing floor, where an employee, called “ the
shackler,” places a shackle on one of the hog’s hind legs. The other
end of the shackle is then hooked into an endless chain, which rides
up over a large powered wheel, lifting the hog off the floor. When
fully suspended, the animal hangs head downward about 4 feet off
the floor. A considerable amount of skill and extreme care are
necessary in applying the shackle so that it will not come loose and
permit the hog to fall. The animal is then killed by an employee,
called “ the sticker,” who cuts through its jugular vein. As the
sticker must stand in the blood which drains from the animals, he
must wear boots and be very careful of his footing on the slippery
surface of the blood pit. As a safety measure, it is necessary that the
surface of the blood pit be made of a nonslip material. Another
hazard faced by the sticker is the possibilit}7 of being kicked by the



7
forefeet of the suspended animal. Such a kick against the hand in
which he holds his knife sometimes will drive the knife into his other
hand or arm or even into his body.
After the blood has been drained from the carcass, it is lowered into
a hot-water tank to be scalded and is then passed through a dehairing
machine, where most of the bristles are removed. The remaining
bristles around the ears and other irregular surfaces are removed later
with a hand scraper. In some plants the bristles are removed by
placing the carcass in a tank of hot resin. The resin hardens when
the carcass is removed from the tank and can be peeled off, lifting the
bristles with it. Burns from contact with the hot water or hot resin
are common in this work, and strains from lifting the carcasses out of
the tanks are numerous. The dehairing machines are generally com­
pletely enclosed and, therefore, present little hazard.
The carcass then passes by monorail conveyor through a series of
specialized operations during which the head and entrails are removed
and various other cuts are made. Certain parts of the animal, such
as the heart and liver, are passed to the warm fancy-meat depart­
ment and the intestines are sent to the casing department. During
these operations each carcass is examined for evidence of disease, and
condemned carcasses are sidetracked to be used in the manufacture of
fertilizer. Approved carcasses are thoroughly washed, the stamp of
the inspector from the Meait Inspection Division of the U. S. Depart­
ment of Agriculture is applied, and the carcasses are then pushed
along the conveyor into the cooler. In these dressing operations most
of the work involves the use of knives. Knife cuts, therefore,
constitute the chief hazard.
As a general rule, the killing and dressing of other small animals,
such as sheep and calves, is very similar to the procedure in handling
hogs.
In killing beeves the procedure is somewhat different. The animal
is driven into a small pen in which it cannot turn around. At the
side of the pen a worker, called the knocker, stands upon a raised
platform. The knocker stuns the animal by striking it between the
eyes with a long-handled hammer. When the stunned animal has
slumped to the floor, the gate at the front of the pen is opened, and
the back of the pen is raised. This causes the animal to slide out onto
the killing floor. The platforms from which the knockers work are
usually rather narrow and are seldom railed. Guardrails would
eliminate the hazard of falling.
When the stunned animal reaches the killing floor, a shackler places
a shackle around both its hind feet, and a sticker cuts its throat with
a long-handled knife. The carcass is then raised to the conveyor to
permit the blood to drain. The chief hazards in these operations are
the possibility of being struck by the animal as it slides from the
knocking pen, of being kicked by incompletely stunned animals, and
of slipping on the blood-covered floor.
After the blood has been drained, the carcass is lowered to the floor,
and the hide is removed. As this is mostly knife work, the possibility
of cuts constitutes the chief hazard.
When the hide has been removed, the carcass is returned to the
conveyor. From this point onward, it passes through the same series
of operations as were outlined for the hog-dressing departments.
The head and entrails are removed; the carcass is split in half, washed,




8
stamped, and moved into the cooler. The danger of knife cuts is the
major hazard in these operations, but strains from overlifting are also
numerous.
Warm fancy-meat separating.— In many plants the warm fancy-meat
separating unit is considered to be merely a collateral operation of the
dressing department, and, as a result, few separate reports covering
this work were received. In the Bureau's tabulations, therefore, the
experience of the employees engaged in this work was included with
that of the dressing departments. The work, however, is sufficiently
different to warrant some comment regarding its hazards.
The function of this department is to process specialties, such as
kidneys, hearts, livers, brains, pigs' feet, tongues, lungs, etc. Most
of the work consists of trimming the various parts and of removing
fat. As this is primarily knife work, the workers are constantly faced
with the danger of cutting themselves. They stand around long
tables, onto which the material usually slides from a chute leading
from the killing and dressing floor. Crowding of the workers around
the table and congestion of the materials on the table frequently create
hazards in that the workers may not have sufficient room to make
their cuts without exposing themselves or their neighboring coworkers
to the possibility of cuts if their knives should slip. When chutes are
used to deliver the material to the tables, there is always the chance
that a sliding piece will skid across the table and strike one of the
workers. The chief danger in such an accident is that the worker's
knife may be deflected against himself or another worker at the table.
Opening skulls for the removal of brains is probably the most
hazardous operation performed in the warm fancy-meat departments.
Frequently the skulls are split with a cleaver, although the more usual
procedure is to use a skull-crushing machine. These machines are
similar to a guillotine, with a heavy blade which breaks or crushes
the skull. No satisfactory guard has been designed for skull-crushing
machines, and as a result the operators are always exposed to the
risk of losing their fingers or hands under the falling blade.
Casings departments.—As in the case of the warm fancy-meat units,
the work of the casing units was commonly reported as a part of the
dressing departments, and for this reason their injury experience was
not separately tabulated. In these units, the intestines of the
slaughtered animals are prepared for use as sausage casings. The
preparation of the casings consists primarily of cleaning, scraping, and
trimming foreign matter from the intestines. After cleaning, the
casings are tested with water or compressed air, graded, and packed
in salt for curing or toughening.
Practically all this work is done in water, and consequently the
working areas are generally quite damp. Knife cuts are the most
common injuries, although salt sores resulting from the curing opera­
tions are also numerous.
Coolers.— From the dressing department the carcasses and half
carcasses pass into the coolers, which are merely large refrigerated
rooms in which the meat is chilled and held until it passes on to the
trimmers and cutters. Throughout its stay in the cooler, the meat
remains suspended from the monorail conveyor. In order to dis­
tribute it, however, considerable switching and moving is necessary
inside the cooler. In this moving and switching, as in all the overheadconveyor operations, there is danger of the meat and the suspension
equipment falling from the rail. Hard hats are generally recom­



9
mended, but are not customarily worn.. Because of the moisture gen­
erally present in the coolers, the floors are frequently covered with
frost or ice and present a definite slipping hazard. Liberal use of
salt or sawdust and frequent cleaning can do much to minimize this
hazard. Another hazard faced by workers in the coolers is the sudden
change in temperature which they experience as they pass in and out
of the cold room. Care must also be exercised in going through the
cooler doors. These doors are usually very heavy and are equipped
with automatic closers. Severe injuries sometimes result when work­
ers are struck by these doors or have their fingers caught between a
closing door and the doorframe.
Trimming and cutting departments.— In the trimming and cutting
rooms the carcasses are prepared for the wholesale market. Beef
carcasses are frequently sold as halves or quarters and in such cases
require only a minimum of cutting and trimming. Most of the beef
cutting and boning, therefore, is performed inside the coolers. Hand
saws and knives are generally used in this work, and the workers face
the constant hazard of cutting themselves with these sharp tools.
There are also certain hazards involved in handling the beef carcasses
in this work. The carcasses and part carcasses are quite heavy, and
many workers experience severe strains from overlifting in taking
them from, or returning them to, the conveyor. This hazard is inten­
sified when the floor is slippery, making it difficult to maintain good
footing. There is also the danger of having the carcasses fall from
the conveyor onto the persons who work around them.
Hog carcasses, on the other hand, are usually divided into a number
of specialty cuts, such as hams, loins, etc., which necessitate consider­
ably more handling than is normally the case in cutting and trimming
beef. Pork cutting and trimming, therefore, is commonly organized
on a production-line basis, and each worker performs only one special­
ized operation. When a carcass is taken from the cooler, it is placed
upon a belt conveyor which carries it to the first operator, who
removes it to his work bench, makes the first cut, and returns the
pieces to the belt for transfer to the next bench, where a further cut
is made. In some cases only the remaining part of the carcass is
returned to the belt, the smaller separated pieces being thrown into
gravity chutes which slide the pieces onto benches on a lower floor,
where further trimming is done. Removing the pieces from the con­
veyor and returning them to the belt is heavy work and results in
many strains. Grease on the floor frequently adds to this hazard
by making it difficult to maintain a firm footing while lifting or pull­
ing the meat.
Power saws, which are used in many of these cutting operations,
frequently present a great hazard. None of the band saws or circular
saws observed by the Bureau representatives in the course of the
survey were guarded, and the general opinion expressed by the plant
safety men was that they could not be effectually guarded. In a few
instances, however, the saws were mounted well back from the edge
of the bench beyond the reach of the operator. In these installations
the meat was pushed up to the saw on a sliding section of the table.
This procedure affords some protection in that it normally keeps the
operator’s hands away from the blade and makes it impossible for him
to fall against the blade if his feet should slip on the grease around the
bench. It does not, however, constitute complete guarding.




10
At the trimming benches the workers handle smaller pieces of meat,
and most of their operations'consist of trimming off fat. As this is
lighter work, considerable numbers of women are employed. The
chief hazard lies in the possibility of knife cuts.
Sausage departments.— Scraps of meat salvaged from the various
cutting rooms are routed to the sausage department, where they are
ground, mixed with spices or other ingredients, cooked or cured, and
stuffed into casings to form sausages.
The grinding machines are frequently very hazardous, in that the
hand of the operator may be drawn in as he forces the meat into the
hopper. Practically all plants have rules prohibiting the use of hands
to force the meat into the grinder and requiring that a stamper be
used for this purpose. The rule is frequently ignored, however, and
grinder accidents are rather common. A more effective procedure
used in some plants to safeguard grinder operators is to mount the
grinder at the back of a wide feeding table, so that the operator can­
not reach across to place his hand inside the throat of the machine.
Another method is to extend the hopper so that the grinding mechan­
ism is beyond arm’s reach, thus making it impossible for anyone to get
his hand caught.
Stuffing machines, driven by compressed air, are generally used to
fill the casings. Several instances were reported in which these
machines had exploded because of excessive pressure. Such accidents
must be considered as evidence of improper design or of inadequate
maintenance, because the required working pressure in such operations
should always be well below the capacity of any metal parts, and safety
valves should be provided in the line to release automatically any
abnormal pressure which might be built up through mishandling or
through the misfunctioning of the machine.
The filled casings are passed from the stuffer to a bench where they
are twisted into links and tied by hand with string or rope. Finger
cuts, which frequently become infected, are quite common in this
operation, particularly when bare knives are used to cut the string.
After tying, the sausage is hung on racks, or “ trees,” and carried
on the overhead conveyor to the cooler or to the curing rooms. The
use of these trees involves some hazard, in that it is not uncommon
for them to fall from the conveyor rail.
Smoked-meat processing.— In this department hams and bacon are
cured, trimmed, and packed for shipment. The cuts are first trimmed
and then placed on racks in the smokehouse for curing. After removal
from the smokehouse, the hams are packed in paper or stockinette
and tied with rope or string. Bacon is usually sliced in automatic
slicing machines and then weighed and wrapped automatically. The
slicing machines normally are well guarded, but occasionally the finger
of an employee comes into contact with the revolving blade. Such
contact usually results in a permanent injury.
Record o f Plants Participating in Special Study
D E P A R T M E N T A L IN JU R Y R E C O R D S 8

Dressing departments.—The killing and dressing departments gen­
erally reported much higher injury-frequency rates than prevailed in
any of the other departments. In the integrated slaughtering and
* See appendix, table 2.




11
packing plants the beef-dressing departments had an average of 93.6
disabling injuries for every minion employee-hours worked. In the
same type of plants the hog-dressing departments had an average
frequency rate of 82.1. These rates, which indicate that nearly 20
percent of all the workers engaged in killing and dressing operations
experienced some kind of disabling injuries in a single year, are exceed­
ingly high by any standard of evaluation. In view of this record,
there can be little question as to the urgent need for intensified safety
activities in these departments.
In the abattoirs, the frequency of injuries in hog-dressing opera­
tions was even higher, averaging 113.9 disabling injuries per million
employee-hours worked. For beef-dressing operations, however, the
average frequency rate of the abattoirs, 76.0, was somewhat lower
than that of the integrated plants.
Among the 1,632 disabling injuries reported for the hog-dressing
departments of the integrated plants, there were 21 cases of permanent
impairment and 1 fatality. In the beef-dressing units, the proportion
of serious injuries, as indicated by 27 permanent impairments and 1
fatality among 921 disabling injuries, was substantially higher.
Similarly, the average amount of time lost per case of temporary
disability was somewhat higher in the beef-dressing departments (12
days) than in the hog-dressing departments (11 days). In each of
these two departmental groups, the time lost during the year because
of temporary disabilities alone amounted to more than 2 days for every
employee.
Cutting and trimming departments.— In the integrated plants, the
average injury-frequency rate for the beef cutting and boning de­
partments was 70.9 disabling injuries per million employee-hours
worked; the hog-cutting department's rate was 70.7. Although these
rates represent a substantially lower incidence of injuries than pre­
vailed in the dressing departments, they are, nevertheless, very high
and should be interpreted as calling for stringent safety measures in
these departments.
In the plants which perfoim no slaughtering operations, the beef
cutting and boning departments ranked as the most hazardous of the
various departmental units. The frequency rate for these depart­
ments, 57.8, was nearly double the general average for the packing
plants. The hog-cutting units of these plants had a better record,
but, even so, their average of 44.4 disabling injuries per million em­
ployee-hours was 50 percent higher than the average for all packing­
house departments. It is apparent, therefore, that the cutting and
trimming departments deserve first attention in any effort to eliminate
packing-house accidents.
Sausage departments.—The sausage departments of the integrated
slaughtering and meat-packing plants had an average injury-frequency
rate of 47.5; similar departments in strictly packing plants had an
average rate of 28.8. Each of these rates is just slightly below the
average for all departments in their respective groups.
In evaluating the injury record of the sausage departments, it is
pertinent to note that these departments reported a disproportionately
large number of fatalities. Of the 10 fatalities reported by the
integrated plants, 3 were sausage-department cases. In contrast, the
total number of sausage-department injuries represented only about 8
percent of the total number of cases reported by the integrated plants.
682055°—46------3




12
Similarly, in the packing plants the sausage-department injuries rep­
resented only 24 percent of the injuries reported for all departments,
but 1 of the 7 fatalities and 1 of the 2 permanent total disabilities re­
ported for the group were sausage-department cases.
Smoked-meat processing.—The smoked-meat processing departments
of the integrated plants had an average frequency rate of 38.2. This
rate was considerably below the average for all departments in the
integrated plants, but it is nevertheless too high to be accepted as
indicating the existence of good safety practices or safe working condi­
tions.
In the plants engaged exclusively in packing, on the other hand, the
smoked-meat processing departments had an average frequency rate
of 19.4 which was the lowest average recorded for any of the major
departmental groups.
Other production departments.—Among the miscellaneous pioduction
departments reported by the integrated plants in sufficient volume to
permit the computation of separate average frequency rates, the small
stock-dressing departments had an average rate of 91.3; the oleo
oil-house and tallow-rendering departments had an average of 73.0;
and the inedible-rendeiing departments had an average of 70.0. The
averages of 32.2 for the canning departments and 32.0 for the livestock
departments were the lowest among the average rates of the operating
departments of the integrated plants.
In the packing plants the curing cellars had the high average fre­
quency rate of 51.7 and the canning departments an average rate of
34.7.
Service departments.—The integrated plants reported* a substantial
volume of accident experience for a number of service departments,
such as boiler and engine-room departments, cooperage and box de­
partments, maintenance departments, shipping departments, and
watchmen’s departments. Among these groups the cooperage and
box departments had by far the highest average injury-frequency
rate— 74.2. Despite the fact that woodworking activities aregenerally
recognized as being more hazardous than most other types of indus­
trial operations, this rate must be characterized as extremely high.
The maintenance and shipping departments also had high average
frequency rates of 49.8 and 47.7 respectively. In respect to the main­
tenance workers, this high rate reflects the fact that a large part of
their assignment consists of working on defective equipment, with the
result that they are frequently exposed to hazards which other workers
meet only rarely. In the shipping departments, ovrrlifting and mis­
handling of heavy materials account in large measure for the high
injury-frequency rate.
In the other service departments of the integrated plants, the fre­
quency rates were reasonably low. For the boiler- and engine-room
units, the average rate was 24.1 and for the watchmen’s department
15.8.
In the packing-house group, the shipping departments were the only
service units for which a separate average could be computed. These
departments had an average frequency rate of 26.6.
REGIONAL AND STATE DIFFERENCES IN INJURY FREQUENCY4

Many factors contribute to the wide differences in the injuryfrequency rates prevailing in the various States and regions, and in
* See appendix, table 3.




13
particular instances it may be difficult to specify which is the con­
trolling factor. Variations in the types of operations carried on by
the reporting establishments may have a direct bearing upon the
level of frequency rates when the number of reporting units is small.
When the groups to be compared are reasonably large and the com­
parisons are limited to groups of establishments engaged in similar
activities, however, the differences in the average injury-frequency
rates may be considered as reflecting primarily variations in safety
activities rather than variations in inherent hazards. Differences in
State safety requirements and in the degree to which the requirements”
are enforced exert a direct influence upon the frequency-rate levels in*
different States. Similarly, safety activities, or the lack of suck
activities, on the part of trade associations or other organizations
may have considerable effect upon the accident record of an area.
The average size of the plants in different areas and the availability
or the lack of experienced personnel are also factors which may
influence the injury-frequency rate levels.
The plants participating in the survey were distributed among 47
States and the District of Columbia. However, in a number of States
the coverage was insufficient to permit the computation of represen­
tative averages for the various types of operations. For purposes o f
general comparison the reports were combined into regional groups
corresponding to the 9 regions used in the tabulations of the United
States Bureau of the Census.6 On this basis average frequency rates
for integrated slaughtering and meat-packing plants were computed
for each of the 9 regions; averages for plants engaged only in packing*
operations were computed for 7 regions; and averages based upon the
experience of abattoirs were computed for 5 regions.
In addition, it was possible to compute separate State averages
covering the operations of integrated plants in 24 States. Only 12
State averages could be computed for packing plants, and only 2 for
abattoirs. No State rates were computed unless the data included the
experience of at least 3 establishments with a combined exposure o f
over 900,000 employee-hours worked.
Integrated P lants

The highest of the regional average frequency rates for the inte­
grated plants was that of the 34 establishments reporting from the
South Atlantic States. These plants reported an average of 75.7
disabling injuries for every million employee-hours worked. In
large measure, this high regional rate reflects the unfavorable rates
reported by plants in Georgia and Maryland. The Georgia average,
based upon the experience of 3 plants, was 128.4—nearly 40 percent
higher than the average for any other State. The Maryland aver­
age, covering 8 plants, was 74.3, which was exceeded by the averages
of only 4 other States. In contrast, the Virginia average of 44.4 for
4 plants was well below the middle of the range of State rates.
The lowest of the regional averages was that of the East North
Central States—44.8. This average was based upon the records o f
» The regional groupings and the States included in each region are as follows: New England.—Connecticut*,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Middle Atlantic.—N ew Jersey,
N ew York, and Pennsylvania. East North Central.—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
West North Central.—Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
South Atlantic— Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and
West Virginia. East South Centred.—Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. West South*
Central.—Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Mountain.—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and W yom ing. Pacific.—California, Oregon, and Washington.




14
112 plants, the largest number included in any single region. With
this volume of reports it was possible to compute separate averages
for each of the five States comprising the area. Ohio's average of
36.1, covering the experience of 50 establishments, was the lowest
State rate in the region, although the Indiana average of 38.6, covering
23 plants, was only slightly higher. Six plants in Wisconsin had an
average rate of 42.6, and 20 plants in Illinois an average of 46.0.
The Michigan average of 66.8, based upon the records of 13 plants,
was the only State rate in this region which ranked above the middle
of the range of State rates.
Reports were received from 18 integrated plants in the East South
Central region. These plants had the high average frequency rate
of 67.8, which was exceeded only by the average of the South At­
lantic region. The Tennessee average of 75.1, based upon the records
of 8 of these establishments, was the third highest of the various
State rates, while the Kentucky average of 51.0 was the median in
the range of State rates.
The 12 plants reporting from the Mountain region had an average
injury-frequency rate of 58.7. These plants included 3 establish­
ments in Utah, for which the average rate was 74.6.
In the New England region, 12 reporting plants had an average
frequency rate of 57.0. This rate reflects primaiily the experience of
8 plants in Massachusetts, which had an average rate of 57.8.
The West South Central region had an average rate of 50.4, based
upon the combined experience of 29 integrated plants. Again, the
regional average in this area reflects primaiily the experience of
plants within a single State. Fifteen of these plants were in Texas;
their average rate was 53.2.
In the Middle Atlantic region, the average frequency rate for the
84 participating establishments was 50.1. Sixty-four of these plants
were in Pennsylvania, 17 were in New York, and 3 in New Jersey.
The State average frequency rates were 66.7 for New York; 45.6 for
Pennsylvania; and 22.5 for New Jersey. The New Jersey rate was
the lowest average recorded for any State.
The Pacific Coast States were represented in the survey by 36
integrated plants, with an average frequency rate of 48.9. Twentyfour of these establishments, in California, had an average injuryfrequency rate of 40.4, while 8 others, in Oregon, had an average rate
of 91.8. The Oregon rate was the second highest State rate recorded.
In the West North Central region, reports from 52 establishments
yielded an average injury-frequency rate of 45.7. Within this region
4 plants in Nebraska had an average rate of 62.3; 14 plants in Mis­
souri had an average of 57.4; 5 plants in Minnesota had an average
rate of 47.5; 13 plants in Iowa had an average rate of 41.7; 12 es­
tablishments in Kansas had a rate of 38.1; and 3 plants in South
Dakota had an average rate of 24.0.
P acking P lants

The 7 regional average injury-frequency rates for plants which en­
gage in meat packing, but which perform no slaughtering operations,
ranged from a high of 54.7 for 30 plants in the South Atlantic region
to a low of 20.0 for 36 plants in the Pacific region. The high average
in the South Atlantic region was largely due to the experience of 9
Maryland plants, which had a combined frequency rate of 71.6.



15
The low average for the West Coast States resulted primarily from
the excellent record of the 29 plants reporting from California. These
California plants had an average rate of 13.8, which was next to the
lowest among the 12 State rates recorded.
In the New England region, 49 packing plants reported an average
frequency rate of 32.8. Thirty-one of these plants were in Massa­
chusetts and 5 were in Maine. The average rate for the Massachu­
setts plants was 27.0, while the Maine average was 22.6.
The Middle Atlantic States had a regional frequency rate of 28.6,
based upon the experience of 120 packing plants. The New York
frequency rate of 40.1, representing the combined experience of 47
of these plants, was the second highest of the 12 State rates recorded.
In Pennsylvania 55 packing plants had an average frequency rate of
28.6, and in New Jersey 18 plants had an average rate of 18.0.
The East North Central region had an average of 26.9, based upon
the reports of 106 packing establishments. Within this group there
were 48 Illinois plants, with an average frequency rate of 29.5; 24
Wisconsin plants, with an average of 29.6; 14 Ohio plants, with a
combined rate of 23.5; and 16 Michigan plants, with an average of
11.6. The Michigan rate was the lowest State rate computed for the
packing-house group.
The West South Central region’s average frequency rate of 26.9
was identical with that of the East North Central region. Only 14
packing plants reported from this region, and as a result the only
State in the area for which an average rate could be computed was
Louisiana. In that State there were 7 plants which together had an
average frequency rate of 16.1.
In the West North Central region, 29 packing plants reported an
average frequency rate of 25.7. Many of these plants were quite
small, however, and the limited volume of exposure reported in the
separate States precluded the computation of any State averages in
this area.
A battoirs

The five regional average frequency rates computed from the
reports of plants engaged only in slaughtering operations ranged from
a high rate of 92.3, covering 23 plants in the West North Central
region, to a low rate of 35.6 for 6 establishments in the West South
Central region. In the Pacific region, 26 abattoirs had an average
frequency rate of 74.4; 46 establishments in the East North Central
region an average of 52.9; and 43 others in the Middle Atlantic region
had an average rate of 50.0.
The only States for which separate rates covering slaughtering
operations could be presented were California and Illinois. In Cali­
fornia the 23 reporting abattoirs had an average frequency rate of
81.5, and in Illinois 5 plants had an average of 31.7.
INJURIES, BY SIZE OF PLAN T6

In general, the very small plants and the large plants had better
injury records than the plants in the medium-size group. This was
true for all three types of plants, even though there were wide differ­
ences in the size distribution within the three major groups.
Although group averages constitute an effective basis for the evalu­
ation of a safety record, they have one weakness from the viewpoint
6See appendix, tables 4 and 5.




16
<of the management and the employees of any particular establishment.
In the averages all variations among the different plants are obscured
and no clue is offered as to the relative standing of any individual
plant in respect to other competing establishments. However, com­
parisons based upon individual plant frequency rates can be enlighten­
ing on this point. It is a matter of considerable interest, for example,
that, among all the reporting plants, there were none employing over
250 workers which had a zero frequency rate in 1943, but that among
the plants employing less than 250, about 55 percent reported
that their employees had worked the entire year without a single
disabling injury.' Similarly, it is pertinent that some plants reported
frequency rates of over 200, but that none of those plants had as many
as 100 employees.
Without regard to the size of the reporting units, the grouping of
the plant frequency rates for establishments engaged in both slaughter­
ing and meat packing in 1943 was as follows: 34 percent had a rate
o f zero; 19 percent had rates between 0 and 30; 20 percent had rates
between 30 and 60; 11 percent had rates between 60 and 90; and 16
percent had rates of over 90. Among the plants engaged exclusively
in slaughtering, 61 percent had rates of zero; 5 percent had rates
between 0 and 30; 11 percent had rates between 30 and 60; 5 percent
had rates between 60 and 90; and 18 percent had rates of over 90. In
the packing-house group, 62 percent of the plants had rates of zero;
14 percent had rates between 0 and 30; 12 percent had rates between
30 and 60; 6 percent had rates between 60 and 90; and 6 percent had
rates of over 90. From these data, it appears that reasonably safe
working conditions prevailed in 2 of every 3 slaughtering and meat­
packing plants and that the unfavorable injury record of the industry
was due primarily to the poor experience of about a third of the plants
•comprising the industry. Unfortunately, the group of high-rate
plants included about two-thirds of the establishments which employ
over 250 workers and represented nearly half of the employment in
the entire industry.
The extremely wide variations in the frequency rates among the
individual plants indicate that in single establishments the injury
record may be influenced but not controlled by the factor of plant size.
For example, among the 9 largest integrated "plants for which reports
were received, 2 had frequency rates of under 20 and 2 others had rates
o f over 60. Similarly, among the 323 integrated plants employing
less than 250 workers, there were 134 which had frequency rates of
zero and 34 others with rates of over 100.
The formulation of positive conclusions as to how and why varia­
tions in the size of plant influence frequency-rate levels must be some­
what subjective, as there are no clear-cut differences in the types of
operations or in specific hazards which can be directly related to plant
size. The fact that studies in other industries have almost uniformly
produced a similar pattern in respect to plant size and general fre­
quency-rate levels, however, indicates that this is a phenomenon of
fairly general occurrence, rather than a significant characteristic of the
slaughtering and meat-packing industry.
The evidence available seems to indicate that small plants tend to
have good safety records because they usually operate under the close
personal supervision of the owner or plant manager. This close asso­




17
ciation with plant activities enables the owner or plant manager to see
unsafe conditions and practices as they develop and permits him to
take immediate precautions to eliminate incipient hazards.
In medium-size plants the problem of safety is complicated by the
fact that the responsible head of the establishment seldom can devote
much of his time to observing the routine plant operations and, there­
fore, must delegate much of the responsibility for safety to others.
Unfortunately, few such plants can afford to employ a safety specialist
and, as a result, safety becomes merely an added responsibility of the
operating foremen or supervisors, who rarely have had safety training
and who frequently feel that their production responsibilities are of
much greater importance than continuous attention to safety.
In large plants, on the other hand, the volume of production
generally makes it possible to give special attention to safety. These
plants can usually afford to employ a safety engineer to carry on a
scientific accident-prevention program, and to provide all guards and
safety equipment known to be available. Large plants also have the
advantageof professionally engineered plant lay-out and work processes,
and are usually in a position to utilize mechanical equipment more
extensively than are the smaller plants. This is of particular impor­
tance in connection with material-handling operations, in which the
provision of mechanical equipment can do much to minimize many of
the hazards connected with the manual performance of such
operations.
In ju r y R ecord ,b y T y p e o f P lant

Among the integrated slaughtering and packing plants, those which
employed fewer than 25 workers had an average injury-frequency rate
of 31.5, which was lower than the rate for any other size group. Plants
with employment ranging between 750 and 1,000 workers had the
second lowest rate—39.8—which was followed closely by the average
of 40.7 for plants which employed 2,500 or more workers. In the
intervening size groups the average frequency rates were generally
much higher, reaching a peak of 76.2 in the group composed of plants
employing from 500 to 750 workers.
Among the plants which perform no slaughtering operations, those
employing fewer than 10 workers had an average injury-frequency rate
of 8.6; those employing from 10 to 25 workers had an average of 18.8;
and those employing from 25 to 50 workers had an average of 23.0.
Next in line were the large plants employing 500 or more workers,
which had an average frequency rate of 26.4. In the intermediate
size groups the average frequency rates ranged upward to an average
of 40.5 for plants employing between 50 and 100 workers.
The abattoirs covered a much narrower size range than was the case
in respect to the integrated and packing-house groups. Nevertheless,
within this narrow range the frequency rates for the different size
groups formed a pattern very similar to that of the other plants. The
abattoirs employing fewer than 25 workers had the lowest average
frequency rate— 39.0—which was followed by the rate of 57.1 for the
plants employing 100 or more workers. The highest average rate
among the abattoirs was 89.5, for the plants employing between 50 and
100 workers.




18

CHART t

PART OF BODY AFFECTED BY
DISABLING INJURIES IN SLAUGHTERING
AND MEAT PACKING
1943

a

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS




19
Disabling Injuries

Although it is commonly recognized that personal protective
equipment seldom prevents accidents, its use as a means of minimizing
the probability of injury when accidents occur is generally considered
fundamental to most successful safety programs. In the course of
this survey, however, the Bureau representatives, who visited the
various cooperating plants, repeatedly were impressed by the fact that
relatively few of the workers were utilizing the personal safety devices
known to be available. Few knives were equipped with guards to
prevent the hand from slipping down over the blade. The use of wiremesh gloves was far from universal. Similarly, it was observed that
goggles were not generally worn in grinding and bone-crushing opera­
tions, nor were hard hats commonly worn in the operations involving
exposure to falling materials. The use of safety shoes when handling
heavy materials was also an obviously necessary precaution which was
ignored more often than it was put into practice. In contrast, it was
observed that the use of leather aprons for protection against body
injuries was quite common.
Inquiries addressed to the safety engineers of the industry as to
why personal protective devices were not more generally used elicited
the explanation that the workers generally considered the use of such
equipment an inconvenience. Strangely enough, it was emphasized
that the resistance to the general use of protective equipment was
greatest among the more experienced workers. A further factor of
importance in this respect was that, because of the war, the supply
of such devices was limited.
The general pattern formed by the injuries for which full details
were obtained bore out these observations and indicated clearly a
need of an expansion in the use of protective equipment. More
than a fourth of all the injuries reported consisted of cuts or lacera­
tions to fingers or hands, largely inflicted by knives. The use of wiremesh gloves undoubtedly would have prevented a large proportion
of these injuries. Likewise, the use of safety shoes by workers han­
dling heavy materials probably would have prevented an appreciable
proportion of the injuries characterized as cuts, bruises, and fractures
of the toes or feet, which together included over 10 percent of all dis­
abling injuries. Eye injuries were not numerous, nor were injuries
to the skull. Nevertheless, practically all—nearly 4 percent of the
cases reported—might have been prevented by the use of goggles or
hard hats. From these data, it appears entirely safe to say that at
least a third of all disabling injuries in the industry during 1943 could
have been avoided through the use of personal protective equipment.
TYPES OF DISABLING INJURIES 7

Over 81 percent of the reported disabilities resulted from 3 general
types of injuries: 34 percent were cuts or lacerations, 27 percent were
bruises, and 20 percent were strains or sprains. The cuts and lacera­
tions were predominantly finger, hand, and arm injuries, although
there was also a substantial number of head, foot, and leg cuts. Cuts
on the trunk were infrequent. Bruises, on the other hand, occurred
in considerable numbers to all parts of the body. Back, shoulder,
7 See appendix, tables 6, 7, and 8.
682055°—46----- 4




20
and foot cases were particularly prominent among the injuries charac­
terized as strains or sprains.
As a group, fracture cases represented about 7 percent of the total
volume of disabilities, and burns and scalds nearly 5 percent. Broken
toes and fingers were most common among the fracture cases. This
group also included several cases of fractured skull which resulted in
death. Bums and scalds most commonly affected the upper or lower
extremities, but also included a considerable number of eye burns.
The volume of hernia cases must be considered as particularly
significant. Nearly 2 percent of all disabling injuries reported were
of this character. As hernias almost invariably arise from over­
exertion, this relatively high proportion should be interpreted as
indicating a need for close investigation and possible revision of the
material-handling procedures in the industry.
The problem of guarding against infection is generally recognized
as of utmost importance in the slaughtering and meat-packing in­
dustry. In some plants the practice is to send any worker home who
experiences an injury involving a break in the skin, no matter how
minor. In spite of preventive efforts, however, a rather high pro­
portion of infections was reported.
One in every 4 of the disabling cuts or lacerations involved infection
and, somewhat surprisingly, 1 in every 25 of the disabling bruises.
For the entire group of disabling injuries, the average of infections
was about 1 in 10.
Nondisabling Injuries

Because of the fact that records of nondisabling injuries are diffi­
cult to maintain and therefore not generally available, the customary
procedure in evaluating the injury record of a plant or an industry
is to consider only the disabling injuries. The frequency rates used
for comparison, therefore, present only a part of the injury picture.
It is true that the disabling injuries represent the more serious seg­
ment of the accident problem, but it is also recognized that the non­
disabling cases, because of their great number, present a problem of
considerable magnitude. Particularly in respect to costs, it is fre­
quently maintained that the nondisabling injuries are just as important
as the more serious disabling injuries. Nearly every nondisabling
injury results in the loss of some productive time, even though the
injured person does not leave the premises.
Studies made over a long period in a wide variety of plants have
indicated that for manufacturing as a whole about 29 nondisabling
injuries occur, on the average, for every disabling injury.8 This
generality has received wide acceptance as a basis for making broad
comparisons. Its author, however, has pointed out that this ratio
cannot be considered as representative of conditions in any specific
industry and that it is to be expected that there will be wide variations
in the experience of different industries or of different plants.
In the present survey an attempt was made to collect information
concerning nondisabling injuries in order to provide some indication
of the volume of such injuries in the slaughtering and meat-packing
industry and, incidentally, to indicate how the record of this industry
differs from the ratio generally accepted as normal for manufacturing
8 Industrial Accident Prevention, b y H. W . Heinrich, New York, M cGraw-H ill Book Co., 1941.




21
as a whole. However, complete records of nondisabling injuries were
obtained in only three of the plants visited. The sample, thereforer
was insufficient to support more than a tentative generalization.
The combined records of the three plants listed a total of 30,499
work injuries reported to their medical or first-aid offices and there
treated. Of these, 337 were disabling injuries. For the group,
therefore, the ratio was approximately 90 nondisabling injuries fo r
every disabling case. Among the three plants, however, the ratio*
varied widely.
In Plant A the ratio of nondisabling to disabling injuries was 65*
to 1. This plant had a medical office with both a doctor and registered!
nurses in attendance at all times, and strictly enforced the require­
ment that all injuries be reported to that office. A full-time safety
engineer was employed and a safety committee of employees had
been organized. Goggles, knife guards, wire-mesh gloves, leather
aprons, and arm guards were supplied, and their use was mandatory
in occupations for which such equipment was considered necessary.
The use of safety shoes was optional. This was a large plant with
over 3,400 employees. Its injury-frequency rate in 1943 was 20.2.
In Plant B there were 99 nondisabling injuries for every disabling
injury. The records here indicated that each injury required an
average of 2.4 treatments in the first-aid room. There were no
records, however, to indicate the amount of time consumed in those
treatments. As a bare minimum, it seems reasonable to assume that
each visit to the infirmary would probably consume at least a half
hour of the injured employee’s time. On this basis, each nondisabling
injury would represent the loss of about 1.2 hours. In addition to the
direct cost of this time in wages, which in the aggregate reaches a
substantial amount, the cost of providing a staff and facilities to
administer the treatments is also involved. When the volume of
treatments is large the cost of maintaining the first-aid facilities also
is large.
This particular plant had no medical staff, but did have a firstaid room staffed with registered nurses and assistants who had been
given special first-aid training. A plant safety committee, composed
of foremen, had been organized, but there was no full-time safety
engineer. Knife guards and wire-mesh gloves were mandatory in
certain operations. This, also, was a large plant, with 1,850 employees.
Its injury-frequency rate was 22.3.
In Plant C there were 104 nondisabling injuries for every case
involving disability. This, too, was a large plant, with an injuryfrequency rate of 22.2. Both a doctor and a staff of registered nurses
were constantly on duty in the medical office. The plant employed
a full-time safety engineer, but had no safety committee. The use
of persona] protective equipment, such as gloves, safety shoes, aprons,
and hard hats, was optional. The medical-office records in this
plant indicated an average of 1.9 treatments per injury reported.
In Plant C records were compiled by the Bureau from which it was
possible to determine the nature of each of the nondisabling injuries,
as well as the nature of the disabling injuries. Except for the fact
that this plant had a lower proportion of disabling cuts and lacerations
than prevailed in the industry sample, the pattern of its disabling
injuries corresponded closely with that of the industry sample. The
pattern of nondisabling injuries in Plant C, therefore, may be taken




22
as a reasonable approximation of the distribution probably prevailing
in other plants even though the ratios of nondisabling to disabling
eases may not be accepted, as typical.
Among the 15,384 injuries treated in Plant C, approximately half
were classified as cuts or lacerations.9 Within this group there, were
3J02 nondisabling injuries for every disabling case. Burns and scalds
were relatively unimportant numerically among the disabling cases,
but represented over 3 percent of the nondisabling injuries. Specifi­
cally, there were 234 nondisabling burns or scalds for each disabling
case of this category. Industrial-disease cases (primarily dermatitis),
presented a similar picture with a ratio of 457 nondisabling cases for
each disabling case. A much higher proportion of the injuries classi­
fied as bruises and contusions, or as sprains or strains, was disabling.
In these two groups the ratios of nondisabling to disabling injuries
were, respectively, 28 to 1 and 18 to 1. Among the more serious
injury classifications, two-thirds of the fractures, half of the hernia
cases, and all of the amputations were reported as disabling. Even­
tually, when the corrective operations are performed, the rest of the
hernia cases will have to be rated as disabling.
Broadly speaking, the importance of the data relating to nondis­
abling injuries lies in the impressive totals, which emphasize even
more than the figures on disabling injuries the magnitude of the safety
problem. They also lend greater emphasis to the need for increased
efforts to guard against cuts, burns, and industrial diseases.
Repeat Injuries

It was apparent from the large number of nondisabling injuries
recorded that many individual workers must have experienced several
such injuries in the course of the year. This was readily substantiated
by reference to the medical-office records. In 1 plant the Bureau’s
representative matched the medical records with the employment
records to answer the related question as to how many employees
worked the entire period without experiencing any injury.1
0
The plant in which these records were obtained was a medium-sized
establishment with an average employment of about 675 workers.
Hog dressing and packing was the principal activity, although some
beei and small-stock dressing was also carried on. The establishment
had no safety engineer, but had a safety committee composed of
management officials. The first-aid room was staffed from 6 a. m. to
6 p. m. by registered nurses and at other times by an employee who
had been given special first-aid training. As the plant normally oper­
ated only one shift, a registered nurse was on duty during practically
all the operating hours. The chairman of the safety committee re­
ported that knife sheaths, arm guards, stomach guards, and mesh
gloves were provided and that their use was mandatory in operations
in which they were considered necessary. The plant injury-frequency
rate was 43.7.
The personnel records were checked first, and the names of all
workers who had been employed throughout the 12-month period
were listed. Office and executive personnel were then eliminated from
the fist. The remaining 330 names were then checked against the•
• See appendix, table 9.
See appendix, table 10.




23
records of the first-aid room and all entries for these employees were
tabulated.
This selected group of 330 employees had experienced a total of
1,279 injuries— an average of nearly 4 injuries per individual. How­
ever, 106 employees in the group had had no injuries during the year,
32 had each received treatment for only 1 injury, and 28 others had
each experienced 2 injuries. In the group 82 workers had from 3 to 5
injuries each; 53, from 6 to 10 injuries; and 29, more than 10 injuries.
In other words, two-thirds of the entire group were injured at least
once during the year, approximately half 3 or more times, and about,
a fourth more than 5 times.
The largest number of injuries reported for any individual was 31.
This employee worked in the shipping department. Twenty-three o f
his injuries were cuts or lacerations and 8 were bruises. None were*
disabling. Among the 23 cuts or lacerations, 15 were finger injuries,,
5 were hand injuries, 2 were trunk injuries, and 1 was a foot injury.
In contrast to his experience, it is pertinent to note that, out of the
55 shipping-department workers included in the group, 27 had experi­
enced no injuries during the year.
The second largest volume of injuries to a single individual was 27.
This employee worked on the killing floor. All but 1 of his injuries
were cuts or lacerations, this exception having been ascribed to a
foreign body in the eye. None of his injuries were disabling.
Four employees, 1 in the hog-dressing department and the others
in the beef cutting and boning department, each had from 21 to 25
injuries in the year— all nondisabling. The employee working in
the hog-killing department had 22 injuries, all of which were cuts or
lacerations; 19 of the cuts were injuries to his fingers or thumbs.
The 3 workers in the beef cutting and boning department together
experienced 67 injuries, of which 53 were cuts and lacerations. One
of the 3 workers, however, had 4 eye injuries, 3 of which were the
result of foreign bodies lodging in his eyes. One of the other workers
in this group reported 5 bruises—2 on the finger, 2 on the trunk, and
1 on his foot.
Six workers were listed as having had from 16 to 20 injuries each
during the year. Their combined record included 100 nondisabling
and 2 disabling injuries. Three of these individuals were employed
in the hog-dressing department, 2 in the maintenance department,
and 1 in the small stock dressing department. Practically all the 33
injuries reported for 2 of the 3 employees in the hog-dressing depart­
ment were cuts or lacerations. The third worker, however, had a
somewhat different pattern of injuries; his 17 injuries included 9
burns or scalds, 6 cuts or lacerations, 1 strain, and 1 case of a foreign
body lodging in his eye. About half of the 36 injuries experienced
by the 2 maintenance workers and the majority of the injuries sus­
tained by the employee of the small stock dressing department were
cuts and lacerations.
Some of the plant departments were rather thinly represented
among the 330 employees for whom these records were tabulated
and, therefore, no significant comparisons could be made. There
were, however, 7 departments for which sufficient employment was
included to furnish some indication of the probability of their workers
experiencing an injury. In the hog-dressmg department 11 out of
every 12 workers had at least one injury during the year. In the beef




24
cutting and boning department 9 out of every 10 workers were injured;
in the beef-dressing department, the sausage department, and the
maintenance department the ratio was 4 out of 5; and in the smokedmeat and shipping departments it was 1 out of 2.
Agencies o f In ju ry ,and Accident T ypes
THE

" A G E N C I E S ” 11

In many respects the determination of the particular physical items
which are most commonly involved in the occurrence of injuries
constitutes the fundamental step in the development of a successful

MAJOR AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ACCIDENTS
IN SLAUGHTERING AND MEAT PACKING

1943

PERCENT OF ALL DISABLING INJURIES

5

10

15

20

MACHINES

CONVEYORS

VEHICLES

HAND TO OLS

WORKING
SURFACES
BARRELS,
BOXES, ETC.

C U TS OF MEATS

HOT SUBSTANCES
AND CHEMICALS
U N ITE D STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR S TA TIS TIC S

safety program. When these items are known, it becomes possible
to take direct action to learn why and how they contribute to the
occurrence of injuries, and then to take measures to overcome the
accident-producing possibilities of these items. To permit the pre­
cise determination of these items, which are commonly termed
“ agencies,” the American Recommended Practice for Compiling
1 See appendix., table 11.
1




25
Industrial Accident Causes defines an agency as “ the object or sub­
stance which is most closely associated with the injury, and which
in general could have been properly guarded or corrected.”
Analysis based upon this definition points directly to hand tools,
vehicles, and working surfaces as the outstanding injury-producing
agencies in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry. Hand tools
were the indicated agencies in nearly 20 percent of the cases analyzed,
and in more than three-fourths of these, the specific tool in­
volved was a knife. Vehicles (primarily hand trucks) were involved
in 15 percent of the accidents, and working surfaces in another 15
percent. In the latter group, slippery and rough floors were the pre­
dominating agencies. Packages and packing materials, such as bar­
rels, boxes, kegs, cans, drums, etc., were the agencies responsible for
8.5 percent of the injuries. Projecting bones in cuts of meat ac­
counted for 5.6 percent more. Machines, other than elevators or
conveyors, were responsible for 3.7 percent of the injuries, and con­
veyors for another 3.7 percent. Hot substances and chemicals to­
gether were the agencies involved in 5 percent of the injury cases,
stairways in 3.3 percent, and animals in 2.9 percent.
Elevators were involved in less than 1 percent of the accidents,
but their importance as an injury-producing agency was magnified
by the seriousness of the resulting injuries. Among the 46 disabling
injuries associated with elevators, 2 resulted in death, 4 developed
into permanent impairments, and the remaining 40 caused the loss of
1,040 man-days from work. The average of 26 days of lost time for
each case of temporary disability associated with elevators was double
that for all temporary disabilities and substantially more than the
similar averages for cases involving any other agencies.
Accidents associated with machines likewise achieved a greater
importance than was indicated by their number, owing to the serious­
ness of the resulting injuries. Among the injuries ascribed to ma­
chines there were no fatalities, but the proportion of permanent
impairments in this group was very high. Among the injuries resulting
from contact with the point of operation of machines, over a third
resulted in permanent impairments, and among those involving con­
tact with other parts of machines, the proportion of permanent
impairments reached nearly 1 in 4.
TYPES OF ACCIDENTS 12

Nearly 30 percent of the injuries for which details were available
resulted from accidents in which the injured person struck against
some object. In nearly half of these cases the object was a knife.
In a substantial number of instances, however, the object struck was
a sharp bone in a piece of meat, a hand truck, or a box or barrel.
The knife accidents in this group included a considerable number
of cases in which the worker’s hand slipped off the handle onto the
blade when the knife encountered a bone or other resistance. There
were also numerous instances in which a sticker’s free hand or arm
was knocked against his knife by a suspended hog or by a reflex kick
of an incompletely stunned steer. Most of the “ striking-against”
accidents involving vehicles were cases of workers bumping into hand
trucks which had been left standing in walkways or in the working
» See appendix, table 12.




26
areas. Similarly, many of the accidents in this group which involved
contact with boxes, barrels, etc., were cases of bumping into materials
which infringed on the aisles or work spaces.
Greasy floors played an important part in some of these accidents
by causing slips which threw the workers against nearby objects.
Accidents in which the injured workers were struck by moving,
falling, or flying objects accounted for over 22 percent of the injuries.
Hand trucks, hand tools, conveyors, and packaged materials were the
agencies most commonly involved in these accidents.
Falls, which caused 17 percent of the reported injuries, constituted
the third most common type of accident. About a fourth of these
accidents were falls from one level to another, with those on stair­
ways constituting half of this subgroup. Most of the falls on level
surfaces occurred in the working areas, and a majority resulted from
slips on wet or greasy floors.
As a group, the accidents classified as slips and overexertion ac­
counted for 16 percent of the reported injuries. Three-fourths of
these injuries were directly attributable to overexertion in lifting or
moving heavy materials or equipment. The other accidents in the
group were cases in which the workers slipped on wet, greasy, or ir­
regular surfaces or stairs and suffered strains or sprains in trying to
keep from falling.
Accidents caused by the workers being “ caught in, on, or between”
various objects were responsible for nearly 9 percent of the injuries.
The majority of these involved crushing injuries, such as those of
fingers and hands pinched between materials or caught in the moving
parts of machinery, and of persons pinioned between vehicles and
stationary objects or between elevator cars and the walls of the ele­
vator shafts. Many of these injuries were very serious, nearly 1 in
every 6 having resulted in a permanent impairment— a much higher
proportion than prevailed among the injuries arising from any other
type of accident.
Other types of accidents included contacts with hot substances,
causing nearly 4 percent of the injuries. These injuries ordinarily
were not severe, although 1 of the 8 deaths included in the cases
analyzed resulted from burns caused by hot resin. Injuries resulting
from the inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of chemicals, dusts, and
fumes constituted about 2 percent of the reported disabilities. These
were principally cases of chemical burns or of dermatitis.
Accident Causes

It is generally recognized that every accident may be traced to the
existence of an unsafe working condition, to the commission of an
unsafe act by some individual, or to a combination of these accidentproducing factors. The correction of unsafe working conditions
generally is entirely within the powers of management. The avoid­
ance of unsafe acts, on the other hand, requires cooperation and under­
standing by both management and workers. Management must
take the lead, however, by providing safety-minded supervision and by
making sure that all workers are acquainted with the hazards of their
operations and are familiar with the means of overcoming them.




27
U N SAFE

W O R K IN G

C O N D IT IO N S 13

Basically, the elimination of unsafe working conditions is of no
greater importance in accident prevention than the elimination of
unsafe acts. However, because management can readily exercise
control over unsafe working conditions, and because such situations
are usually easily recognized, their correction generally takes first
place in the planning of any safety program.
Within individual plants the relative importance of the various
types of unsafe conditions noted in the course of the survey varied
widely. The broad conclusions derived from the study, therefore,
may not be taken as applying in their entirety to any particular plant.
It is apparent, however, that slaughtering and meat-packing establish­
ments should carry on the following precautionary activities:
1. Take steps to reduce the hazard of slippery floors.
2. Improve housekeeping conditions, with particular attention to
the piling and storage of materials and the placement of hand trucks
when not in actual use.
3. Regularly inspect all tools, material, and equipment for defects,
and immediately repair or replace all defective items, particularly
in respect to knives, floors, hand trucks, and conveyors.
4. Provide and require the use of adequate personal safety equip­
ment in all operations presenting hazards which such equipment can
overcome.
5. Provide and require the use of guards on all machinery and
elevators.
6. Provide knives which are guarded to prevent the workers’ hands
from sliding down over the blades.
7. Install guards on all monorails to prevent the wheels from
leaving the track.
8. Provide mechanical equipment or sufficient assistance when
heavy or bulky materials are to be lifted or moved.
9. Provide rules and traffic-lane markings to govern the movement
of vehicles inside the plant and require supervisors to enforce these
rules.
D efective A gen cies

Defective agencies, including such items as slippery floors, sharp
projecting bones in cuts of meat, broken tools or equipment, and pro­
jecting nails in barrels or boxes, were involved in 60 percent of the
accidents which were found to have occurred because of the existence
of unsafe working conditions.
Slippery floors alone were the cause of more than half of the acci­
dents in this group. In many cases the slipperiness was due to bits
of fat dropped from the trimming benches or spilled from trays of
trimmings as they were moved through the aisles. Water lying upon
the greasy surfaces frequently accentuated this unsafe condition.
This hazard prevailed in nearly all the dressing, cutting, and trimming
rooms studied, but it was not limited to those areas. The most
effective method used to overcome greasy floors was to wash them
frequently with a water solution of a mild saponifying agent, followed
by thorough rinsing. In particularly greasy areas salt was sometimes
sprinkled to serve as a nonslip agent. Proper drainage to prevent
» See appendix, table 13.




28
water from lying in pools on the floor is essential. Wherever practi­
cable, and when permitted by sanitary regulations, smooth floors
should be replaced by rough-grained brick or tile. At least two
companies are now producing materials especially designed for this
purpose. On stairways and ramps it is particularly important that
nonslip surfaces and stout handrails be provided to minimize the
possibility of falls resulting from slips. In one of the plants visited
it was observed that many of the employees had strips of cloth tied

MAJOR TYP ES OF UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS
IN SLAUGHTERING AND MEAT PACKING

1943

PERCENT OF ALL DISABLING INJURIES

10

20

30

40

IMPROPERLY
GUARDED
AGEN CIES

D E F E C T IV E
AG EN CIE S

H AZ AR D O U S
AR R AN G EM EN T
OR PROCEDURE

U N ITE D S TA TE S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T IS T IC S

around the balls of their feet; the plant superintendent commented
that this practice had greatly reduced the number of slipping accidents.
In another plant, however, it was reported that this procedure had
been tried and discarded because it brought about an increase in such
accidents caused by the cloths* absorbing and spreading the grease.
In addition to being slippery, the floors of the plants visited were
frequently found to have broken, cracked, or irregular surfaces which
presented tripping hazards or caused water to collect in little pools.
These irregularities in many instances were sufficient to cause hand
trucks to swerve and bump into nearby persons or objects. To a




29
considerable extent, these irregularities in the floors could be ascribed
to wear resulting from the use of trucks with metal wheels. The
substitution of rubber-tired wheels probably would greatly reduce
this floor wear. When such defects exist, however, the obvious
safety measure is to make immediate repairs. Hazards of this type
are generally quite apparent, and their continued existence can be
interpreted only as evidence of slack supervision or of inadequate
maintenance.
A considerable volume of injuries resulted from workers’ striking
sharp pieces of bone as they handled cuts of meat or meat scraps.
In the handling of scrap meat, a simple remedy for this hazard is to
require the use of forks, rakes, or shovels rather than of hands. The
use of hand coverings would also help to reduce the danger of abrasions
or lacerations from sharp bones.
Pans and trays which had become broken or battered in service so
that their rims or corners were sharp or rough were found to be the
source of many injuries. Most of these were hand cuts or lacerations,
which probably would have been avoided if the injured persons had
been wearing gloves. The most effective procedure for the elimination
of accidents of this type, however, is to provide for frequent inspection
of pans and trays and to require the immediate removal of defective
pieces, for repair or replacement.
Other defective agencies, which caused fewer but nevertheless sub­
stantial numbers of accidents, included defective switches on monorail equipment, which led to the falling of suspended materials on
workers; defective hand tools, particularly knives and meathooks;
loose or broken binding wire on boxes or crates; and projecting nails
in opened barrels or boxes. Most of these unsafe conditions should
have been apparent to the supervisors in the normal course of opera­
tions, and specifically should not have been overlooked in the course
o f regular safety inspections. Their frequent contribution to acci­
dents indicates that adquate attention was not given to the detection
and repair of such defective equipment.
However, it must be recognized that the seemingly general failure
to maintain tools and equipment in good repair during the period
covered by this survey resulted to some extent from shortages caused
by the war. Labor shortage was particularly acute in respect to
skilled maintenance men, and the lack of materials frequently pre­
vented repairs or replacements which otherwise would have been
made. The available evidence, however, indicates that considerable
improvement in these unsafe conditions could have been accomplished
despite the wartime shortages. It seems apparent, therefore, that
the industry can substantially reduce its hazards through an intensified
program of inspection and immediate repair of defective equipment.
H azardous A rrangem ents or P rocedures

The importance of careful planning for all plant operations and of
maintaining strict supervision throughout such operations as a means
of avoiding accidents cannot be overemphasized. When agencies
which are not inherently hazardous are arranged or regularly used so
as to create hazards, the unsafe conditions and the resulting accidents
must be ascribed to a failure on the part of management to exercise
one of its proper functions.




30
Fully a third of the accidents which occurred because of the existence
of an unsafe working condition was due to hazardous arrangements
or procedures in operations which normally can be carried on safely.
More than half of these accidents occurred because materials, tools,
or pieces of equipment had been placed and permitted to remain in
unsafe positions.
Materials and equipment placed in irregular and unstable piles,
stored materials which encroached upon aisles and workplaces, loose
materials and equipment left in aisles and workplaces, and congestion
of materials in small spaces were common among the poor house­
keeping conditions which led to accidents. Many workers were
struck by materials which fell from improperly built piles; others were
struck by materials which fell from improperly loaded trucks or from
unsafely loaded conveyors; and still others tripped over misplaced
materials or slipped on scraps of meat which had fallen from overloaded
trucks or scrap cans.
In most packing plants it is common practice to have groups of
employees work together at long tables. In the interest of efficiency
as well as safety it is essential that each of these workers be allowed
sufficient space at the table to permit him to work freely without
interference from his neighbors. It was found, however, that these
spacing requirements were often ignored, with the result that there
were many accidents in which employees were injured through contact
with their coworkers’ knives. Lack of adequate plant space to accom­
modate the volume of work being performed was generally the under­
lying reason for this type of unsafe working condition.
In many plants it was apparent that little thought had been given
to the problem of controlling vehicular traffic, with the result that
considerable numbers of workers were being injured by contact with
the hand trucks and tractors which moved through the aisles and
workplaces. It was observed that, for the most part, no attempts
had been made to separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the aisles
and passageways, and that only rarely had efforts been made to elim­
inate the hazards of blind corners, through the installation of mirrors
or by the marking off of distinct lanes for traffic in each direction.
In some plants vehicular traffic was permitted to continue when the
aisles were full of workers entering or leaving the workplaces at the
beginning or end of a shift. A great many of the traffic hazards could
have been eliminated quite simply through the enforcement of traffic
rules and the application of painted lines to guide the movement of
vehicles. The fact that these precautions were not taken must be
interpreted as meaning that this phase of safety has been seriously
neglected.
Another common unsafe procedure was that of regularly requiring
or permitting individuals to lift or move heavy materials which should
have been handled mechanically or by a team of workers. To prevent
strains from overlifting, supervisors should be required to see that
sufficient assistance is available and that the persons doing the lifting
are given a firm surface on which to stand and plenty of room in
which to move.
Inadequ ately Guarded A gen cies

The volume of accidents caused by the lack of proper guards on
machinery or other hazardous equipment was small, but the numerical
insignificance of the group was more than overcome by the general



31
severity of the resulting injuries. Only about 4 percent of the acci­
dents originating in unsafe working conditions were ascribed to inade­
quate guarding. One in every three of these accidents, however,
resulted in an injury involving some form of permanent impairment.
This tendency to produce serious injuries was even more striking in
the subgroup composed only of accidents involving inadequately
guarded machines. In the latter group over half the resulting injuries
were permanent impairments.
It is generally recognized that the power saws used in the slaughter­
ing and meat-packing industry are very difficult to guard because of
the size and irregular shape of the materials to be cut. In no plant
visited were any guards attached at the point of operation of these
saws. Most of the persons interviewed stated that they knew of no
practical method of applying such guards. In some plants, however,
methods had been worked out to make it unnecessary for the operator
to bring his hands into proximity witn the saw blade. These safety
methods included the use of a sliding section in the saw table on which
the meat was pushed up to the saw and the use of rakes or hoes to
remove the cut pieces from the vicinity of the blade.
Grinders and mixers into which it was possible for the operator to
Insert his hands were also the cause of a number of accidents. These
machines can be and are made to be practically injury-proof simply by
providing a feeding throat longer than the arm of any possible oper­
ator. The fact that such injuries were reported, therefore, indicates
an indifference to safety which is difficult to understand in view of the
probable cost of the serious injuries which are likely to occur in the
use of unprotected machines of this type. Guillotines, or shears, and
head splitters similarly are machines which generally can be guarded
to protect the operators, but which were reported as having been
involved in some accidents.
Inadequately guarded elevators were the source of several very
severe injuries. In some instances it was reported that the cars had
no gates or that the gates which were provided were ineffective to
prevent passengers from extending parts of their bodies beyond the
cars into the hoistway. As a result, several workers who allowed
their feet to project beyond the edge of the car lost their toes or parts
of their feet when they were pinched between the car floor and pro­
jections on the hoistway wall. The elimination of projections or
pinch points inside elevator hoistways and the provision of adequate
enclosures for the elevator cars have long been basic safety principles.
The failure to provide such safeguards constitutes a definite unsafe
condition.
Other reported elevator accidents included several instances in
which workers had opened hoistway gates while the car was at some
other level and had then fallen into the shaft, or had fallen into the
shaft through a gate which had been left standing open. These cases
also must be attributed to a lack of the fundamental safeguards which
are universally accepted as necessary for the safe operation of ele­
vators. Hoistway openings should always be protected by gates
which cannot be opened from outside the hoistway except by means
of a special key. These gates should be so constructed that they will
effectually prevent a person from inserting any part of his body into
the shaft when they are closed, and should be so interlocked with the
car that the car cannot be moved from a landing before the gate is
closed and locked.



32
UNSAFE ACTS141
5

For the purpose of accident analysis an unsafe act is defined as
“ a violation of a commonly accepted safe procedure.” 1 Literally
6
this definition means that no personal action shall be designated as
unsafe unless there was a reasonable and less-hazardous alternative
method or procedure. There is, however, no implication that the
alternative safe procedure must have been known to the person who
acted in an unsafe manner, nor that his unsafe act was the result of a
considered choice between the two possible procedures. In many
instances it is apparent that the individual knew the safe procedure
but consciously decided not to follow it. In other cases circumstances
indicate that the person who acted unsafely did so, not as a matter
of choice, but simply because he did not know the alternative safe
method. The first step toward the elimination of unsafe acts, there­
fore, consists of making sure that all workers are thoroughly instructed
in the safe methods of performing their duties and that they are
familiar with the hazards connected with deviations from those safe
procedures. The second essential step is to exercise strict supervision
to see that unsafe procedures are prohibited.
Most of the accidents which occurred because of the commission
of an unsafe act were associated with three general groups of unsafe
acts: Using unsafe equipment, using hands instead of equipment,
or using equipment unsafely; incorrect lifting; and assuming an unsafe
position or posture. More specifically, the analysis indicated that a
program of instruction and enforcement for the elimination of accidentproducing unsafe acts should emphasize proper methods for the
following operations: (1) Using hand tools, particularly knives, (2)
handling cuts of meat and heavy packages, such as boxes, barrels,
and crates, (3) loading and using hand trucks, (4) lifting heavy ma­
terials, and (5) piling or storing materials.
U sin g U n safe E qu ip m en t or U sin g E qu ip m en t U n sa fely

The unsafe procedures in this group were factors in the occurrence
of over half of the accidents associated with unsafe acts. Within
the group the outstanding type qf unsafe, act was that of taking an
incorrect hold or not maintaining a good grip upon objects being
handled. Specifically, these included many cases in which materials
or tools slipped from the worker’s hands or were deflected against
himself or against a coworker because he attempted to handle the
material when his hands were greasy; because he grasped the material
at a sharp or rough spot which caused him to release his grip; or
simply because the material or tool was not held firmly enough to
control its movements. Knives, hand trucks, meathooks, boxes,
barrels, and crates were the agencies most commonly involved in these
accidents. Cuts on the hands and pinched or crushed fingers or feet
were the most common injuries resulting from these practices.
The unsafe procedure of holding on to the corners of the load or
grasping the handle supports instead of holding on to the handle
while pushing four-wheeled meat trucks resulted in a substantial
number of injuries arising from the operators’ hands being pinched
1 bee appendix, table 14.
4
1 American Recommended Practice for Compiling Industrial Accident Causes, approved by the American
5
Standards Association, August 1,1941.




33
against fixed objects. Other examples of the misuse of plant vehicles
resulting in accidents included such unsafe acts as the lack of care at
blind corners or in congested areas and pulling hand trucks instead
of pushing them.
U n safe P osition or P ostu re

Nearly 20 percent of the accidents resulting from unsafe acts were
the direct outcome of the injured person’s placing himself unneces­
sarily in an unsafe position or posture. These unsafe practices inCHART •

MAJOR TYP ES OF UNSAFE ACTS
IN SLAUGHTERING AND MEAT PACKING

1943

PERCENT OF ALL DISABLING INJURIES

H OLDING
O B JE C T S
IM PROPERLY
OR INSECURELY

TAKING UNSAFE
P O SITIO N
OR P O S TU R E

UNSAFE
L IF T IN G
UNSAFE
LO AD IN G,
P LA C IN G ,
OR MIXING
UNITED S TA TE S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T IS T IC S

eluded such actions as attempting to adjust or repair moving machines,
elevators, or conveyors; working, stapaing, or walking in the path of
moving vehicles; unnecessarily working or walking too close to other
workers who were performing hazardous operations; climbing on
boxes or barrels instead of using ladders; taking shortcuts instead of
using the provided walkways; stepping or climbing over materials
instead of walking around them; unnecessarily approaching conveyors
or other moving equipment; working in cramped positions; and riding
in an unsafe position on vehicles or elevators. The most prominent




34
unsafe act in this general category, however, was that of inattention
to footing in areas known to be slippery, particularly while carrying
materials.
Unsafe working conditions, particularly conditions created by poor
housekeeping, were also involved in many of the accidents associated
with the act of assuming an unsafe position. In these instances the
correction of the unsafe working condition, which would have elim­
inated the possibility of the worker's exposing himself to the hazard,
would have been the most effective safety measures. Nevertheless,
it is apparent that workers should be more thoroughly trained to
recognize the hazards of their job so that they may avoid those dangers.
U nsafe L iftin g

Injuries resulting from manual lifting of heavy objects present a
serious problem in slaughtering and meat-packing plants. In essence,
every accident of this type is a case of lifting excessive weight— that
is, excessive under the existing circumstances, for the individual
involved. Variations in the strength and skill of different individuals
make the determination of what is a safe maximum weight to be lifted
by one person very difficult if not impossible. There can be no ques­
tion, however, that a knowledge of and the strict application of proper
lifting procedure—lifting with the legs instead of the back—will render
safe the handling of greater weights than can safely be lifted by the
hit-or-miss method of “ grab and jerk." In classifying the lifting
accidents, an effort was made to exclude from this unsafe-act classifi­
cation those cases in which individuals attempted to lift weights which
obviously should have been handled mechanically or by a team. As
far as possible, those included represent injuries which resulted from
lifting weights ordinarily handled by individuals and normally con­
sidered to be within the lifting ability of most workers. These cases
represented nearly 18 percent of all accidents resulting from unsafe
acts. Although the injuries which these accidents caused were prac­
tically all of a temporary nature, they included a considerable volume
of hernia cases and severe back strains which required prolonged
treatment.
It is frequently impossible to specify exactly what was done in­
correctly in certain lifting accidents. In most cases the injured per­
son can report only that he was lifting when he suddenly felt pain.
Only rarely is there a witness who was observing the operation with
sufficient care to identify accurately the specific faulty procedure. It
is well known, however, that strains, sprains, and hernias frequently
result from lifting with the back muscles instead of the leg muscles;
from lifting in cramped or awkward positions; or from lifting while
standing on irregular or insecure surfaces. Most of the accidents in
this group undoubtedly resulted from one or the other of these unsafe
procedures.
O ther U n safe A cts

Among the various other types of unsafe acts which produced acci­
dents in sufficient volume to indicate that they are of fairly common
occurrence were the following: Overloading or insecurely loading
vehicles; operating or working at unsafe speeds, including the practice
of throwing materials instead of carrying or passing them; running in
the workplaces or on stairways; and jumping from vehicles or plat­




35
forms. Operating equipment without authority, or failing to warn
others before starting equipment, and the failure to secure equipment
so that it could not be put in motion while being repaired or adjusted
also were common causes of accidents.
T ypical Accidents and Suggestions for Their Prevention

To illustrate the general types of accidents experienced by workers*
in slaughtering and meat-packing plants brief descriptions of a number
of accidents were secured, and typical examples of these were given
individual consideration.1 In preparing the comments regarding
6
these cases the intention was not to make all-inclusive recommenda­
tions nor to attempt to propound authoritative safety rules. On*
the contrary, the purpose was merely to indicate that there is a
simple approach to the prevention of practically every type of acci­
dent. Many safety engineers no doubt would attack the problems
involved in these accidents from a different angle and would achieve
equally good or possibly better results. The method of prevention,
however, is of secondary importance so long as it accomplishes its
purpose. It is of prime importance to emphasize that there is some
practicable method of minimizing or eliminating nearly every type
of accident.
The selected accident descriptions, accompanied by suggestions as
to the preventive measures which might prevent their recurrence,
are given below.
ELEVATOR AND CONVEYOR ACCIDENTS

1. An employee fell into an unguarded elevator pit. Lost 35 days.
All openings into elevator shafts should he equipped with gates (a) interlocked
with the controls so that the elevator will not operate when any gate is open and
(b) interlocked with the car so that no door can he opened without a special key
unless the car is stopped at its level.
Whenever a gate is opened with the key for repairs or for inspection while
the car is at another level the area in front of the opening should he enclosed with
a substantial barricade which will effectually obstruct the approach to the opening.
2. Employee was crushed beneath elevator while he was cleaning out elevator
pit. Fatal.
No elevator repairman should he permitted to work inside the shaft unless the
controls are locked or are being handled by a competent assistant who will move
the car only in accordance with orders from the worker in the shaft.
3. While operating an elevator an employee extended his foot beyond the edge
of the car. The foot was caught between the elevator and a landing threshold.
Foot amputated.
(a) Projections extending inward from the general surface of the hoistway
enclosure and which are opposite the car entrance should be beveled on the under
side or guarded with smooth metal plates firmly attached at an angle of 60° to
75° from the horizontal.
(b) All elevator cars should be equipped with safety gates so designed as to•
prevent the operators and passengers from extending any parts of their bodies
beyond the edge of the car. These gates should be interlocked with the controls
so that the cars cannot be operated until the gates are closed and locked.
4. A maintenance man was injured while painting the elevator shaft. He
reached into the shaft and was caught by the descending elevator. Fractured
ribs and chest injuries caused him to lose 112 days.
No repairman should be permitted to work inside or on the shaft unless the
controls have been locked or are being handled by a competent assistant who will
move the car only in accordance with orders from the worker in the shaft.
1 D . R. Blenis and Joseph Foehop, safety engineers in the industry, assisted greatly in the analysis o f
6
these cases.




36
5. A tree fell through an open switch of a conveyor rail and struck a worker
on the head. Lost 11 days.
Switches should he equipped with safety lugs which will prevent the rollers
from going through when the switches are open.
6. Employee was pushing beef along on overhead track. The roller ran into
an open switch and fell on the employee. Lost 2 weeks.
(a) Switches should he equipped with safety lugs which will prevent the
rollers from going through when the switches are open.
(b) Employees who use or work near overhead conveyors should wear safety
hats.
7. A hog .fell off conveyor hook into hot rosin tank. The rosin splashed and
burned an employee’s face, neck, and arms. Lost 35 days.
(a) Rosin tanks should he equipped with splash hoards on each side and
employees should not he permitted to work within splashing distance of the
open ends.
(b) Frequent inspections and proper maintenance of conveyors, and careful
instruction and close supervision in hooking the load are important to prevent
loads from dropping from conveyors.
8. An employee in the hog-cutting department stood on a conveyor to ge^
his apron from a hook on which it was hanging. A co-worker started the con"
veyor and the employee was carried against the blades of a side-splitting machine.
Lost 56 days.
(a) Facilities for keeping work aprons and other clothing should he provided
where the hazard of moving equipment does not exist.
(b) Standing on or climbing over conveyors should always he prohibited.
(c) Conveyors should not he started without advance warning for everyone to
stand clear.
(d) The supervisor should not have permitted the employee to hang his apron
where it would he necessary to stand on or to reach over the conveyor to get it.
H A N D -T R U C K A N D M O T O R -T R U C K A C C ID E N T S

9. As an employee in the hog-cutting department was moving a two-wheel
truck loaded with meat, one wheel came off, throwing the truck to one side.
His hand was caught between the truck handle and the building. Severe .cuts
on two fingers caused him to lose 6 days.
(a) Regular inspection of equipment and proper maintenance are necessary
for the prevention of such accidents.
(b) Truck handles. should he equipped with guards to protect employee’s
hands from injury.
10. The coupling between a truck and trailer parted. The trailer swerved
and struck a nearby worker. Lost 69 days.
Coupling equipment which has been properly designed and kept in good
condition will not uncouple of its own accord, unless the coupling has been
made improperly.
(a) Trucks and trailers should he inspected frequently, ' and any which are
found defective should he removed from service until repaired.
(b) Employees who use trucks and trailers should he trained to make couplings
properly, and their procedures should he checked frequently even though they
have apparently learned the proper methods.
11. A tractor driver was driving his tractor through a doorway. He struck
his head against the top of the door. Lost 2 days.
A case of poor planning and improper traffic lay-out. When the tractor
was first put in service all routes on which it would be used should have been
surveyed for possible hazards. The inadequate clearance at the doorway should
have been discovered and corrected at that time.1
2
12. An employee of the ham-house shipping department was standing behind
swinging doors. A tractor coming through the doorway, forced the doors open
and pushed one against the employee. He was caught, between the door, and a
box. Lost 22 days as a result of a fractured leg.
(a) The practice of opening doors by humping them with a truck or tractor
should he prohibited.
(b) Swinging doors are always dangerous and should he eliminated whenever
possible. Doors through which trucks must pass should have automatic opening
and closing mechanism,, coupled with a warning signal, which can be operated by
pulling a rope or wire or by pressing a button along the passageway.



37
13. A hide-cellar employee was holding a truck loaded with hides. A co-worker
put a bundle of hides on the opposite end of the truck causing the handle to fly
upwards, straining the employee's shoulder. Lost 3 days.
All trucks should he loaded evenly to prevent accidents of this kind. Em­
ployees should he thoroughly trained in the safe methods of loading, and the
supervisors should frequently check the procedures in use to he sure that the
instructions are understood and are being followed.
14. The right foot of an employee was crushed while a truck was backing up to
the dock. The employee had his foot hanging over back of truck and was caught
between dock and truck. Lost 3 weeks.
(a) Employees should not he permitted to ride with the load on a truck.
(b) Backing a motor vehicle is always a hazardous operation. Drivers
should he trained never to hack until they are sure that everyone is in the clear.
15. While loading a highway truck an employee fell between the truck and the
dock, bruising his leg. Lost 2 days.
(a) Trucks should never he loaded unless they are in a safe position.
(b) Whenever the truck cannot he placed so that the hed is level with and tight
against the dockf the space between the truck and the dock should he substantially
bridged over the full width of the truck.
16. A laborer in the pork-cutting department was using a meat hook to haul a
hand truck. The hook slipped and the point struck him on the foot. Lost 4 days.
Workers should he thoroughly instructed in the proper use of hand trucks, and
supervisors should see that those instructions are followed. Meat hooks should
never he used for any purpose other than that for which they are designed.
M IS C E L L A N E O U S

m a c h in e r y

a c c id e n t s

17. An employee in the hog-cutting department was operating a skinning ma­
chine while wearing gloves. His glove caught in the machine. One finger
amputated.
Operators of skinning machines should not he permitted to wear gloves while
working.
18. As employee was placing muslin cloth over rollers on a casing machine; his
left hand slipped between the rollers. The injury became infected and it was
necessary to amputate .two fingers.
(a) Casing rollers should never he covered while the machine is in motion.
The power should be off. and whatever movement of the rollers may he necessary
should he accomplished by hand.
(b) All injuries should he treated promptly at the first-aid room to prevent
infection.
19. A defective lock on a stuffing machine permitted the cover of the machine to
blow off. It struck a linker on the head. Lost 6 days.
Frequent inspections and proper maintenance of all equipment is necessary to
prevent accidents of this type.
20. A maintenance machinist was repairing a bacon-slicing machine. He failed
to pull the master switch; the operator started the machine and the machinist's
hand was drawn into the gears. Lost 39 days.
The master switch should always he locked in an open position while repair work
is being done.
21. Employee was under a “ tar batter" machine making repairs. A co-worker
started the machine and the man's arm was caught in the mechanism. Lost 6
days.
The starting switch of the machine should always he locked in an open position
before repair work is started.
22. An employee in the hog-kill department was injured while turning reverse
spool on the dehairing machine. The machine was accidently thrown in gear
and a hand lever on the machine struck employee on chest. Lost 12 days.
Starting levers or switches should always he locked open while machine is being
repaired.
23. An employee turned off the switch on a capping machine in the canning
department. Before the machine had come to a stop, he stuck his fingers into the
magazine. One finger was fractured and its use permanently impaired. Lost
35 days.
Employees should never adjust machinery or put hands or fingers into a machine
until it has come to a complete stop.



38
24. Employee was operating a guillotine cutting frozen meat. His hand went
beneath blade, two fingers amputated.
A feeding table large enough to make it impossible for an employee to reach the
blade should have been provided. A rake or hoe should be used to move meat in
the vicinity of the knife.
25. An employee of the box factory was operating a nailing machine. He*
accidently tripped the machine, which came down and smashed his fingers.
Sustained permanent injury of two fingers and lost 42 days.
The tripping mechanism should be so designed or guarded that it cannot be
accidentally tripped.
26. A wool-house employee was standing on top of bales of wool in a boxcar.
His foot slipped and, in attempting to catch himself, he stuck his hand into the
wheel of an operating loading machine. Hand was permanently disabled.
Machines should be guarded to prevent accidental contact with moving parts.
27. An employee had completed a cut on a band saw. In pulling the pieces
back, his finger came into contact with the saw. One finger amputated.
(a) The point-of-operation of all powered saws should be guarded.
(b) A sliding saw table would have avoided the necessity of pulling the meat
back by hand.
28. Employee was operating a band saw cutting beef. He used a meat hook
as a pusher. The hook slipped, allowing his finger to come into contact with the
saw. Finger amputated.
fa) The point-of-operation of all powered saws should be guarded.
(b) A sliding saw table to feed the saw should have been installed. Meat
hooks should never be used as pushers.
29. A laborer in the bone house was using a circular saw. He slipped on a*
piece of fat on the floor and struck his finger against the saw. Finger amputated.
(a) All circular saws should be equipped with self-adjusting guards to pre­
vent contact with the blade.
(b) All working surfaces should be kept free of grease, meat scraps, etc.
This is particularly important in the areas adjacent to machinery.
30. A machinist in the machine shop placed his hand on lubricator driving rod
of an air compressor, which was in operation. A lacerated finger caused 10 days'*
lost time.
All moving parts of machinery should be guarded to prevent accidental contact
with the moving parts.
G R IN D E R A C C ID E N T S

31. An employee attempted to push fat, which had packed tight, back through
a power-driven meat grinder. He slipped and, while off balance, caught his arm
and hand in the grinder blades. Lost one arm.
(a) Grinders and mixers should be designed with interlocking controls which
make it impossible for workers to reach into the danger zone while machines are
in motion. This is possible by interlocking all covers and switch-tilting devices.
During cleaning operations all movement of the machines should be by hand
power.
(b) Floors should frequently be cleaned of grease, scraps of meat, etc., to pre­
vent slipping accidents.
32. While feeding meat into a grinder an employee got his hand caught in the
feed. It was necessary to amputate his arm at the elbow.
(a) Grinders should be constructed so that it is impossible for workers to reach
the worms or blades. This can be accomplished by making the hopper longer
than a man’s arm or by providing a feeding or supply table large enough to keep
the operator beyond an arm’s reach of the mechanism.
(b) A scoop or fork should always be used in feeding grinders. I f it is neces­
sary to press the meat into the hopper, a stamper or plunger should be used.
Hand feeding of these machines should be prohibited.
33. A bone-grinder operator lost the sight of one eye when a piece of tooth
flew from the grinder into his eye.
Face shields or safety goggles should be provided and worn in work of this type.




39
34. While an employee was operating a bone-shredding machine, the machine
-exploded, crushing the employee's legs. One leg amputated.
Apparently this machine was defective. All grinders and meat mills should
he thoroughly inspected by competent mechanics at regular, frequent intervals.
When the inspection reveals any defect, the machine should he removed from
service until it has been repaired.
35. Employee was feeding bones into bone grinder when a large piece of bone
flew out of the machine and struck him in the face causing double fracture of
cheek bone. Lost 8 weeks.
(a) A feeding chute should be used on this type of machine.
(b) Safety goggles or face shields should be worn by all emloyees feeding
bone grinders.
P O O R -H O U S E K E E P I N G

A C C ID E N T S

36. An employee in the hog-cutting department slipped on a small piece of
;pork and hooked his arm on a sharp rack. Lost 2 days.
(a) Floors should frequently be cleaned of grease, scraps of meaty etc.
(b) Frequent inspections and proper maintenance of equipment such as
racks are important to prevent accidents.
37. Employee was lifting a barrel onto a scale in the cooler. He fell on the
floor, which was slippery with blood, and turned his ankle. Lost 3 days.
(a) Blood should not have been permitted to lie on the cooler floor; floors
should be washed as often as necessary.
(b) Salt can be used to eliminate slippery spots.
(e)
Floors should have rough surfaces. Wood floors should be painted with a
nonslip floor paint or covered with antislip floor pads. Concrete floors should
be rough-finished with carborundum particles or grit worked into the surface.
Brick floors should be made of vertical-grained bricks.
38. An employee in the beef-dressing department slipped in blood on the floor
.and struck his chest against the curbing of the blood pit. Lost 3 days.
(a) Floors should be washed frequently.
(b) Nonslip materials should be used on the floor of blood pits.
39. While washing and shrouding beef, an employee slipped and fell off the
stand on which he was working. Fractured arm. Lost 4 weeks.
(a) All working surfaces should frequently be cleaned of grease, meat scraps,
etc.
(b) Guard rails should be placed on all elevated working surfaces.
(c) Working areas should have a rough surface. I f working surface is made
of woody it should be painted with a “ nonslip” floor paint or covered with
grit-impregnated roofing paper or similar material. I f working surface is
made of concrete, it should be rough-finished with carborundum particles or grit
worked into the surface.
40. An employee slipped on a piece of fat while carrying meat to truck. He
fell and injured his right side and leg. Lost 20 days.
Poor housekeeping— all working surfaces should be kept free of grease, meat
scraps, etc.
41. Employee was pushing a hand truck. While going through a door one
wheel struck a piece of beef on the floor which threw the truck to one side catching
employee's hand between the truck handle and the door casing. Lost 5 days.
(a) All working surfaces and passageways should frequently be cleaned of
meat scraps, etc.
(b) Truck handles should be equipped with hand guards to protect employees'
hands from injury.
42. An employee was driving a tractor from one department to another.
When making a sharp right-hand turn, the tractor overturned. The foreman
-stated that the tractor hit some round ends of paper rolls which were lying in the
.aisle. The driver's arm was injured and he lost 14 days.
(a) Poor housekeeping— the paper rolls should not have been permitted to be
in the aisle.
(b) This appears to have been a case of excessive speed on the turn or of
inattention on the part of the operator. He should have seen the paper rolls and
should have stopped before the tractor struck them. Better training and closer
supervision of drivers is necessary.




40
43. Employee fell on a slippery stairway and struck his leg against a projecting
piece of steel at the bottom of the stairs. Lost 6 days.
(a) Stairways should frequently be cleaned of fats, meat scraps, etc.
(b) All stairways should be equipped with hand rails.
(c) Treads of stairways should have a rough surface. I f made of wood, they
should be painted with a “ nonslip” floor paint or covered with grit-impregnated
roofing paper or similar material. I f treads are made of concrete, they should
be rough-finished with carborundum particles or grit worked into the surface.
(d) Walkways and stairways should be clear of all obstructions.
H A N D -T O O L A C C ID E N T S

44. Employee was sticking hogs on the bleeding rail. A hog’s foreleg struck
the point of the sticking knife, kicking the knife through the operator’s fingers,
and inflicting a severe cut between employee’s thumb and forefinger. Lost 10
days.
(a) The sticking knife should have had a guard betewen the handle of the
knife and the blade to prevent the worker’s hands from slipping over the blade.
(b) Leather loops nailed to the handle of the knife through which the fingers
may be placed will also prevent the hand from slipping off the handle even if the
knife is kicked.
45. An employee’s knife slipped while he was trimming hams, severing extensor
tendon of left thumb.
Mesh gloves and wrist guards should be provided and worn for work of this
kind.
46. A co-worker in the green-meats department threw a belly across the cutting
table. It struck a grader’s arm causing him to cut his fingers. Lost 21 days.
Throwing cuts of meat or other material should be strictly prohibited.
47. An employee was tying casings for bologna. When the cord broke his hand
slipped over against his knife, which was sticking in the table. Lost 10 days.
(a) Knives should never be stuck in tables where employee may strike them.
(b) String should be cut with a ring knife or with a guarded cutting blade,
which should be permanently attached to the table.
48. Employee was holding a hog’s head for another employee to split with a
cleaver. The head began to fall off the block and the employee reached for it;
the co-worker struck his thumb with the cleaver. Thumb amputated.
Employees should not be permitted to hold hog’s heads while another worker uses
a cleaver. I f the head must be held for a co-worker, an offset or tong adaptedto this
kind of work should be used.
49. A bone shattered when an employee struck it with a cleaver. A splinter
from the bone struck the employee’s eye. Loss of eye.
Impact goggles should be provided and required to be worn where any danger of
flying bones exists.
50. An employee slipped on a wet floor while opening a valve with a beef hook.
The beef hook ran into his left hand. He w taken to a hospital where death
ras
occurred as a result of acute dilatation of the heart and pulmonary edema.
(a) All valves should be installed so that they can be reached from a regular
working surface.
(b) Beef hooks are not designed for opening valves and should never be used for
that purpose. When a valve is o ut of reach, a ladder should be used or an extension
placed on the valve stem so that it can be operated from the floor level.
(c) Floors should have rough surfaces. Wood floors should be painted with a
“ nonslip” floor paint or covered with antislip floor pads. Concrete floors should
be rough-finished with carborundum particles or grit worked into the surface.
Brick floors should be made of vertical-grained bricks.
51. A butcher in the sheep-kill department was cutting forequarters. The foot
spreader fell out of position and struck the knife he was using. The knife severely
cut his thumb. Lost 6 days.
Close supervision and proper instruction in job procedure are necessary to
prevent accidents of this type.
52. An employee in the beef-dressing department was “ dropping” hide off a
carcass. The chain broke allowing the carcass to fall, hitting his knife. Fortypercent loss of use of one finger.
Frequent inspections and proper maintenance of equipment are necessary to
prevent accidents of this type. Worn or defective equipment should be discarded.



41
M IS C E L L A N E O U S A C C ID E N T S

53. As a hog was being shackled, the shackling chain caught in a grating on
the floor. The hoisting apparatus lifted the grating from its position and the
employee fell through the opening to a lower floor. Lost 6 weeks.
The grating should have been constructed in such a manner that shackles
could not be accidentally hooked to it.
54. While butchering a cow, an employee was struck by the animal when it
kicked loose from a shackle. The cow fell on the worker'knocking, him to the
floor, where he struck his head. He died as a result of a fractured skull.
(a) The cow should not have been shackled and suspended until it was com­
pletely stunned.
(b) Regular inspection and proper maintenance of shackles is necessary to
assure that they are in good working condition.
55. A laborer, who was working from a ladder, fell to the floor when the ladder
slipped. His foot was fractured. Lost 73 days.
(a) All ladders should be equipped with safety shoes to prevent slipping.
(b) Employees should be thoroughly instructed in the proper use of ladders,
and supervisors should be required to see that the correct procedures are followed.
56. When an employee climbed on a barrel to get a package from a shelf, the
head of the barrel fell in. The employee fell into the barrel, straining his shoulder.
Lost 4 days.
A stepladder should have been provided. No one should be permitted to
stand on barrels.
57. While moving a barrel an employee cut his finger on a nail in the barrel.
First aid was given but employee did not follow treatments. Blood poisoning
resulted. Lost 82 days.
(a) All projecting nails should be removed or bent down as soon as a barrel
head is removed.
(b) All injuries should be treated promptly at the first-aid room to prevent
infection, and the injured employee should be required to report back to the
first-aid station as often as may be necessary to make sure that he has followed
instructions.
58. When the knocking-pen door was opened, a cow rolled onto the left foot
of the shackler. Foot fractured. Lost 71 days.
(a) Cattle knockers should ■ ake sure that all workers are in the clear before
m
opening the gate of the knocking pen.
(b) Workers on the killing floor should stand clear of animals rolling from
the knocking pen.
59. As an employee of the canning department was walking past a cooking
kettle the water in the kettle boiled over and scalded the employee's foot. Lost
3 weeks.
(a) The kettle should not have been so full that it would boil over,
(b) Cooking kettles should be placed back from all walkways.
60. A pail was hung on a leaking hot-water valve to catch the drippings. An
employee brushed against the pail causing it to tip, spilling the hot water on his
foot. Lost 5 days.
Instead of hanging a bucket on the valve to catch the drops, the valve should
have been repaved. Proper maintenance is necessary to prevent accidents
of this type.
61. As a female employee in the casings department passed a valve on a hotwater line, her apron caught on the valve, opening it. Both legs were scalded
and as a result she lost 17 days.
Valves should never be installed where there is a possibility that they may be
accidentally opened. It is particularly important that hot-water and steam
valves are not placed along regular passageways.
62. An employee was using hot water from a hose to wash his shoes. The water
went inside his shoes and burned his foot. Lost 15 days.
Hot water should never be used to clean boots or shoes while they are being worn.




42
63. A female table operator used \ tank truck in which to wash her apron.
A wheel was missing on the truck, and vhen she put her hand on the truck it tipped
and struck her toe. Lost 23 days as a result of fracture.
(a) No truck with a missing wheel should he continued in service. Frequent
inspections and prompt repair of all equipment found to he defective will prevent
many accidents.
(b) Employees should not he permitted to use tank trucks for washing their
work clothes. Facilities should he provided for this purpose.
64. An employee on an upper floor threw some pig’s feet down the wrong chute.
They landed on a bench, jumped, and hit a pork trimmer’s knife, knocking it out
of the worker’s hand. The knife fell on the trimmer’s foot. Lost 14 days.
Apparently the employee who placed the material in the chute had not been
properly instructed as to which chute to use. A rearrangement of the chutes or
of the bench at the foot of the chute might help to avoid future accidents of this type.
65. An employee of the ham-boning department cut his fingers on the sharp
edges of the trays which he was carrying. Lost 4 days.
All equipment should be inspected frequently. Damaged equipment should he
immediately removed from service for repair. The foreman should always watch
to see that no trays with sharp or broken edges or corners are in use.
66. While lifting hogs out of the scalding tank, an employee sustained a hernia.
Lost 47 days.
A mechanical lift, or hoisty should he used to lift hogs from the scalding tank.
67. An employee in the boiler and engine room was putting boiler compound
into the hot-water return system. Some of it splashed into his eye. Lost 3 weeks.
Goggles, or hoods, and other protective clothing to provide complete body
protection should he worn by employees when handling caustic soda, acids, or
any cleaning compounds which may cause burns on contact with the skin.
68. An employee of the lard department was cleaning a pipe with caustic soda.
It splashed out of the pipe onto the employee’s face and chest. Lost 21 days.
(a) Whenever possible the use of caustic soda should he eliminated.
(b) When caustic soda must he used the user should wear a rubber hood for
complete head protection and rubber glovesf rubber jackett rubber apron, and
rubber boots to provide complete body protection.




43
Appendix.— Statistical Tables
T able 1.— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, by Branch o f Industry, fo r 1,114
Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Plants, 1943
Number of disabling injuries

Branch of industry

Resulting in—
Em ­
Num- N um ­
ployeeber of
ber of
hours
D ea th Per­
estab­
em­ w orked
and
ma­ Tem ­
lish­
ments p loyees (thous­ Total perma­ nent porary
ands)
nent par­ total
disa­
total
tial
disa­ disa­ bility
bility 1 b ility

All branches2...............

Injury
rates1
2

Total
days
lost

1,114 168,904 391,346 15,272

(2)28

376 14,868 658,908

99,37"* 231,318 11,258

10

-45 11,003 413,409

A ver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
po­
Fre­
Se­ rary
quen­ ver­ total
cy
ity
disa­
bility

39.0

1.7

13

48.7

1.8

12

60.5

3.9

14

29.7

2.2

11

7,614

17.4

1.6

7

10,332

31.6

1.0

D

Slaughtering and meat
packing, integrated . .

389

Slaughtering only.........

177

3,866

8,200

496

1

12

483

31,833

Meat packing only___

400

18,142

40,744

1,209

(2 )9

24

1,176

88,097

Casings----------------------

15

2,241

4,885

85

0

2

83

Poultry..........................

83

4,955

10,028

317

1

3

313

1 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disabilities included.
2 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
* Totals include reports for 50 establishments from which data b y branch of industry were not received.




T able 2.— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, by fSranch o f Industry and Department, fo r 1,064 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Plants, 19431
Num ber of disabling injuries
ULJUi J IO
Branch of industry and departm ent3

Num ber
EmployeeNumber
of
hours
of
units
worked
employees (thousands)
reporting

Resulting in—
Total

Death and Permanent Temporary
permanent
partial
total
total
disability
disability * disability

Total
days
lost
Fre­
quency

Severity

Average
days
lost
per
tempo­
rary
total
disa­
bility

‘ 389
175
257
138
105

99,379
880
8,521
6.847
547

231,318
2,031
19,886
15,897
1,581

11,258
65
1,632
1,124
64

10
0
1
0
0

245
1
21
30
4

11,003
64
1,610
1,094
60

413,409
1,370
37,559
37,767
9,512

48.7
32.0
82.1
70.7
40.5

1.8
.7
1.9
2.4
6.0

12
12
11
12
10

202
127
160
38

4,292
1,272
3,036
400

9,843
3,069
7,165
945

921
172
608
69

1
0
0
0

27
4
11
2

893
168
497
67

38,124
3,741
10,302
1,311

93.6
56.0
70.9
73.0

3.9
1.2
1.4
1.4

12
12
12
11

Small stock dressing and coolers

98

2,022

5,101

466

0

8

458

15,836

91.3

3.1

10

Dressing, not classified. _ __________________

43

1,005

2,388

273

0

2

271

3,611

114.3

1.5

11

164
122
158
225
139
52
28
ISO
26
186
259
241
150
116

4,730
1,321
2,056
8,694
4,223
987
4,296
1,426
612
4,167
10,676
7,443
1,257
2,854

11,385
3,017
5,027
20,001
9,932
,2.333
(9,298
3,408
1, £09
9,874
23,729
17,677
2,969
6,617

553
171
352
951
379
111
299
82
112
492
41
838
47
287

0
0
2
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

9
2
5
25
10
2
7
2
4
11
1
1£
1
5

544
169
345
923
369
109
290
80
108
481
40
823
46
282

15,018
2,415
23,848
55,787
11,109
3.354
25,777
3,807
9,995
19,896
4,520
22,785
1,008
6,381

48.6
56.7
70.0
47.5
38.2
47.6
32.2
24.1
74.2
49.8
1.7
47.7
15.8
43.4

1.3
.8
4.7
2.8
1.1
1.4
2.8
1.1
6.6
2.0
.2
1.3
.3
1.0

13
11
12
14
13
12
14
21
13
14
13
13
15
14

'177
33
136
508

3,866
588
1,028
2,250

8,200
1,247
2,119
4,834

496
142
161
193

1
0
0
1

12
4
2
6

483
138
159
186

31,833
4,151
6,425
21,257

60.5
113.9
76.0
39.9

3.9
3.3
3.0
4.4

14
11
13
16

Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated: TotalLivestock_________ ____ ______________________

Hog dressing and coolers
Hog cutting" . _
^
Edible rendering
Beef dressing .
Beef coolers

_ _ _ _

_ _

Beef cutting and boning_____________ . . . ____

Oleo oil house and tallow rendering

Curing cellars

_

_

H ide cellars........................ ....................................

Inedible renderings

Sausage_______________________ _____ -________

Smoked meat processing and packing
Lard refinery
__.________ _ _
Canning___ ___ ____ _
Boiler and engine room ___
____
Cooperage and box
__

M aintenance______ __________________________
Office (including sales)_______________________

Shipping
Watchmen
_
_
Not elsewhere classified

Slaughtering only! Total
..
Hog dressing and coolers
Beef dressing and coolers

_ _ __

N ot elsewhere classified---------------- ------------- —




M eat packing only: T o ta l..................... ....................
Hog cutting, including coolers_______________
Beef cutting and boning, including coolers___
Curing cellars.... ......................................................
Sausage.......................................................... .........
Smoked meat processing and packing________
Canning......................._ ! ! _____________________
Office (including sales)_____. . . . . . . ___________
Shipping......................... ..... . . . _ _____________
_
N ot elsewhere classified____ . . . . . _______ _____
Casings.
Poultry.1
4
*
2

*400
41
122
72
244
108
43
216
160
272

18,142
498
729
439
,4,583
1,172
2,843
1,995
1,428
1,306

40,744
1,148
1,539
947
10,326
2,677
5,682
4,512
3,313
3,000

1,209
51
89
49
297
52
197
7
88
91

(2) 9
0
0
0
(1 )2
0
0
1
0
(1 )6

24
1
3
0
4
2
7
0
2
2

1,176
50
86
49
291
50
190
6
86
84

88,097
740
1,988
365
21,659
1,682
8,206
6,037
3,779
31,525

29.7
44.4
57.8
51.7
28.8
19.4
34.7
1.6
26.6
30.3

2.2
.6
1.3
.4
2.1
.6
1.4
1.3
1.1
10.5

ii
9
13
7
10
13
12
6
9
11

15
83

2,241
4,955

4,885
10,028

85
317

0
1

2
3

83
313

7,614
10,332

17.4
31.6

1.6
1.0

7
11

1 D oes not include reports for 60 establishments from which figures by branch of industry and department were not received.
2 Totals include figures for items not shown separately because of insufficient data.
2 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disability cases included.
4 T he frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked. T he severity rate Is the average number of days lost for each thousand
employee-hours worked.
2 N um ber of plants reporting.




T able 3.— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, by Geographic Area , State, and Branch o f Industry, /or 1,064 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing
Establishments, 1 9 4 3 1
Injury rates4

Num ber of disabling injuries
EmployeeN um ber
Number
hours
Geographic area, State, and branch of in d u stry2 of estab­
of
worked
lishments employees (thousands)

Resulting in Total

Death and
T em porary
permanent P erm anent
total
partial
total
disability
disability
disability a
'

Total
days
lost

Fre­
quency

A verage
days lost
per tem ­
porary
Severity total dis­
ability

N ew England: T otal._______ _____________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___
M eat packing on ly....... ........... ............................

71
12
49

4,657
2,779
1,763

11,330
7,056
4,026

544
402
132

1
0
1

8
2
5

535
400
126

24,249
7,897
12,093

48.0
57.0
32.8

2.1
1.1
3.0

14
12
17

Connecticut: T otal_____________________ _______
M aine: T otal..................................................................
Meat packing on ly________ __________________
Massachusetts: T otal________ r___________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—
M eat packing o n ly .................................................

9
6
5
45
8
31

413
456
440
3,458
2,332
1,044

995
1,228
1,194
8,388
6,022
2,186

47
27
27
412
348
59

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
4
4
2
1
1

46
23
23
410
347
58

1,059
4,320
4,320
8,128
6,681
1,364

47.3
22.0
22.6
49.1
57.8
27.0

1.1
3.5
3.6
1.0
1.1
.6

10
31
31
13
12
18

Middle Atlantic: T o t a l --------------------------------------Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___
Slaughtering o n ly ..................................................
M eat packing on ly.................................................
P oultry......................................................................

259
84
43
120
5

16, 785
9,340
646
5,980
718

36, 980
19,743
1,400
13,935
1,694

1,499
990
70
398
40

(2)7
1
0
(2)5
1

44
32
5
7
0

1,448
957
65
386
39

113,209
62,427
3,251
41,078
6,433

40.5
50.1
50.0
28.6
23.6

8.1
3.2
2.3
2.9
3.8

13
12
21
14
11

N ew Jersey: Total.........................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—
M eat packing on ly.................... ............................
N ew Y ork: T otal............................. .............................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___
M eat packing o n ly ................................................
Pennsylvania: Total--------------- ---------------------------Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated. „
M eat packing on ly.................................................

30
3
18
80
17
47
149
64
55

2,303
513
1,366
4,505
2,625
1,430
9,977
6,202
3,184

5,361
1,199
3,218
9,546
5,562
2,943
22,073
12,982
7,774

149
27
58
501
371
118
849
592
222

0 )2
0
0 )2
1
0
1
0 )4
1
(1)2

5
0
0
26
24
2
13
8
5

142
27
56
474
347
115
832
583
215

16,616
487
12,968
47,307
38,756
8,334
49,286
23,184
19,776

27.8
22.5
18.0
52.5
66.7
40.1
38.5
45.6
28.6

3.1
.4
4.0
5.0
7.0
2.8
2.2
1.8
2.5

19
18
17
13
12
12
12
12
13

East North Central: Total-------------------------------------Slaughtering and meat packing, in teg ra ted ...
Slaughtering o n l y ..................................................
M eat packing only.................................................
Casings........................... ...............................—
------

272
112
46
103
5

42,221
33,340
846
5,739
2? 048 1

98,522
79,382
1,719
12,382
4,479

4,137
3,558
91
333
81

5
3
1
1
0

57
50
1
4
2

4,075
3,505
89
328
79

131,104
102,393
7,192
13,423
7,550

42.0
44.8
52.9
26.9
18.1

1.3
1.3
4.2
1.1
1.7

12
13
10
7
7




Illinois: T o t a l........................ .................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Slaughtering on ly................................................
M eat packing only.............................................
Casings....................................................... .........
Indiana: T otal............................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated .
Michigan: Total—................... ................. ...............
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated .
M eat packing only.............................................
Ohio: T otal..... ...........................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
M eat packing on ly.............................................
Wisconsin: T o t a l......... ............................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
M eat packing on ly..... ........................... ............

79
20
5
48
4
30
23
33
13
16
95
50
14
35
6
24

20,652
14,193
492
3,790
2.036
5,231
4,889
3,744
3,097
€01
5,594
4,800
642
7,000
6,361
501

West North Central: Total........................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Slaughtering on ly............... ..............................
M eat packing on ly....... .....................................
Poultry________ _________________ _________

151
52
23
29
47

41,200
36,409
977
1,127
2,687

Iowa: T ota l............................................................... .
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
P oultry................................................................ .
Kansas: T o ta l............................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Poultry................................................................ .
Minnesota: T otal..................................................... .
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Missouri: T o t a l........................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Poultry..................................................................
Nebraska: T o t a l...____ _______________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated..
South Dakota: T otal..............................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.

42
13
19
34
12
14
16
5
32
14
3
11
4
12
3

12,033
10,792
875
6,049
4,939
706
8,585
8,023
7,780
6,742
685
3.224
2,735
3,440
3,170

South Atlantic: Total............... ..................... ...........
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Meat packing o n l y . . ....................................... .
Poultry................................................................ .

85
34
30
6

6,494
4,476
1,218
617

Delaware: Total....................................................... .
Poultry................................................................ .
Georgia: T otal...........................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated.
Maryland: T otal______________________ _______
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated..
Meat packing o n l y . . ........................................
Virginia: T otal............................ .............................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated..

5
3
5
3
23
8
9
12
4

823
532
1,510
1,395
1,607
1,001
533
1,337
1,084

See fo o t n o t e s a t en d o f tab le.




1,970
1,560
30
235
81
471
443
524
506
16
470
427
34
702
622
33

2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

20
16
0
2
2
17
17
2
2
0
11
9
2
7
6
0

1,948
1,544
29
232
79
454
426
520
502
16
458
417
32
695
616
33

53.278
30,726
6,253
8,403
7,550
22,975
22,643
19, 762
19,582
164
23,709
18,953
4,462
11,380
10,489
334

41.4
46.0
31.7
29.5
18.2
38.5
38.6
57.8
66.8
11.6
34.5
36.1
23.5
43.7
42.0
29.5

1.1
.9
6.6
1.1
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.6
.1
1.7
1.6
3.1
.7
.7
.3

12
14
9
6
7
13
14
14
14
10
13
13
5
9
10
10

4,227
3,800
189
64
174

5
4
0
1
0

124
118
0
3
3

4,098
3,678
189
60

178,054
165,317
1,924
7,787
3,026

45.3
45.7
92.3
25.7
30.4

1.9
2.0
.9
3.1
.5

12
12
10
15
12

1,159
1,027
39
510
418
67
944
870
970
897
46
453
421
177
162

0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1

24
24
0
8
6
1
43
43
22
19
2
14
13
12
12

1,135
1,003
39
500
411
66
901
827
946
876
44
439
408
164
149

29,404
28,311
293
23,865
16,352
1,017
48,979
48,128
44,047
41,990
1,445
9,316
8,370
21.597
21,485

42.8
41.7
24.0
37.8
38.1
41.6
48.8
47.5
53.5
57.4
25.9
57.6
62.3
24.1
24.0

1.1
1.1
.2
1.8
1.5
.6
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.7
.8
1.2
1.2
2.9
3.2

11
11
8
14
14
11
16
16
12
12
19
9
8
10
10

984
804
162
11

0
0
0
0

9
7
0
0

975
797
162
11

20,473
14,657
752
76

64.2
75.7
54.7
8.3

1.3
1.4
.3
.1

7
7
5
7

17
6
429
423
302
209
£3
113
103

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
2
2
3
3
0
1
0

16
6
427
421
299
206
93
112
103

4,201
65
4,152
4,128
5,502
5,106
396
2,348
391

9.4
5.2
118.4
128.4
70.7
74.3
71.6
39.0
44.4

2.3
.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.8
.3
.8
.2

13
11
8
8
5
6
4
5
4




171

T ab Ij 8 .*— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, by Geographic Area, State, and Branch o f Industry, fo r 1,064 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing
B
Establishments, 1 9 4 3 1 Continued
—
Injury rates4

N um ber of disabling injuries
Number EmployeeN um ber
hours
of
Geographic area, State, and branch of industry a of estabworked
lishments employees (thousands)

Resulting in Total

Death and Perm anent T em porary
permanent
total
partial
total
disability
disability
disability»

Total
days
lost

Fre­
quency

Average
days lost
per tem ­
porary
Severity total dis­
ability

East South Central: Total _______________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—

81
18

2,919
2,586

6,728
6,016

429
408

0
0

14
12

415
396

12,502
11,193

63.8
67.8

1.9
1.9

12
12

Alabama^ Total ............
K entucky: T otal................. ............ ............................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___
Tennessee: Total ________________________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___

10
10
5
10
8

443
490
412
1,964
1,802

1,014
1,159
1,039
4,532
4,170

42
58
53
329
313

0
0
0
0
0

0
2
1
12
11

42
56
52
317
302

500
1,462
1,084
10,540
9,609

41.4
50.0
51.0
72.6
75.1

.5
1.3
1.0
2.3
2.3

12
10
9
12
12

West South Central: Total________________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—
Slaughtering only
M eat packing only _ ^
T__ __T__

61
29
6
14

6,237
3,932
483
742

12,664
9,781
1,069
1,634

676
493
38
44

2
1
0
1

12
11
0
1

562
481
38
42

28,526
19,593
539
8,374

45.9
50.4
35.6
26.9

2.3
2.0
.5
5.1

12
11
14
14

Tonisi'ana! Total
In ......
M eat packing only
T
Texas: T ota l_____________________________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—

11
7
2$
1
.6

741
399
4,109
3,370

1,609
931
9,980
8,447

31
15
514
449

0
0
2
1

0
0
11
10

31
15
501
438

408
198
27,307
18,659

19.3
16.1
51.5
53.2

.3
.2
2.7
2.2

13
13
11
11

Mountain: Total__________________________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—

27
12

2,476
1,753

6,046
4,105

263
241

0
0

9
7

259
234

17,588
10,878

53.1
58.7

3.5
2.6

9
8

Colorado: T otal__________________________________
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—
Utah: T otal................... ................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated—

11
2
9
3

1,666
1,026
546
463

3,156
2,384
1,267
1,099

148
128
89
82

0
0
0
0

6
4
1
1

142
124
88
81

14,698
8,062
1,193
1,117

46.9
53.7
70.2
74.6

4.7
3.4
.9
1.0

10
10
7
6

Pacific: T ota l________________________________ ____
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated-—
Slaughtering only
r_ _ , .
M eat packing on ly........................- — — ............

116
36
26
36

6,666
4,764
494
912

16,233
11,502
1,035
1,953

698
562
77
39

1
1
0
Q

9
6
2
X

688
555
75
38

25,555
19,054
5,511
715

45.8
48.9
74.4
20. Q

1.7
1.7
5.3
.4

13
13
16
U




California: T otal...........................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___
Slaughtering only.......................... ............ ............
M eat packing o n ly . ______ ____________- ______
Oregon: T otal.................................................................
Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated___
Washington: T otal.......................................................

93
24
%
m.
13
8
10

5,573
3,925
451
806
512
468
481

12,955
9,545
933
1,745
1,211
1,133
1,067

506
386
76
24
105
104
87

1
1
0
0
0
0
0

6
5
1
0
1
0
2

499
380
75
24
104
104
85

19,400
13,581
5,211
333
1,099
799
5.056

39.1
40.4
81.5
13.8
86.7
91.8
81.5

1.5
1.4
5.6
.2
.9
.7
4.7

15
15
16
14
8
8
9

1 Does not include reports from 50 establishments from which figures b y State and branch of industry were not received.

2 Totals include figures for items not shown separately because of insufficient data.

’ Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disability cases included.
4 The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
employee-hours worked.




T he severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand

T able 4.— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, by Branch of Industry and Size o f Establishment, fo r 966 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Plants, 1943 1
Injury rates*

Num ber of disabling injuries

Branch of industry and size of plant

N um ber
of units
reporting

Number
of em­
ployees

Employeehours
worked
(thousands)

Resulting inTotal days
lost
Total

Death and
permanent
total dis­
ability 2

Permanent Temporary
partial
total
disability
disability

Frequen­ Severity
cy

Average
days
lost per
tempo­
rary
total
disa­
bility

Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated: T otal.
1 to 24 em ployees................. . _ .......... .................
25 to 49 employees..................................................
50 to 99 employees..................................................
100 to 249 employees..............................................
250 to 499 em ployees...............................................
500 to 749 employees.......... ....................................
760 to 999 em ployees..............................................
1,000 to 2,499 employees.........................................
2,500 employees and over......................................

389
143
72
56
52
22
10
11
14
9

99,379
1.662
2,544
3,898
8,252
8,925
6,276
9,651
23,452
34,719

231,318
3,561
5,705
8,979
19, 509
20,634
14,687
22.444
55,291
80,508

11,258
112
257
379
1,149
1,179
1,119
893
2,891
3,279

10
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
6
1

245
8
7
9
21
10
15
10
73
92

11,003
104
250
370
1,128
1,169
1,103
881
2,812
3,186

413,409
11,343
15,380
11,955
32,676
20,856
23,951
29,364
142,742
125,142

48.7
31.5
45.0
42.2
58.9
57.1
76.2
39.8
52.3
40.7

1.8
3.2
2.7
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.6
1.3
2.6
1.6

12
13
10
13
12
11
11
10
12
14

Slaughtering only: T otal.............................................
1 to 24 employees...................................................
25 to 49 employees................... ...................... .......
50 to 99 employees..................................................
100 employees and over.........................................

177
131
26
11
9

3,866
944
851
743
1,328

8,200
1,898
1,833
1,598
2,871

496
74
115
143
164

1
0
0
0
1

12
3
4
5
0

483
71
111
138
163

31,833
8,803
11,667
3,564
7,799

60.5
39.0
62.7
89.5
57.1

3.9
4.6
6.4
2.2
2.7

14
21
14
12
11

Meat packing only: T otal...........................................
1 to 9 employees......................................................
10 to 24 employees..................................................
25 to 49 employees..................................................
60 to 99 em ployees..................................... ............
100 to 249 employees...............................................
250 to 499 em ployees..............................................
600 employees and over.........................................

400
124
112
73
52
30
6
3

18,142
573
1,789
2,536
3,579
4,530
1,914
3,221

40, 744
1,168
4,036
5,382
7,802
9,909
4,802
7,645

1,209
10
76
124
316
290
191
202

(2)9
0
1
1
2
(1)2
0
(D 3

24
2
0
3
4
5
6
4

1,176
8
75
120
310
283
185
195

88,097
836
6,721
9,677
18, 581
24,038
6,000
22,244

29.7
8.6
18.8
23.0
40.5
29.3
39.8
26.4

2.2
.7
1.7
1.8
2.4
2.4
1.2
2.9

11
30
10
8
11
11
10
12

1Does not include figures for 50 establishments from which information on branch of industry and size of plant were not received.
2Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disability cases included.
? T he 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.




T able 5.— Distribution o f In ju ry Rates in 966 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Plants, by Branch o f Industry and Size o f Establishment, 1943

Branch of industry and size of plant

Slaughtering and meat packing, integrated:
T otal.......................................................................
1 to 24 employees.............................................
26 tp 49 employees........................................... .
50 to 99 em ployees. ..........................................
100 to 249 employees...................................
250 to 499 em ployees.......... .............................
500 to 749 employees.......................................
750 to 999 em ployees....................................... .
1,000 to 2,499 employees................................. .
2,500 employees and o v e r ................ .

Number of establishments with frequency rates of—

Total
number _
of
estab­
lish­
ments

1 to 10

389
143
72
56
52
22
10
11
14
9

134
91
24
14
5

Slaughtering only: T otal—
1 to 24 employees..........
25 to 49 employees.........
50 to 99 em ployees........
100 employees and over.

177
131
26

400
124

24§
116
75

31 to 40

41 to 60

61 to 60

61 to 70

71 to 80

81 to 90

91 to 100

9

27

1

36
6

10
5
4
5

31
5
7
5
S
3
1

19
3
1
5
3
2
2

21
9
3
5
3

3

2
1
1

25
3
3
6
4
2
1
1
5

12
3
2

3

21
5
7
1
3
1

12
3

6
8

7
4
2

5
1
3

1

1

1

3

M eat packing only: T otal..
1 to 9 employees............
10 to 24 em ployees........
25 to 49 employees.........
50 to 99 em ployees_____
100 to 249 em ployees___
250 to 499 em ployees___
500 employees and over.

21 to 30

108
99
5

9

11 to 20




11

112
73
52
30
6
3

2
4
1
2

2
1
2
2
2
5
4

1

1
7

20
4
4

11

1

1
1
1
.
4

2

2
29

7
4

1
1

2

1

1
2

1

4
1
1
1
4
2
2

1
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1

1

7
3

1
2

35
10
7
3
7
4
3

201

and
over

7
4

2
1

1

1
1
7

2
1

1

19
13
3

9
6
2

2

1

15
3

3
1

2

4

o

10

6

101 to 200

1

1 .......

'5 ...........
4
1

1 .......

52
T a b le 6.— Disabling Injuries and Extent o f D isability, by Nature o f In ju ry , fo r 30
Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Establishments, 1943
Number of disabling injuries
Resulting in—

Total
Nature of injury
Number Percent1

All disabling injuries.

___

Dust particles in e v e __
_
_ _ .
With infection. _ _
_
Without infection _
Amputations
T_„,
w
With infection
_
_
Without infection.
_ ____
Bums and scalds
_ —.............. .........
.
With infection
Tx
T
„
Without infection
_
•Outs and lacerations._
With infection..
_ T_
Without infection
_. _
Strains and s p r a in s ___
Bruises__________ _______________________

With infection..
. _
Without infection. _
Fractures... . . . . . _
Hernia
.
Industrial disease.
Dislocations
_
_
Other
T rn I.
.T

. . n n_ _ ,

_
__ _ _
_
, .
T _.

U nknown_______________________________

5,239

100.0

8

181

79
2
77
65
1
64
240
17
223
1,798
465
1,333
1,045
1,424
58
1,366
380
102
59
14
26
7

1.5
<>
*
1.5
1.2
<>
*
1.2
4.6
.3
4.3
34.4
8.9
25.5
20.0
27.2
1.1
26.1
7.3
1.9
1.1
.3
.5

0
0

0
0
0
64
1
63
0
0
0
55
8
47
3
13
0
13
44
0
0

able

0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
4
0

0
0
1

2

0
0

1

1 Percent based on known cases only.
* Amputation of part of toe other than great toe.
T

Per­
Tem ­
porary
manent
partial
total
disability disability

Death

5,050
2
77
1
0
*1
239
17
222
1,742
456
1,286
1,042
1,411
58
1,353
332
102
59
12
25
6

Average
number
of days
lost per
tempo­
rary total
disability

13
6
10
6
62
0
62
13
13
13

H

12
10
12
11
18
11
31
50

22

21
7
10

* Less than 0.05.

7 .— D isa blin g In ju ries and E xten t o f D isa b ility , b y Location o f In ju r y , fo r 3 0
Slaughtering and M ea t-P a ck in g E stablishm ents , 1 9 4 3
Number of disabling injuries
Average
days lost
per tem. porary
•
total
Permanent Tem po­
partial rary total disability
disability disability

Resulting in

Total
Location of injury
Number Percent *

Death

All disabling injuries_______________. . . . . .

5,239

100.0

8

181

5,050

13

H ead............................................ .......... . ........
E ye.............................................................
Brain or skull____. _____ _____ ______
Other..........................................................

372
146
58
168

7.1
2.8
1.1
3.2

4
0
3
1

3
3
0
0

365
143
55
167

10
7
22
9

Trunk........................................ .......................
Chest, lungs, ribs, etc.............................
B ack...........................................................
A bdom en..................................................
H ip (s)........................................................
Shoulder(s)...............................................
Other..........................................................

1,224
205
578
185
47
167
42

23.4
3.9
11.1
3.5
.9
3.2
.8

1
1
0
0
0
0
0

5
0
2
0
3
0
0

1,218
204
576
185
44
167
42

16
14
14
33
13
11
13

Upper extrem ities....................... . ................
Finger(s) and thum b(s).........................
Hand(s) (including wrist)....................
A rm (s)............................... ......................

2,294
1,359
616
319

43.8
25.9
11.8
6.1

1
0
1
0

149
133
12
4

2,144
1,226
603
315

12
11
12
12

Lower extremities...........................................
T o e ( s ) .......................................................
Foot (including ankle) or feet...............
Leg(s)............................. _ ........................

1,290
230
579
481

24.6
4.4
11.0
9.2

0
0
0
0

24
9
6
9

1,266
221
573
472

14
13
14
16

55
4

1.1

2
0

0
0

53
4

24
11

General________ _______ . . . ______ _______
U nknown______________________ ________
Percent based on known cases only.




T a b l e 8.— Disabling In ju ries , by Location and Nature o f In ju ry , fo r 30 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Establishments, 1943
Total disabling
injuries

Nature of injury

Location of injury
N um ­
ber

Total disabling injuries:
Nnmhfir ...... _ r
Percent l ._ r _
Head

_

_ .

_r_ _
_____

. . . . ______
_ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Eyefs). ......
Brain, skull
Other
___

_______

T r a n k ...

Chest, lungs, ribs, etc_

_ _ _

B a c k . . . ................................................. .........

Abdomen
r .
Hipfsl
.
___
Shoulder(s) _ _
Other.
_.

. _
..
.

Upper extremities

___ . _.
. _ _

_

Finger(s), thum b(s)....................... .............
H a n d (s)_________________________________
A rm (s)_________________________________

Lower extremities __

.

___

^ ^_

T o e (s ).................................................... ..........
Foot (including ankle) or feet........ ...........
Leg(s) _ , _____
General___

_____

Unknown_______

_ __

i Percent based on know n cases only.




Per­
cen t1

5,239
100.0

79
1.5

65
1.2

372
146
58
168

7.1
2.8
1.1
3.2

1,224
205
578
185
47
167
42

23.4
3.9
11.1
3.5
.9
3.2
.8

2,294
1,359
616
319

43.8
25.9
11.8
6.1

63
62

1,290
230
579
481

24.6
4.4
11.0
9.2

2
2

55
4

1.1

79
79

Cuts
and lac­
erations

Strains
and
sprains

Bruises

240
4.6

1,798
34.4

1,045
20.0

1,424
27.2

380
7.3

46
22

Dust
particles A m pu­
tation
in eyes

Burns
and
scalds

110
24
23
63

6

9

6

112
16
27
69

20
6

349
110
89
27
28
58
37

53
41
2

24
{
2
4

Frac­
tures

Hernia

102
1.9

Indus­
Disloca­
trial
tions
diseases

59
1.1

26
0.5

7
2
1

3
3

1

1

4
102

2
1

102

Un­
known

4
4

14
0.3

4

8
1

Other

8

1

1
2

1

7
4
2
1

677
42
483
47
12
92
1

86
13
32
41

1,507
1,032
345
130

105
16
56
33

345
139
116
90

137
83
37
17

40
4
29
7

5
5

4
3
1

2
2

79
1
55
23

159
7
61
91

256
1
170
85

607
115
241
251

181
103
49
29

1

1

1

1

1

3
1
2

19
1

1
1

I

11

3
6
1

1
8

12

12

1

1

54
T

able

9 .— N atu re o f In ju r y fo r A U R eported In ju ries o f 1 L a rge Slaughtering a n d
M ea t-P a ck in g E stablishm ent, 1 9 4 3
Number of injuries reported
Nature of injury

Total
N ondis­
abling
Number

A ll injuries.......................................................

P ercent1
100.0

15,384

A m putations...................................................
Burns and scalds..............................................
Lacerations, cuts, etc_____ __________ ____
Sprains and strains..........................................
Bruises and contusions...................................
Fractures...........................................................
H ern ia.............. ...............................................
Industrial disease.............................................
Unknown
.
_ ............... .
Other. ...............................................................

Disabling

Ratio of
nondis­
abling to
disabling

5
471
6,964
548
874
22
14
458
1,114
4,914

(2
)

3.3
48.9
3.8
6.1
.2
.1
3.2
34.4

15,238

146

104.0

0
469
6,941
520
844
7
7
457
1,088
4.905

5
2
23
28
30
15
7
1
26
9

0
234.5
301.8
18.6
28.1
.5
1.0
457.0
545.4

1 Percent of known cases.
2Less than 0.05.
T a b l e 10.— N u m ber o f In ju ries Sustained b y E ach F u ll-Y ea r E m p loyee in 1 Large
Slaughtering and M ea t-P a ck in g E stablishm ent, N ovem ber 1 9 4 3 to October 1 9 4 4
Number of employees
Number of injuries to
same worker
Number

Cumula­
tive
number

Number of injuries

Cumula­
tive
percent

Cumula­
tive
number

Number

Cumula­
tive
percent

T otal............................................

330

330

100.0

1,279

1,279

100.0

Over 25................................... .
21 to 25.......................................
16 to 20............................ ...........
11 to 15........................................
10............................................... 9....................................................
8....................................................
7.................................................. .
6....................................................
5....................................................
4....................................................
3.................................................2 ...................................................
...............................................
N one............................................

2
4
6
17
6
16
10
7
14
18
31
33
28
32
106

2
6
12
29
35
51
61
68
82
100
131
164
192
224
330

.6
1.8
3.6
8.8
10.6
15.5
18.5
20.6
24.8
30.3
39.7
49.7
58.2
67.9
100.0

58
89
102
212
60
144
80
49
84
90
124
99
56
32

58
147
249
461
521
665
745
794
878
968
1.092
1,191
1,247
1,279

4 .5»
11.5
19.5
36.0’
40.7
52.0!
58.2
62.1
68.6
75.7
85.4
93.1
97.5
100-01

1...




ft

T able 11.— Disabling Injuries and Extent o f D isability, by A gen cy and Part, fo r 29
Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Establishments, 1943
Number of disabling injuries
Average
days
lost per
temporary
total
Permanent Temporary disability
partial
total
disability
disability

Total

Resulting in -

Agency and part
N um ­
ber

Per­
cent 1

A ll agencies................................................

5,053

100.0

8

169

4,876

13

M a ch in es..................................................
Point of operation................. ...........
Other parts..........................................

185
94
91

3.7
1.9
1.8

0
0
0

56
36
20

129
58
71

17
19
16

Death

Elevators............................. ......................

46

.9

2

4

40

26

•Conveyors..................................................

185

3.7

1

6

178

14

V eh icles...................... .............................
M otor...................................................
Hand-operated— .............................
Other............................ .......................

759
65
658
36

15.3
1.3
13.3
.7

0
0
0
0

14
5
9
0

745
60
649
36

14
17
14
25

Animals............................................... .

146

2.9

0

5

141

13

Hand tools................................. ...............
Meat hooks..........................................
K n iv es...............................................
O ther...................................................

983
57
753
173

19.8
1.1
15.2
3.5

1
0
1
0

45
1
34
10

937
56
718
163

10
11
10
11

Chemicals...................................................

83

1.7

0

0

83

12

Hot substances______________ _____ __

166

3.3

1

0

165

13

Working surfaces............ .........................
Floors..........................................
Platforms.............................................
Other....................... ............................

750
640
64
46

15.1
12.9
1.3
.9

0
0
0
0

3
2
1
0

747
638
63
46

16
15
16
15

M iscellaneoiis....................... ....................
Barrels, boxes, kegs, e t c ...................
Benches, tables..................................
Cans and drums........ .........................
Cuts of meat (projecting bones)___
Foreign bodies (eye injuries). . . ___
Lumber stock......................................
Metal s to c k ................................ .
Stairways.... .......................................
Other....................................................

1,654
359
51
63
276
60
50
92
164
539

33.6
7.2
1.0
1.3
5.6
1.2
1.0
1.9
3.3
11.1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

35
11
2
0
1
0
0
5
4
12

1,618
348
49
63
275
60
50
87
160
526

13
13
15
9
14
6
8
14
14
14

Unknown__________________________ _

96

2

1

93

17

» Percent based on known cases only.




56
T a b l e 12.— Disabling Injuries and Extent of D isa b ility by T yp e of Accident, fo r 29
Slaughtering and M eat-Pack ing Establishments, 1943
Num ber of disabling injuries
Average
days
lost per
temporary
total
Permanent Temporary
disability
partial
total
disability
disability

Total

Resulting in—

T yp e of accident
N um ­
ber

Per­
cent 1

All types of accident__________________

5,053

100.0

8

169

4,876

13

Striking against______________________
Machines........................... - ...............
Point of op era tion .-...................
Other parts........................- ........
Conveyors........... ...............................
Vehicles.................... ..........................
Hand tools............ ..............................
Knife.............................................
Meat hook....................................
Other.............................................
Miscellaneous.....................................
Barrels, boxes, k e g s...................
Cuts of meat (projecting bones)
Projecting nails...........................
Other.............................................

1,475
53
27
26
29
99
775
646
46
83
519
57
114
35
313

29.7
1.1
.6
.5
.6
2.0
15.6
13.0
.9
1.7
10.4
1.1
2.3
.7
6.3

1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

55
18
15
3
0
0
31
27
0
4
6
0
1
0
5

1,419
35
12
23
29
99
743
618
46
79
513
57
113
35
308

11
15
17
15
10
13
10
10
11
12
10
12
9
11
10

Struck b y ....... - ..........................................
Conveyors...........................................
Load..............................................
Other parts...................................
Vehicles........ ........ ..............................
Hand-operated............................
Other.............................................
Hand tools............ — ........................
Knife.............................................
Meat hook....................................
Other.............................................
Miscellaneous.....................................
Barrels, boxes, kegs....................
Cuts of meat (projecting bones).
Foreign bodies (eye injuries) —
Other.............................................

1,113
120
66
54
258
227
31
168
101
11
56
567
110
46
59
352

22.3
2.4
1.3
1.1
5.2
4.6
.6
3.4
2.1
.2
1.1
11.3
2.2
.9
1.2
7.0

1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

28
4
3
1
3
1
2
11
7
1
3
10
5
0
0
5

1,084
115
62
53
255
226
29
157
94
10
55
557
105
46
59
347

12
15
16
13
13
11
25
12
13
13
11
12
15
12
6
12

Caught in, on, or between......................
Machines.................................... ........
Elevators.............................................
Vehicles..............................................
Hand-operated............................
Other.............................................
Other....................................................

435
95
21
1C4
170
24
125

8.7
1.9
.4
3.9
3.4
.5
2.5

1
0
1
0
0
0
0

68
37
2
11
8
3
18

366
58
18
183
162
21
107

16
21
26
15
15
17
14

Falls.............................................................
On same level.......... ..........................
W orking surfaces........................
Floors.....................................
Other......................................
Other.............................................
T o different level...............................
From stairways...........................
Other.............................................

849
619
538
499
39
81
230
116
114

17.0
12.4
10.8
10.0
.8
1.6
4.6
2.3
2.3

1
Q
0
0
0
0
1
0
1

13
6
1
1
0
5
7
3
4

835
613
537
498
39
76
222
113
109

16
15
15
15
12
16
19
15
23

Slips (not falls) and overexertion...........
Lifting, pulling, pushing..................
Barrels, boxes, etc......................
Cuts of meat................................
Hand trucks........................................
Other.............................................
Slips (not falls).......................... ........
On working surfaces...................
Floors................... ................
Other......................................
On stairways...............................
Other.............................................

801
601
155
109
154
183
200
145
120
25
25
30

16.0
12.0
3.1
2.2
3.1
3.6
4.0
2.9
2.4
.5
.5
.6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
2
1
0
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
0

797
599
154
109
154
182
198
143
119
24
25
30

15
16
13
21
15
16
14
15
16
12
12
11

Death

Contact with temperature extremes___

181

3.6

1

0

180

13

Inhalation, absorption, or ingestion___
Chemical bum s..................................
Other....................................................

97
39
58

1.9
.8
1.1

0
0
0

0
0
0

97
39
58

19
14
22:

O th e r -........................................................
U nknown....................................................

40
62

.8

0
3

0
1

40
58

11
15

* Percent based on known cases only.




57
T a b l e 13.— Disabling Injuries and Extent o f D isability, by Unsafe W orking Condition*
in 29 Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Establishments, 1943
Number of disabling injuries
Average
days
lost per
temporary
total
Permanent Temporary disability
partial
total
disability
disability

Resulting in -

Total
Unsafe working condition
N um ­
ber

Per­
cent 1

T otal_______________________

5,053

100.0

8

169

4,876

13

Improperly guarded agencies.
Machines............................
Other...................................

68
37
31

3.9
2.1
1.8

1
0
1

22
21
1

45
16
29

22
21
22

1,061
601
500
101

60.2
34.1
28.4
5.7

0
0
0
0

12
7
2
5

1,049
594
498
96

14

106
354

6.0
20.1

0
0

1
4

105
350

9
12

Defects of agencies_______ __________
Slippery ........................................ .
Working surfaces....................
O ther.......................................
Sharp-edged bones in meat cuts
and carcasses.............................. .
Other..__________ ______________
Hazardous arrangement or procedure
in, on, or around selected agency —
Unsafely stored or piled tools,
materials, etc.............................—
Unsafely loaded conveyors........
Unsafely loaded vehicles______
O t h e r ..................................... —
Congestion of working surfaces.......
Other....................................................
Lack of proper safety equipment.
Other ........... - .......................... —
U nkn ow n2............. ......... —..........

Death

m

16
1&

594

33.7

2

14

578

14

322
52
53
217
108
164

18.3
3.0
3.0
12.3
6.1
9.3

1
1
0
0
0
1

9
3
0
6
2
3

312
48
53
211
106
160

12
13
12
12
12
18

29
10
3,291

1.6
.6

0
1
4

0
0
121

29
9
3,166

13
17
13

i Percent based on number of injuries resulting from accidents in which an unsafe working condition
was known to exist.
* Includes cases in which no unsafe working condition existed.




58
T able 14.— Disabling Injuries and Extent of D isability, by Unsafe A ct, fo r 29
Slaughtering and M eat-Packing Establishments, 1943
Number of disabling injuries
Average
days
lost per
temporary
total
Permanent Tem porary disability
partial
total
disability
disability

Total

Kesulting in -

Unsafe act
N um ­
ber

T otal............................................................
Operating without authority; failure to
secure or warn........................................
Operating or working at unsafe speed—
Using unsafe equipment, hands instead
of equipment, or equipment unsafely.
Unsafe use of equipm ent....... ..........
Gripping objects insecurely or
taking wrong hold of objects___
M achines.....................................
Vehicles.........................................
Hand-operated....... ..............
Other......................................
Hand tools....................................
Knife......................................
Meat hooks...........................
O th er....................................
Miscellaneous.............................
Barrels, boxes, kegs.............
Meat cuts..... ..................... —
Other......................................
Other....................................................
Unsafe loading, placing, m ixing............
Arranging or placing objects or
materials unsafely..... .....................
Other....................................................
Failure to use proper safety equipment.
Taking unsafe position of posture..........
Inattention to footing........................
Other....................................................
Lifting incorrectly or lifting too heavy
loads— ...................................................
Barrels, boxes, kegs, etc................
Meat cuts............................................
Vehicles, hand-operated..... ..............
Other....................................................
O th er'.........................................................
U nknown..... ............ .................... ...........

Per­
cent 1

5,053

100.0

8

169

4,876

13

52
67

1.7
2.2

0
0

5
1

47
66

24
13

1,599
114

52.1
3.7

1
0

85
13

1,513
101

11
15

1,485
57
247
235
12
753
619
42
92
417
108
40
269
11
113

48.4
1.9
8.1
7.7
.4
24.4
20.0
1.4
3.0
13.6
3.5
1.3
8.8
.4
3.7

1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

72
17
8
8
0
34
26
1
7
13
6
0
7
0
2

1,412
40
239
227
12
718
592
41
85
404
102
40
262
11
111

11
14
12
11
13
10
10
8
11
13
13
13
13
18
13

100
13
22
609
331
278

3.3
.4
.7
19.9
10.8
9.1

0
0
0
2
1
1

2
0
1
25
5
20

98
13
21
582
325
257

13
9
U
S
14
15
13

549
139
99
147
164
54
1,988

17.9
4.5
3.2
4.8
5.4
1.8

0
0
0
0
0
0
5

2
1
0
0
1
8
40

547
138
99
147
163
46
1,943

16
12
22
16
16
14
14

Death

1 Percent based on known cases only.




lOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19 45


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102