Restrictive and so-called protective employment policies with regard to impaired workers in the past have been based mainly on two premises: (1) accident proneness and (2) liability for second injuries. The questions of productivity, efficiency and absenteeism have been secondary considerations.In early studies on accident proneness in this country, physical defects have not assumed as important a role as the question of human failure—that is, faulty attitudes, failure to recognize potential hazards, faulty judgment of speed or distance, impulsiveness, irresponsibility or failure to keep attention constant.17 Even in a more recent study, made in a large government department of the unsafe personal factors in lost time accidents, it was disclosed that improper attitude was responsible for 55 per cent of lost time accidents; lack of knowledge or skill was responsible for 21 per cent of lost time accidents, and bodily defects were responsible for only 2 per
HARVEY VK, LUONGO EP. PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE, PRODUCTION AND EFFICIENCY, SICK ABSENTEEISM AND TURNOVER AMONG 2,858 PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED AND 5,523 ABLE BODIED WORKERS IN GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY. JAMA. 1945;127(15):961–970. doi:10.1001/jama.1945.02860150005002
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: