Beth n Rod

Got any pics???

This is worth thinking about... http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0801/dryclean.html See below.... Interestingly, after the Federal Govt. released a statement that is banning a dry cleaning chemical commonly used in the carpet cleaning industry, we have seen 3 carpet companies become overnight deck companies. The market is changing, and it's not just the newbies who are changing it. The Government has an impact on various sectors. Beth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How Clean is Dry Cleaning? — The Risks of Perchloroethylene by Jonathan H. Adler Dry cleaners are one of the most ubiquitous of small businesses. In some communities there is a dry cleaner on nearly every corner, where consumers can receive one-day — or even one-hour — cleaning services. Although most shops are very small — the average dry cleaner has only five employees — nationwide the industry employs nearly 175,000 people. Yet, if some consumer and environmental activists have their way, dry cleaning will become a thing of the past. Dry cleaning is not truly a "dry" process. Liquid chemical solvents are used to remove stains and soil from clothing in washing machines, and the solvent-cleaned garments are then dried. The primary dry-cleaning solvent used today is perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene and commonly referred to as "perc" or PCE. First used in the 1930s, perc is now used, alone or in combination, by almost 90 percent of dry cleaners in the United States. It is the use of perc that has Greenpeace, Consumers Union and other groups up in arms. A 1992 opinion piece in The New York Times labeled perc as "highly toxic" and called upon New York's city government to "remove all the city's cleaners from apartment buildings." That same year Consumer Reports claimed that "You're likely to be exposed to some level of perc simply by wearing recently dry-cleaned clothes or storing them in your house." "The consequences of perc's wanderings can range from general ill health to cancer and birth defects for workers, consumers and people who live near dry cleaners," according to Greenpeace, which has also cited claims that dry-cleaned clothing "placed in a closed car next to a bag of groceries has contaminated food in less than one hour." Greenpeace has called for a complete elimination of perc usage as part of its campaign to phase out the use of chlorine in all of its applications. But is perc really so bad? Does Perc Cause Cancer? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies perc as an animal carcinogen and places it on the continuum between possible and probable human carcinogens. The initial claims that perc might be a human carcinogen were based upon animal tests. A 1977 bioassay conducted by the National Cancer Institute indicated that perchloroethylene could induce liver cancer in mice, but not in rats. A 1985 study on rats and mice of both sexes conducted by the National Toxicology Program also concluded that there was "clear evidence" of the rodent carcinogenicity of perchloroethylene. Yet, while positive results in animal tests can provide some indication of whether a compound is potentially carcinogenic to humans, such tests are never conclusive. If low-to-moderate exposure to perc presents a cancer threat to humans, one would expect to see epidemiological evidence, such as increased rates of cancers among dry-cleaning workers, who are exposed to significant levels of perc in their working environment. According to the assumptions of the EPA, one would expect approximately 350 additional cancers annually among dry-cleaning workers from perc exposure. But occupational exposure studies have not found a smoking gun to correlate any cancer risk with occupational perc exposure. Some studies, such as that conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), have found a slight increase in cancer mortality rates for dry-cleaning workers. Other studies suggest, however, that this increase could result from the fact that "dry cleaners may smoke more than members of other occupations" and suggest that alcohol use and expected socioeconomic status may also be factors. In those studies in which it was possible to subdivide workers by exposure to different solvents, the slight increase in cancer mortality was not observable in those subgroups exposed only to perc. If dry-cleaning workers are at risk from perc, scientific studies have yet to bear that out. In the words of the EPA Science Advisory Board, perc "is an example of a chemical for which there is no compelling evidence of human cancer risk." This is not to say that perc is harmless. As with most chemical substances, the ill effects of perc are dependent upon the level of exposure. Exposure to high levels of perc — 200 parts per million (ppm) or more — for prolonged periods of time can induce headaches, dizziness, nausea and eye and skin irritation. Even higher exposures intensify these reactions and can, in extreme cases, result in unconsciousness or even death. High levels of perc exposure also have been correlated with damage to the liver and the central nervous system. Perc is also moderately toxic if ingested. Yet, exposure to such high levels of perc is extremely rare, if not nonexistent. The level inside most dry cleaners is no more than 30 ppm, far below the level at which acute effects can be observed. Perc in Apartments A recent study conducted by Consumers Union revived fears that those living near dry cleaners are risking their health. The CU study examined levels of perc in New York City apartments in the same buildings as dry-cleaning establishments. Most such apartments, CU found, have levels above the New York State guideline for long-term perc exposure. "The cleaners in the study had modern equipment, yet still made the air upstairs unfit to breathe," charged CU's Dr. Edward Groth, director of the study. Other studies conducted in New York and elsewhere have found that homes and apartments near dry cleaners can have elevated perc levels. While it is certainly possible that some apartments above dry cleaners could have dangerously high perc levels, the CU study found nothing to suggest a widespread problem. The New York State guideline sets perc exposure levels at less than one one-thousandth of those levels at which health effects have been observed. And whereas the federal government's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets the acceptable perc exposure level at 25 ppm, the CU study measured perc levels in the parts per billion. Of 29 apartments examined, only eight had perc levels even one one-hundredth of the OSHA standard. The highest indoor perc level identified by CU was still less than one fifth of the current OSHA standard. Earlier studies, such as a 1991 review of apartment perc levels conducted by the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, had similar findings. In short, there is little evidence to support the Greenpeace claim that the local dry cleaner is a very dangerous neighbor. Perc Versus the Alternatives When discussing the risks posed by perc, it is important to recognize that perc is used by most dry cleaners today because it is far safer than the alternatives it displaced. In the past most dry-cleaning solvents were petroleum derivatives, such as kerosene. Needless to say, the use of such highly flammable substances posed a significant threat of fire to early cleaners; and fires were frequent at cleaning plants. Interestingly enough, the first regulations to affect dry cleaning in the United States were local ordinances intended to reduce the risk of fire. Greenpeace, in conjunction with the Center for Neighborhood Technology and the EPA, has been promoting a "non-toxic" alternative to perc and other chemical solvents. Greenpeace recommends the use of "Eco-Clean," an "organic" washing process virtually indistinguishable from the "wet" (water-based) cleaning process used by most consumers at home. The environmental group Great Lakes United (GLU) claims that water-based cleaning is no more expensive than dry cleaning, but still argues that "governments have to order the phase-out of perc within 10 to 15 years" in order "to ensure the commercial viability" of water-based alternatives. GLU and Greenpeace would like to see the end of dry cleaning altogether, as part of their larger campaign against all industrial uses of chlorine. While phasing out chlorine chemistry may seem an extreme step, the EPA has responded to Greenpeace's pressure by investigating Eco-Clean's potential to be a perc replacement. Additionally, the dry-cleaning industry has tentatively agreed to expand the use of "wet" cleaning where it is practicable, even though industry representatives at the International Fabricare Institute and Neighborhood Cleaners Association are quick to point out that water-based cleaning processes cannot effectively clean all types of garments. Eliminating the use of perchloroethylene and other cleaning solvents would be the end of "dry-clean-only" garments. Regulating Cleaners Even if the Greenpeace campaign were to go away, dry cleaners would still not have an easy go of it. The use of perc by dry cleaners is heavily regulated. As noted above, occupational exposures are controlled by OSHA, and some states have workplace limits four times more stringent than required by federal law. As is the case with most chemicals, when it comes to disposal, perc is regulated as a hazardous waste, as are cleaning filters and other disposable items that may contain minute traces of the chemical. Perc is recycled by most dry cleaners; nevertheless, the disposal of hazardous wastes costs many dry cleaners several thousand dollars per year. The EPA also regulates potential emissions of perc into the air. Originally, perc was controlled because the EPA believed that it might contribute to urban smog. It was learned in the early 1980s that perc is not a contributor to smog; but as of this writing, the EPA has yet to formally declare perc exempt from regulations designed to control smog under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (such action is expected shortly). Further, though soon to be exempt from one set of clean-air rules, perc is still subject to rules designed to control substances labeled by Congress as hazardous air pollutants. These rules will cost dry cleaners an estimated $30 million nationwide, according to the EPA, despite the lack of any evidence that present emission levels pose any threat to public health. The small size of most dry cleaners has not enabled them to escape significant regulatory burdens. Dry-cleaning operations, particularly those involving perc, are heavily regulated. As is too often the case, these regulations are based more on unsubstantiated fears about threats to public health than on sound scientific evidence. To make matters worse, there are some extreme activists that would like to put all dry cleaners out of business. But dry cleaning is one of the comforts of modern life, and there is no reason why we should have to do without it. Portions of this article were adapted from Jonathan Adler's Taken to the Cleaners: A Case Study of the Overregulation of American Small Business, published by the Cato Institute (1993). Jonathan H. Adler is Director of Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America (Capital Research Center, 1995).

John, I can't tell...open or enclosed in the back? Beth :groovy:

This article appead last year in BlastMaster Magazine. It should be noted that it barely skims the surface and doesn't cover teaching the techniques you need to sell in a consultative manner. ======================================= What’s the most effective way to sell? There are many schools of thought, and plenty of books and tapes on this subject. It's a personal subject, and what's right for you, may not be right for someone else. But, there are some things to keep in mind when in front of the customer which hopefully will lead you to greener pastures. Sales people are often stereotyped, and any time you use a hard close you run the risk of evoking the image of a used car salesman in the buyers mind. Now combine that with the stereotype that follows contractors of any sort around...and you quickly have two professional strikes against you. I’m not going to talk about hard sell closing techniques today, but what I am gong to share with you, is a consultative method of selling. The consultative method is designed to place you in the roll of educating the consumer as a professional. The two most important things to remember about consultative selling are to listen, and to seek to understand by asking questions. It’s that simple. By asking questions about their needs, what they want done, and why it's important to them, you will quickly learn things you might not otherwise. Then just listen. Why? Because if you don't listen, you haven’t heard what's important to them. You can blather on all day about the job you say you can do, but if you don't hear the questions and statements, and if you don't understand why they ask what they ask, then you’ll miss the mark. "Seek to understand before you seek to be understood." Then, based on the answers, provide them with information, and educate them. Answer their questions and help rid them of fears, which may be there because the last guy burned them. Whatever you do, don’t just run your mouth and do all the talking. Listening means you let the customer talk to you about what is important to them, and why. It's more important to ask questions and provide fundamental information, than to blindly bombard them with your knowledge, not knowing if you covered the topics of interest to them. Watch their body language, listen to the tone of voice, and work as hard as you can to see their perspective. Don't push for the sale right off the bat. Give them time to discuss it together, and let them come to you. Why? When you pressure someone, people have a natural tendency to shy away and back off. If they do sign they may regret it and try to get out of it, although not always. It can sometimes create fear-based problems in the relationship between client and contractor. However, when you don't pressure them and remain consultative, they simply remove their own objections - POOF - and move toward buying, because they are comfortable with forming the relationship. Objections are based on fear, and can be created by the sales person. Imagine that. We are often our own worst enemy! It's pretty basic. If you feel at ease and comfortable your guard comes down and you're more likely to commit to buying the service. If the guard is up it becomes a wrestling match and you spend valuable time trying to get the guard down. If you ask them if they need time to think it over with their spouse or want to go ahead and get started, they seem to appreciate that you took into consideration that they might want time to make a decision without pressure. Give them room to feel positive about the decision they are making. It helps them feel more comfortable about having work done on the single biggest investment they have made. Their home. Sure, you can tell them about chemicals and sealants till you’re blue in the face, and scare them in the process. But if all they really want to hear is that you'll cover the plants so you don't kill the prize winning rose bushes, then isn't that the place you need to be? Ask them why they’re not using your competitor anymore, you find out where their pain is. Solving the problem is based on healing their pain, and their pain, is where the objections lie. Try it. Consultative selling is not at all about the "pitch" or the "close" but about the relationship and the customer overcoming their own objection. If you are talking with the client and answering questions, no pressure, and giving them all the time and space in the world, you’re using consultative techniques. People have enough stress in their lives, enough pressure to have to make yet one more decision at the drop of a hat because someone is standing in their doorway. Of course, you should always follow up with them, but just a few points about doing that too. Do have a reason to call. Don’t just call to pester them. Get a commitment on the phone or face-to-face regarding the next step they wish to take. Always follow up when you say you will. Many folks out there show up late, don't return calls, and when they do show up look sloppy and unprofessional which doesn’t reflect a positive company image. If you do these things based on what they are comfortable with the pressure is gone, and they feel better. Example. You talk to John Doe at ABC Widget Company about cleaning the exterior of his building. He's interested but says it's a few months out. At that point I would ask him several things. For one, is it in the budget to do this year, and of course next, I would ask him when would be a better time to follow up (30, 60, 90 days) and get him to tell you. Then when you call him back you remind him that he asked you to call him in 30 days, and then ask if the project is still on track? NO, when do I call again? YES, well that’s great news, when can I do a site visit and provide you with a proposal? When do you expect to make a decision? Having your prospect overcome their own objections boils down to leading the dance. Somewhere along the line you have to do a little research and ask some questions that many people find uncomfortable to ask or even to answer. You have to discover their "pain". Why are they looking for a new company? What didn't they like about the other one? Where did they fall short of meeting expectations? What you’re getting from all of this digging is finding out what their hot buttons are, what to do, and what not to do in order to get the business. From there, you should be able to position yourself so that your company appeals to them, and they won't even realize they told you how to do it. That's why I say customers overcome their own objections. Also, if they ask a question about if you can do a particular thing, and you can't it doesn't mean you are out the door. The next question from you should be "does this mean we should not keep going?" "Is it going to be a problem?" Very often we perceive there is an objection, and there isn't one. When you ask that question and you are able to do 95% of what they want, well, suddenly that last thing may not be an issue at all. Maybe they want you to repot the petunias in the lobby of the building when you wash the windows. But, you aren't a landscaping company. It doesn’t mean they won't recognize it, and it really, is not an objection at all. It's all an education process for the both of you, and at the end of all the discussion you will either agree to give it a shot, or not. To present your company well, make certain you know your product inside and out. Understand your customer’s needs and if the person you are dealing with is the decision maker or not. Look around you. Can they afford what you’re about to propose? You should be able to tell. Make sure you listen to the customer and never, ever interrupt them. Don’t give them a chance to say no. Show them the samples you have. Don’t ask to show them samples. It’s expected behavior to see them in a presentation. Present them with professional looking materials, and review all the materials with them. They’ll appreciate that you took the time. Consultative selling is not at all about a pitch that's canned, its about discovering the clients needs, understanding their particular business and personal reasons for buying, and then using them to position your product or service, so they will buy it.

Hi Michael, What a wonderful post. Thank you for sharing your expereinces. Consultative selling may mean different things to different people. When I studied it, I was amazed to find there is no hard selling involved at all, and the customer basically closes themselves. The method I use is the Sandler method. Now Dale Carnegie on the other hand....that's a hard sell for sure. When I get the chance later I'll check your links. Thanks again. Beth

Guidelines to Interview Questions You Can Legally Ask May 1999 - Subject: Age Acceptable: If hired, can you provide proof that you are at least 18 years of age? Unacceptable: What is your date of birth? What is your age? - Subject: Residence Acceptable: What is your present address? Unacceptable: Do you own or rent your residence? Give the names and relationships of persons living with you. - Subject: Photograph Acceptable: A photograph may be required after hire for identification card or other I.D. purposes. Unacceptable: Submit a photograph with your application form or after the interview. - Subject: Education Acceptable: List your academic, vocational, or professional education and the public and private schools you have attended. Unacceptable: List the dates you attended or graduated from high school or college. - Subject: Citizenship Acceptable: Are you a citizen of the United States? If not, are you prevented from becoming legally employed because of visa or immigration status? Unacceptable: Of what country are you a citizen? Are you or other members of your family naturalized citizens? If so, when did they become citizens? Do you intend to become a U.S. citizen? - Subject: National Origin/Ancestry Acceptable: What languages do you read, speak, or write fluently? (Only if another language is a job requirement.) Unacceptable: What is your lineage, ancestry, national origin, descent, parentage or nationality? What is your native language? - Subject: Height and weight Acceptable: None, unless employer proves that a bona fide occupational qualification is involved. Unacceptable: What is your height and weight? - Subject: Arrests and convictions Acceptable: Have you ever been convicted of a crime? Have you ever committed a crime? Have you ever pled “no contest” to a crime? Unacceptable: Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been charged with a crime? - Subject: Marital or family status Acceptable: None. Unacceptable: Are you married? What is your spouse’s name? How many children do you have? Are you pregnant? Do you plan to have children? Do you have reliable daycare? - Subject: Organizations Acceptable: List any professional, trade, or service organizations you belong to. Unacceptable: List all social organizations, clubs, societies, and lodges you belong to. - Subject: Disabilities Acceptable: Are you capable of performing the necessary assignments required by this job in a safe manner? Unacceptable: Are you disabled? http://newsletter.omniagroup.com/e_article000013109.cfm

I would check that state by state. Alot depends on the wording too. Beth

Henry, Wood Tux was field tested last year and was also studied in a side by side against a major compeditor's product. Wood Tux held up better. We have samples here if you want to swing by and get some, along with the chemical samples. Heck, say the word and I'll drive by and drop it at your doorstep. You're what....three blocks away? Check it out for yourself. We have gone back to decks and fences, and they are just as beautiful today as they were in April and May when newly applied. Beth p.s. the testing on wet wood is going well, no ill effects to report thus far, but no statement from Extreme Solutions yet. That's a next year thing.

Clark, There you have it! :) Thanks Greg! Beth :groovy:

Yes. We use both non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. Beth

You're welcome Dave! :) Happy hiring! :)

Important reading, if you missed it the first time...

Easy of application for an even look... Quality ingrediants..... Durability.... We like Cabot. Beth

We're using oil based products on wood furniture. There are only a few we will use... Sikkens Cetol SRD Cabot Australian Timber Oil for Hardwood (when working on hardwood) Wood Tux Be careful. Some furniture comes prefinished and had been dipped or process in products that can be hard to spot. This can lead to problems with compatability, and damage to the furniture even after washing. A good rule of thumb might be if it's not really weathered, leave it alone. Randy, If wood has a prior finish, I would say use HD-80 and then brighten with Citralic. You can use he HD-80 at a lower concentration if there is not much stain left. Not knowing what the stain/sealer was on the wood, I can't say EFC-38 would take it off. It's meant to work on oils, but not solids or films. HD-80 works on those. Beth

Extreme Solution should have a brown color out soon too for the Wood Tux. ;)

By Michelle Nichols Dead Right -- and 100% Wrong The temptation to argue with potential customers can kill a sale, which is why smart reps know when to button their lips. These days, competition is tough. Sometimes it's dog-eat-dog. Other days, it's tiger-eat-dog -- and you're the dog. But have you ever considered that you, the salesperson, might also be competing with your customers? It happens more often than you might think, and it seldom does either party any good. Consider this scenario and whether it sounds familiar: After fighting to land a face-to-face meeting with Ms. Big, you finally arrive at her office. She allows 15 minutes for you to prove why she should buy what you're selling. Exhaustive preparations have filled you with confidence, the show begins -- and quickly goes astray. You describe a feature of your product, then she raises an objection, and you, in turn, razzle-dazzle her with fancy footwork that, so far as you're concerned, resolves and negates every possible quibble. Then she raises yet another concern -- and you slug that one out of the ballpark, too. This process keeps repeating until the time is up. You're exhausted as you find yourself being shown to the door without a purchase order in hand. Worse, you have sensed that Ms. Big will never again give you an opportunity to make a sale. MY BIG MOUTH. What happened? In a nutshell, you got into a competition with your customer. Rather than your product being the central issue, the encounter was dominated by the question of who was smarter -- which of you was the alpha dog. It's an easy trap to fall into because, if you're any sort of salesperson, you'll know pretty much everything about your product, its applications and benefits, and why it's the perfect solution for your customer's needs. The problem is that you weren't just right, you were "dead right," as I like to put it. By being correct about every little issue and detail that came up in the course of the pitch, you made the customer wrong. Even though, on a factual and technical basis, everything you said was unimpeachably correct, you alienated the prospect and the pitch went nowhere. Confession time: I made this same mistake only recently. After a day of sales training, the president of the company with which I was consulting made a casual statement about his sales reps while driving me to the airport. Without thinking, I blurted out, "No, that's just not true," and went on to explain my opinion. The customer looked shocked. I still believe I was right, but why couldn't I have just taken a sip of coffee or popped a breath mint instead of shooting from the lip? Instead, I chose to show off how smart I was -- or rather, how smart I thought I was -- and built a wall between the CEO and myself. Ouch! For both of us. Back in the 1980s, the sales method in vogue was what I call "sales karate." No matter what your customer said, you had a prepared response. Like a karate match, it was attack, respond, attack, respond. By the 1990s, the prevailing wisdom on the art of selling had witnessed a shift: The goal was to throw your client off-balance. When your customer complained that your product cost too much, you were supposed to fire back with something like, "That's exactly why you should buy it!" This was intended to stun the prospect into silence while you justified your higher-than-expected price and presented as a reason to buy. Again, it was just like sparring in a martial arts dojo. COMBAT FATIGUE. If you have ever wondered why some prospective customers aren't shy about indicating their dislike of salespeople, one reason could be that they have simply grown tired of fighting with them! Your customers face enough battles with their bosses, co-workers, bill collectors, and the rest of the world. Unless they have the personality of Rambo, the last thing they want is more combat and confrontation. They may not say it in as many words, but their most fervent wish is for there to be peace on earth -- particularly in their own offices. Successful salespeople know they must first get on the customer's team, and do so both mentally and emotionally. Then they sell with their customers, not against them. My error on that ride to the airport was allowing myself to relax a little too much after spending a day with the customer and his sales reps. It doesn't matter whether you're meeting prospects at a networking event or in their offices: Ask thoughtful questions -- and then just relax and listen. Don't plan your response, don't think of something clever or witty to say. Instead, take in everything your customer is telling you -- or not telling you -- with his or her words, tone, and body language. SILENCE IS GOLDEN. Should the prospect say something with which you disagree, as my customer did in the car, bite your tongue and shut up. If it's not going to impact your chances of making a sale, let it pass, as I should have done. If it's important, you can always bring up the subject later and gently straighten out any misconceptions. And by the way, if you ever get stuck in one of these 15-minute, do-or-die sales situations, don't fall for the bait of trying to sell the customer right then. Instead, let them know what you have done for others in similar situations and then spell out why the prospect should invite you back for a longer visit, when you'll be happy to demonstrate how your product can help them. These days, as I said, the competition is tough. So never mistake your customers for competitors. Avoid making the mistake of being "dead right." Rather, mentally join your customer's team, see problems through their eyes, and do your bit to solve them. As the saying goes, "Being right is lonely." Don't make your customers wrong, make them heroes. Happy selling! Michelle Nichols is a sales speaker, trainer, and consultant based in Houston, Tex. She welcomes your questions and comments. You can visit her web site at www.verysavvyselling.biz or contact her at michelle.nichols@verysavvyselling.biz

Decks: Repair or Replace? By Jim Cory Hidden substructure damage often turns a repair job into a full-blown makeover. The deck's far from new, but the client's only interested in having some boards replaced. What now? Rick Parish, of Decks Appeal, Dallas, looks at the substructure. If that's starting to go, replacement is his first suggestion. "If they want me to put a thousand-dollar Band-Aid on, and it means spending another thousand the next year, I'll be up-front with them and say that the deck's seen better days." In the Dallas market, Parish points out, 15 years is a typical life span for a pressure-treated pine deck. Low resistance Suggestions that the deck be replaced rather than repaired rarely meet with resistance, Parish says, especially if he can point to substructure damage. In the San Francisco Bay area, Gary Marsh, owner of All Decked Out, agrees that crumbling substructure is the determining factor. "It's foolish to put money into repairs if the joists are 20- to 30-year-old untreated Douglas fir," he points out. Naturally such news is not welcome to clients who hadn't banked on a new deck. But Marsh leavens the bad news by pointing out that he can design a deck -- of any size, in any material -- that will last 40 or 50 years. "Using the correct pressure-treated wood, stainless steel fasteners, and sealing all potential [water] penetrations," he says, can go far in extending the life of the deck. High maintenance For Tom Resek, owner of Archadeck of Minneapolis, maintenance issues are often paramount. Typically, deck owners put maintenance work into the structure three or four times, then lose interest, which contributes to the rate of deterioration. "The obvious thing is if the deck boards look worn," he says. "If the deck boards are rotten, you don't know what the joists are going to look like." Other repair issues that point the way to replacement include weak or loose railings, code violations, and poor initial design or construction. Resek says he replaces 65% to 70% of wood decks with composite materials. When a possible repair job becomes a replacement, 90% of clients use composites, which require minimal maintenance. The value of maintenance in extending the life of a deck varies with local weather conditions, but one thing that doesn't vary is that the older the deck, the less interested the homeowner seems in maintaining it. "It's like a car," Parish notes. "You wash it a lot less after five or six years." Source: REMODELING Magazine Publish Date: 2003-02-07 Arrival Time: 2003-02-07

There are various types of trex and composite . I'll add some links. It's important to know what they are when you see them, and how to care for them since they too need care. http://trudecking.com/materials.htm http://www.trex.com/universal/product_info/workingwithtrex/careandcleaning.asp http://www.geodeck.com/ I'm attaching an article below, and have also added it to the library. One of the reasons The Grime Scene is set up the way it is, is becuase change is inevitable and we all need to be able to learn and to diversify. We're trying to help to make it easy to add another service and to adjust to a changing service sector. Beth ************************************************** Decks: Repair or Replace? By Jim Cory Hidden substructure damage often turns a repair job into a full-blown makeover. The deck's far from new, but the client's only interested in having some boards replaced. What now? Rick Parish, of Decks Appeal, Dallas, looks at the substructure. If that's starting to go, replacement is his first suggestion. "If they want me to put a thousand-dollar Band-Aid on, and it means spending another thousand the next year, I'll be up-front with them and say that the deck's seen better days." In the Dallas market, Parish points out, 15 years is a typical life span for a pressure-treated pine deck. Low resistance Suggestions that the deck be replaced rather than repaired rarely meet with resistance, Parish says, especially if he can point to substructure damage. In the San Francisco Bay area, Gary Marsh, owner of All Decked Out, agrees that crumbling substructure is the determining factor. "It's foolish to put money into repairs if the joists are 20- to 30-year-old untreated Douglas fir," he points out. Naturally such news is not welcome to clients who hadn't banked on a new deck. But Marsh leavens the bad news by pointing out that he can design a deck -- of any size, in any material -- that will last 40 or 50 years. "Using the correct pressure-treated wood, stainless steel fasteners, and sealing all potential [water] penetrations," he says, can go far in extending the life of the deck. High maintenance For Tom Resek, owner of Archadeck of Minneapolis, maintenance issues are often paramount. Typically, deck owners put maintenance work into the structure three or four times, then lose interest, which contributes to the rate of deterioration. "The obvious thing is if the deck boards look worn," he says. "If the deck boards are rotten, you don't know what the joists are going to look like." Other repair issues that point the way to replacement include weak or loose railings, code violations, and poor initial design or construction. Resek says he replaces 65% to 70% of wood decks with composite materials. When a possible repair job becomes a replacement, 90% of clients use composites, which require minimal maintenance. The value of maintenance in extending the life of a deck varies with local weather conditions, but one thing that doesn't vary is that the older the deck, the less interested the homeowner seems in maintaining it. "It's like a car," Parish notes. "You wash it a lot less after five or six years." Source: REMODELING Magazine Publish Date: 2003-02-07 Arrival Time: 2003-02-07

Yes, it will brighten the fence. We use it often for that. But it is a two step process for cleaning. For grey wood try EFC-38 first. Some people do use just acid to brighten with , but your pH will be off if you do that. One cancels the other out. Beth

Yeah Joel, Hows it going??? Come up for air. Beth

Written by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD Introduction Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant's experiences. The interviewer can pursue in-depth information around a topic. Interviews may be useful as follow-up to certain respondents to questionnaires, e.g., to further investigate their responses. Usually open-ended questions are asked during interviews. Before you start to design your interview questions and process, clearly articulate to yourself what problem or need is to be addressed using the information to be gathered by the interviews. This helps you keep clear focus on the intent of each question. (NOTE: Much of the information herein was adapted from Michael Patton's book, "Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods" (Sage Publications, 1990). Preparation for Interview 1. Choose a setting with little distraction. Avoid loud lights or noises, ensure the interviewee is comfortable (you might ask them if they are), etc. Often, they may feel more comfortable at their own places of work or homes. 2. Explain the purpose of the interview. 3. Address terms of confidentiality. Note any terms of confidentiality. (Be careful here. Rarely can you absolutely promise anything. Courts may get access to information, in certain circumstances.) Explain who will get access to their answers and how their answers will be analyzed. If their comments are to be used as quotes, get their written permission to do so. See getting informed consent. 4. Explain the format of the interview. Explain the type of interview you are conducting and its nature. If you want them to ask questions, specify if they're to do so as they have them or wait until the end of the interview. 5. Indicate how long the interview usually takes. 6. Tell them how to get in touch with you later if they want to. 7. Ask them if they have any questions before you both get started with the interview. 8. Don't count on your memory to recall their answers. Ask for permission to record the interview or bring along someone to take notes. Types of Interviews 1. Informal, conversational interview - no predetermined questions are asked, in order to remain as open and adaptable as possible to the interviewee's nature and priorities; during the interview, the interviewer "goes with the flow". 2. General interview guide approach - the guide approach is intended to ensure that the same general areas of information are collected from each interviewee; this provides more focus than the conversational approach, but still allows a degree of freedom and adaptability in getting information from the interviewee 3. Standardized, open-ended interview - here, the same open-ended questions are asked to all interviewees (an open-ended question is where respondents are free to choose how to answer the question, i.e., they don't select "yes" or "no" or provide a numeric rating, etc.); this approach facilitates faster interviews that can be more easily analyzed and compared 4. Closed, fixed-response interview - where all interviewees are asked the same questions and asked to choose answers from among the same set of alternatives. This format is useful for those not practiced in interviewing. Types of Topics in Questions Patton notes six kinds of questions. One can ask questions about: 1. Behaviors - about what a person has done or is doing 2. Opinions/values - about what a person thinks about a topic 3. Feelings - note that respondents sometimes respond with "I think ..." so be careful to note that you're looking for feelings 4. Knowledge - to get facts about a topic 5. Sensory - about what people have seen, touched, heard, tasted or smelled 6. Background/demographics - standard background questions, such as age, education, etc. Note that the above questions can be asked in terms of past, present or future. Sequence of Questions 1. Get the respondents involved in the interview as soon as possible. 2. Before asking about controversial matters (such as feelings and conclusions), first ask about some facts. With this approach, respondents can more easily engage in the interview before warming up to more personal matters. 3. Intersperse fact-based questions throughout the interview to avoid long lists of fact-based questions, which tends to leave respondents disengaged. 4. Ask questions about the present before questions about the past or future. It's usually easier for them to talk about the present and then work into the past or future. 5. The last questions might be to allow respondents to provide any other information they prefer to add and their impressions of the interview. Wording of Questions 1. Wording should be open-ended. Respondents should be able to choose their own terms when answering questions. 2. Questions should be as neutral as possible. Avoid wording that might influence answers, e.g., evocative, judgmental wording. 3. Questions should be asked one at a time. 4. Questions should be worded clearly. This includes knowing any terms particular to the program or the respondents' culture. 5. Be careful asking "why" questions. This type of question infers a cause-effect relationship that may not truly exist. These questions may also cause respondents to feel defensive, e.g., that they have to justify their response, which may inhibit their responses to this and future questions. Carrying Out Interview 1. Occasionally verify the tape recorder (if used) is working. 2. Ask one question at a time. 3. Attempt to remain as neutral as possible. That is, don't show strong emotional reactions to their responses. Patton suggests to act as if "you've heard it all before." 4. Encourage responses with occasional nods of the head, "uh huh"s, etc. 5. Be careful about the appearance when note taking. That is, if you jump to take a note, it may appear as if you're surprised or very pleased about an answer, which may influence answers to future questions. 6. Provide transition between major topics, e.g., "we've been talking about (some topic) and now I'd like to move on to (another topic)." 7. Don't lose control of the interview. This can occur when respondents stray to another topic, take so long to answer a question that times begins to run out, or even begin asking questions to the interviewer. Immediately After Interview 1. Verify if the tape recorder, if used, worked throughout the interview. 2. Make any notes on your written notes, e.g., to clarify any scratchings, ensure pages are numbered, fill out any notes that don't make senses, etc. 3. Write down any observations made during the interview. For example, where did the interview occur and when, was the respondent particularly nervous at any time? Were there any surprises during the interview? Did the tape recorder break? Other Resources The Interview in Management Research CASAnet's overview of interviewing principles Related Library Links Appreciative Inquiry Being Interviewed by the Media Etiquette (Manners) Exit Interviews Feedback Interpersonal Skills Interviewing for a Job Interviewing Job Candidates Handling Difficult People Listening Non-verbal Communications Presenting / Speaking Questioning Research Methods (planning research, various methods, analyzing results, giving reports, etc.) Valuing Diversity On-Line Discussion Groups, Newsletters, etc. There are a large number of on-line discussion groups, newsletters (e-zines), etc. in the overall areas of management, business and organization development. Participants, subscribers, etc., can get answers to their questions and learn a lot just by posing the questions to the groups, sharing insights about their experiences, etc. Join some groups and sign up for some newsletters! http://www.mapnp.org/library/evaluatn/intrview.htm#anchor566521

The Insubordinate Subordinate: Dealing With Workplace Rebellion "The ability to work well with people is as purchasable a commodity as coffee or sugar, but I'll pay more for it than any ability under the sun." John D. Rockefeller Yerke is a Finnish expatriate who recently accepted a position as head of the IT department for a large computer peripherals manufacturing company. He is dumbfounded when, two weeks after his arrival, his boss complains that Yerke is a troublemaker who openly questions his decisions and challenges his authority. Pamela, a stellar employee, was recently disciplined for insurbordination because she called in sick after her request for personal leave to attend her daughter's out-of-state wedding was denied. Raymond makes more sales than the rest of his team put together; however, while his customers love him, three sales managers have quit because of his abusive language and disrespectful attitude toward them. Insubordination, broadly defined as an unwillingness to submit to authority either through an open refusal to obey an order or through a failure to carry one out, is a common problem in the workplace. Examples of insurbordination (or attempts to undermine managerial authority), include the following: * actively challenging or criticizing a superior's orders * interfering with management * showing open disrespect toward a supervisor * making threats or using coercion or physical violence * using abusive language or making malicious statements * ignoring instructions Discipline is often an appropriate response to insurbodination. However, as can be seen from the above examples, there are varying reasons for, and degrees of, rebellious or disrespectful behavior. Before disciplinary action us taken, it is important to consider a number of factors that will help you decide upon a response that fits the situation. Some of these factors include the reasonableness of the request, the circumstances surrounding it, the employee's work history, and how others have been treated for similar behavior Out of Bounds Orders Some flexibility with respect to insubordination may be in order if the employee has a legitimate reason for refusing to carry out the request. Even though employees are rarely allowed to challenge authority, there are some instances in which such a refusal may be justified. Consider the following situations: 1. carrying out the order would endanger the health, welfare, or safety of the employee or other employees. An employee may rightfully refuse to carry out an order in situations where the manager orders the employee to work under conditions the employee believes pose an immediate danger of death and severe injury, and the employee believes there is insufficient time or opportunity to get management to correct the hazardous condition. 2. carrying out the order involves an illegal act. Employers cannot ask an employee to engage in illegal activity. I once conducted a wrongful termination investigation during which an employee was fired because he refused to pick up illegal drugs for his supervisor. 3. the order is accompanied by religious, racist or sexist slurs. Ideally, the employee would comply with the order and then file a separate offensive behavior complaint. However, certainly some leniency should be allowed for the employee who rebelliously responds to personally insulting behavior. Obviously, discipline or termination is inappropriate in any of the above situations. If it occurs, it can possibly lead to a successful wrongful discharge, retaliatory discharge, or discrimination lawsuit. In most cases, however, insubordination is the proper subject of discipline. Do Your Duty Generally speaking, employees cannot decide for themselves which instructions they will or will not obey. Companies should make this clear in their policies and procedures, by stating in their employee handbook or personnel manual that insubordination is against company policy and that violation of the policy will subject the person to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Your policy should also state that, if an employee has a complaint about management behavior, they should follow the appropriate employee grievance process. Let's assume now that an employee has engaged in challenging or disrespectful behavior to a valid order. The next factor to consider is the circumstances. For example: * Was the order direct, clear and unambiguous? * Did the employee violate a published policy or work rule? * Did the employee recognize that s/he was breaking a rule? * Was the employee aware of the consequences of the conduct? * Was the employee aware of exceptions to the published rule or policy? * Is the policy or rule itself the problem? Considering the above factors sheds a different light on all three of our colleagues from the first paragraph - Yerke, Pamela, and Raymond. Yerke, for example, had no awareness at all that he was behaving inappropriately; coming from a culture that is much less deferential to status or power differences, it was a natural behavior for him to speak up or disagree with his superior. In fact, counseling him on how his behavior was perceived not only improved the relationship with his boss, it helped him understand his subordinates, whose reluctance to question or challenge his ideas he had been interpreting as a lack of motivation and initiative. Pamela and Raymond are similar in that both were aware of the rules and their violations of them. However, their work histories, and the rules in question, were dramatically different. While Pamela's response to her denied leave was inappropriate, her manager's decision to deny her personal leave request was also questionable. Other alternatives, such as making her responsible for finding a substitute, working overtime in advance, or being available by phone, might have been more realistic. As for Raymond, his consistent and willful disrespect not only adversely impacts the morale and retention rate of the rest of the sales team, the fact that he has received numerous warnings (with no real consequences or follow-through) can put the company at legal risk if they discipline another employee for similar behavior. Fitting the Punishment to the "Crime" Most employers have a written progressive discipline policy to deal with conduct problems. This policy is most effective when it contains flexible language, doesn't link any conduct to a specific disciplinary response, and allows the company to consider a number of factors in determining the appropriate discipline. Some of the factors that should be considered are: 1) Employee's record - Does the employee have a prior record of similar offenses, or was this a first offense? Does the employee otherwise have a good conduct record and a history of satisfactory performance? 2) Consequences of the act - Were the consequences such that there would be financial or other liability to the company? Would the act affect the company or the employee's ability to carry out assigned responsibilities? 3) Mitigating factors - Were there intervening factors that either caused or had some effect on the employee's violation of the company's disciplinary standards? 4) Attitude - Is the type of discipline contemplated necessary in order to convince the employee that the conduct cannot be tolerated? 5) Past practice - Is the discipline to be administered consistent with the discipline administered in prior similar cases? After considering the above circumstances, the following steps can be used as guidelines when imposing an oral or written warning for subordination: · Inform the employee that he or she has engaged in specific conduct that is unacceptable and that certain conduct is expected of the employee. Refer to the specific rule or policy. · Explain that the improper conduct must stop. · Discuss the negative consequences that will occur if the employee fails to change unacceptable behavior and the possible positive consequences of changing the improper behavior. · Explore the reasons for the unacceptable behavior. · Develop an action plan that you and the employee agree on to change the unacceptable behavior. · Document, document, document. Dealing With the Chronic Insurbordinate Let's face it; some employees are always difficult. If the insubordination is committed by a constant troublemaker, it can be hard to keep your cool and deal effectively with the incident at hand. Keep these rules of thumb in mind: * Base the confrontation with the worker only on his/her job performance. Never allow any personal prejudices, comments, observations, or suggestions to get in the way of the counseling/discipline meeting. * Make certain that the employee knows exactly what you're saying. Allow no room for confusion or misunderstanding; ask the employee to paraphrase what the two of you have discussed. Make your policies, and their application, consistent and exact. * Don't make value judgments. Stick to the behavior in question, not what you think of the employee personally. * Don't belabor a point. Make your point once and go on. * Don't make idle or thinly veiled threats. Making threats only serves to strain relations even more. The Bottom Line Research supports Rockefeller's high opinion of good interpersonal skills; managers who fail do so because of the inability to successfully handle the "people" side of managing. Insurbordination can cause even the coolest communicator to blow a fuse and let personal feelings influence discipline decisions. Having an effective progressive discipline policy, using a discipline checklist, and conducting an investigation of the reasons for the inappropriate behavior (prior to any disciplinary action) can help managers avoid making a bad situation worse. Managers who co so not only create value for their organizations, they build value for themselves. ******************************************************************************** WORKRELATIONSHIP TRIVIA: Four out of ten employees will have personal problems that impact work at some point in their lives. One out of every 20 is suffering from a major depression - right now. A relationship with an Employee Assistance Program can be a cost-effective way to minimize this impact and help valuable employees get back on track. Be sure your managers are trained on when and how to refer them for help. http://www.workrelationships.com/site/newsletter/issue8.htm

Progressive Discipline There will be times when an employee violates a policy or standard of conduct that will require immediate termination. However, in most cases, the problems aren't that serious, or at least they don't start out that way. In many situations, a minor sanction or coaching can be the answer. But what about the employee who continues to break rules or ignore work policies or continues to have performance problems? While your immediate impulse may be to terminate the employee, there is an alternative that allows you and the employee every chance to salvage the employment relationship before you resort to termination. That alternative is known as progressive discipline. Progressive discipline is a discipline system where the severity of the penalty increases each time an employee breaks the rules. Typically the progression is from oral warnings to written warnings to suspension and, finally, to termination. There are advantages to using progressive discipline, especially when it's used in conjunction with a set of work rules (that are thoroughly communicated to employees) and an explanation of the disciplinary system. For very small businesses, progressive discipline may be too time consuming to use, especially if discipline are problems rare. Or, you may decide to use it only for the most common rule infractions, such as unexcused absences or tardiness. Before you adopt a progressive discipline system, there are certain things that you need to understand, including: *how progressive discipline works *the advantages of progressive discipline *the disadvantages of progressive discipline *how to develop a progressive discipline policy http://www.hrtools.com/HREssentials/P05_7250.asp How Progressive Discipline Works In a progressive discipline system, the severity of the penalty increases with each infringement of the rules. Among the advantages of a progressive discipline system is the fact that you can work with the employee to try to retain him or her as a productive worker without having to resort to termination immediately. Typically, the progression is: oral warnings written warnings suspension termination A progressive discipline system contains the following elements: Both you and the employee know in advance, to the extent possible, the appropriate discipline for the violation of a specific work rule. The degree of discipline is greater for repeated offenses in a given time frame. All violations are treated the same unless there are unusual mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Usually, after a specified time period (like six months or a year) passes without another infraction, the worker gets a "clean slate." Any later infractions will start the process again with an oral warning. Some cases of misconduct are so severe that you may skip the first one, two, or even three steps. For example, assaults or fighting, stealing, intoxication on the job, gross insubordination, destruction of company property, etc., may all justify immediate action. But don't fire the worker on the spot! Firing someone is a serious action, not to be done off the cuff. Sometimes situations are not as they appear. Give yourself some time to investigate, and, at a minimum, to be sure of what really happened and who was responsible.

Insubordination Insubordination occurs when an employee willfully disobeys or disregards a superior's legitimate directive. Abusive language by employees toward supervisors and others may also be considered insubordination. The reasons for not tolerating insubordination are obvious — employees need to know that you, as the employer, are calling the shots. Insubordination is clearly not acceptable in an employment relationship, and you don't need to have a policy on it in order to discipline or fire someone for insubordination. However, a policy or general rule that insubordination will not be tolerated can be useful if you ever need to defend your actions in court. What constitutes insubordination? If you are ever sued for discriminatory conduct because of your treatment of an allegedly insubordinate employee, or if you want to challenge payment of unemployment benefits to a worker fired for insubordination, you will generally have to show that: a direct order was issued to an employee the employee received and understood the order the employee refused to obey the order through an explicit statement of refusal or through nonperformance In cases of abusive language, consider the context in which the incident occurred. An employee is more likely to be found to have engaged in insubordination if the abusive language: *was not provoked by the supervisor *was spoken in the presence of other employees or customers *was not an example of shop talk in the workplace Here are some more issues you may want to consider: *questions that you should ask before you react to insubordinate behavior *how to deal with an insubordinate employee *written insubordination policies http://www.hrtools.com/HREssentials/P05_5330.asp

Misconceptions About OSHA By Bill Taylor, CSP When a manager sits down for the weekly staff meeting he or she is surrounded by those people with direct control and responsibility for all aspects of the business/department managers. If a problem comes up, say for example, costs are too high, the manager does not turn to the finance manager casting blame and dictate he or she work harder to cut costs. Instead, a good manager, knowing cost overruns can occur anywhere, will try to pinpoint the problem so efforts to resolve the problem can be properly focused. The manager knows that everyone sitting around that table has a responsibility to control costs. Likewise, the manager will tell you that everyone at the table is responsible for managing production, quality, people, etc. These department managers in turn hold supervisors and employees accountable for the same charge. In other words, everyone has a responsibility for assuring production is met, quality is high, and costs are low because any employee can damage product, affect quality, or run up costs. Therefore, every employee makes up the production, quality and cost organizations. In this article, we'll talk about how to manage workplace safety and health the same way you manage the rest of your business. Why is safety different? Why is it that we manage safety in a different way? First of all, the safety manager is often just a warm body. Or it may be some young employee who was a sewing machine mechanic yesterday. Or perhaps we hired a bonafide safety manager, but we still do not have them at the manager's weekly staff meeting. We establish teams such as quality teams, to get employees involved in the quality process. We empower employees with the freedom to stop an entire production line if they are aware of a problem affecting production or quality. Because of this increased participation our production is good, quality is up and costs are down. We have sought the participation of a very vital and knowledgeable resource --our employees. But again, we manage safety differently. We do not involve employees in the safety process except maybe to put them on a safety committee or do an inspection. We do not hold employees to the same level of enforcement for earplugs, glasses and lockout as we do punctuality and insubordination. The Team Approach We have learned that if we want to improve something for which employees are responsible then we make it an important part of their workday. We put them on a team or committee and give them responsibility. We hold them accountable and recognize their efforts. We recognize them as knowledgeable adults with an ability to contribute to the overall effort. By involving the employees, they develop a greater sense of awareness and ownership. The result is better production, lower cost, etc. This empowerment (involvement) is actually changing the behavior of the workers. We have altered employee attitudes through proper motivation. Other Motivations Certainly there are different ways to motivate workers. Workers can be motivated by fear -- fear of losing money and/or their jobs for example. And while fear can be a powerful motivator, it is by no means the preferred method. For one thing, workers should not have to work under a shroud of fear. But also, the fear is usually short-lived. Once they realize they will not be reprimanded for failure to lockout the equipment, many will stop following proper lockout procedures. This is especially true if there is some personal benefit to be gained, such as saving time. Another method of motivating workers is by desire. Make it desirable for the employee to follow proper procedures. But like fear, the motivation is not long lasting. When something comes along that may prove more desirable to the worker, their priorities will change. By far the best method of motivation is by belief. If we can get the employee to understand it is in their best interest to follow proper safety procedures, then they are more apt to follow procedures. Employees must understand why it is important to perform in a certain manner and believe it is the right thing to do. Only then can we realize a change in the behavior of individuals that will be long lasting. They are following procedures, not because they are afraid of losing their job, or because they will be given some incentive award. They do it because it is important The Central Safety and Health Committee Method The Central Safety and Health Committee/Task Group method of managing safety is a behavioral management system. Developed in 1978, it is still a system as effective as any method available. The success of the system is based on the fact management recognizes the value of workers, as well as their abilities to get things accomplished. It succeeds because management empowers workers to DO things other than attend a monthly safety committee meeting. Workers realize that safety, just like production, quality, costs, etc. is also an integral part of their job. Their behavior changes and safety becomes a culture at the work-site. The Rest of the Battle While employee involvement is crucial to the success of a safety program, it is only half the battle. A safety and health program will be as good as management wants it to be, or as poor as management will allow it to be. Managers have to enforce safety and make sure that their employees actually follow the procedures that have been established and talked about in their committee meetings. Employee safety is important to managers. The problem is, we have historically managed safety by assigning responsibilities to an individual as collateral duties, or hiring a safety manager expecting him or her to insure worker safety. We form safety committees to do inspections and come up with ideas, again, expecting them to keep everyone safe. This is not how we manage other issues so why manage safety this way? Why do we not hold department managers, supervisors, and foremen to the same level of responsibility and accountability for insuring safety of workers in their charge as we do assuring good production? Well, in case you haven't figured out where this is going, it goes straight to behavioral expectations. If I expect my department managers to behave like managers then I expect them to take whatever action is defined by company policy to insure his/ her workers are performing at peak performance. I expect them to insure good production, maximum quality and minimum costs. If they do not meet this expectation then their performance and their behavior is inadequate. If their employees are violating procedures (unacceptable behavior) and they permit this, that in turn, makes the manager's behavior unacceptable. If an employee fails to properly lockout equipment or wear required hearing protection, then that employee is not doing the job right. And, if the supervisor is aware of this and fails to respond, then the supervisor is not doing his/her job right. It is not enough to change or attempt to change the behavior of the employee alone. To be successful requires effort on the part of management and labor. It requires everyone doing their jobs right. If employee behavior is substandard then both employee and management behavior must be changed. Because the bottom line is, if you have a safety problem, then you have a management problem. The many plant managers who have experienced success with the Central Safety and Health Committee management method will tell you they were successful because everyone was expected to make safety part of their job, and safety was to be managed just as everything else -- no differently. Safety, like production and quality, crosses all boundaries into every job, so why manage it in a different way? But, if a company has a safety program and people are still getting injured, then something is wrong. The problem is usually a lack of enforcement -- unacceptable management behavior. Management behavior will not change until the ranking manager says so. Until such time as the boss takes control and demands change, it will not happen. Employees will still fail to lock out equipment and supervisors and managers will still permit it because it is faster and speeds production. And people will still get hurt. Employee behavior, just like anything else, begins at the top. If managers expect good safety behavior, they must change their own behavior first. http://www.ctjsafety.com/art_manag_behav.htm