Interview with Lee Hager Executive Vice President of James Anderson and Associates, and Safe-At-Work
Share:
AO/Beck: Hi Lee. It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Hager: Hi Doug: Thanks for the opportunity to address the Audiology Online audience.
AO/Beck: Lee, if you don't mind, I'd like to start by learning a little about your background?
Hager: Sure. I don't have much to tell you regarding formal education. I actually got into this profession rather backwards through a musical connection. Years ago I was working in retail and playing guitar in a band with a fellow who had just received his Ph.D. in audiology from Michigan State, his name was Tom Simpson. Tom was looking for someone to do technician work such as noise exposure assessment and measurement for some of his customers and accounts at James Anderson and Associates, and 15 years later, I'm still here. We've developed all sorts of services and approaches to address noise in the workplace and we've grown to about 40 employees.
AO/Beck: Additionally, you are involved with Safe-At-Work. What is the connection between James Anderson and Associates and Safe-At-Work?
Hager: The main company is James Anderson and Associates. Richard James and Robert Anderson started the company and they're both noise control engineers. They came out of General Motors in the early 1970s.
The other company is the Safe-At-Work entity, that's a new group. Safe-At-Work is actually a partnership between our main group and a group in Chicago called the Hawkwa Group. The partnership was established to and develop and promote and market the HearTrak software program. That's a software program that is used to administer and track industrial hearing screenings, noise histories, non-occupational noise exposure, industrial noise exposure levels and related data.
AO/Beck: Who are the primary users of James Anderson services?
Hager: Primarily we work with major automotive manufacturers. We provide noise control and hearing preservation services, noise monitoring services, and pretty much all services related to the Hearing Conservation Amendment, except we do not provide hearing testing. Hearing tests are not within our area of expertise, so we stay out of that. We want to stay focused on what we know and do best. We are noise control engineers and we don't want to spread ourselves too thin!
AO/Beck: Do you have any audiologists on board?
Hager: We have a few consulting audiologists, but no, we do not have any audiologist employees.
AO/Beck: OK, very good. Tell me a little more about the Safe-At-Work products please.
Hager: The Safe-At Work software is called HearTrak and it's used by about 1800 users in the USA. The users include clinics, mobile van services, audiologists who deal with industrial programs, all kinds of industrial testing facilities and on and on. HearTrak is used to manage hearing conservation programs. The original software was developed in DOS by the Hawka group.
AO/Beck: So then, how old is Safe-At-Work, and how long has James Anderson been around?
Hager: Safe-At-Work is three years old and James Anderson has been around for some 20 years.
AO/Beck: Let's switch gears a bit. Please tell me your thoughts on the current rules and regs which govern noise in the workplace.
Hager: I have a certain level of discomfort with the current set of rules and regs for both technical and philosophical reasons. When we started down this road of having the government involved in managing and regulating noise issues, starting with Walsh-Healy in the late 1960s, the primary focus was on noise control engineering. The goal was to eliminate the hazards from the workplace, and then the health risk would go away. As you know, Doug, by the time the Hearing Conservation Amendment (HCA) went into law in 1983, the focus had changed 180 degrees. The HCA focused on measuring noise and measuring hearing. If you have a noisy workplace, but do nothing but measure hearing and measure noise, you are very likely to be compliant, but you are also likely to be producing hearing loss too! There is nothing in the current rule that penalizes or punishes the factories (and other noisy locations) when they destroy hearing. The punishment comes in only if you do not document the noise or the hearing.
AO/Beck: What about workmen's compensation (WC) laws as a source of protecting the worker after the injury has occurred?
Hager: Some folks may argue that workmen's compensation laws punish the negligent employer, but as you know, the battles are tough and lengthy and the winners are typically not well compensated. Further, WC laws vary terrifically state-by-state and by the time the cash gets to the worker, it's not very much. For example, if the worker gets an award of 15 thousand, the attorney gets 1/3rd of that, digital hearing aids cost another 1/3rd, and then the worker is left with $5000.00. If they have to pay taxes on the 15 grand, they broke even!
AO/Beck: There is a really nice chapter with a state-by-state chart on WC laws, awards and related issues by Dobie and Megerson in the new book titled The Noise Manual, Fifth Edition by Berger, Royster, Royster, Driscoll and Layne (published by AIHA Press). Lee, what are your thoughts on the current federal 5 dB exchange rate? I know NIOSH came out supporting the 3 dB exchange rate years ago and I think the primary resistance issue is money. Apparently, it is just phenomenally expensive to re-issue noise regulations. For example, in Dave Lipscomb's excellent text ( Hearing Conservation In Industry, Schools and the Military published by Singular Publishing) he stated that in 1976, the cost in changing the standard from 90 dBA to 85 dBA would cost (in 1976 dollars) 18 billion dollars, which represented about 1 to 2 percent of the nation's GNP that year!
Hager: I believe the 5 dB exchange rate was a political compromise and it has very little to do with science. It's also important to realize that most industrial manufacturing noise is reasonably steady-state noise. It varies by a few dB across the work shift. Given that situation, the difference between the 3 dB and the 5 dB exchange rate is inconsequential. Importantly, the question shouldn't be the cost of hearing protection, the question ought to be what is the best predictor of hearing loss and what do we need to do to prevent hearing loss in the work force. If the 5 dB exchange rate is not protecting the worker, then the 5 dB exchange rate needs to go. If the 3 dB exchange rate works well, then we ought to go there.
AO/Beck: So the bottom line is the HCA does not protect workers from noisy situations, it simply documents noise exposure and hearing thresholds?
Hager: That's exactly correct. You can have a 100 percent compliant hearing conservation program and the result can be that many workers will lose hearing from industrial noise exposure. Importantly, some of the expectations we set as hearing professionals are part of the problem. In other words, we go in, we test their hearing, we tell them they may lose some hearing from noise exposure. Importantly, the worker may think If I lose enough hearing, I get the bonus when I retire. Of course the bonus here is the WC award. And then of course, when the worker realizes how horrible it is to lose hearing, and when they realize the bonus is so inconsequential, they are very annoyed and frustrated, and they have no alternatives left.
AO/Beck: Lee, I've enjoyed catching up with you. Can you please tell me the best way for the readers to get in touch with you if they would like to get specific information or contact you directly.
Hager: Sure, the The website is www.safe-at-work.com, and they can also send email to me at leehager@safe-at-work.com, or they can call me at 517-349-8066.
AO/Beck: Thanks Lee, it's been a real pleasure.
Hager: Thank you too Doug. It's been a lot of fun.
Hager: Hi Doug: Thanks for the opportunity to address the Audiology Online audience.
AO/Beck: Lee, if you don't mind, I'd like to start by learning a little about your background?
Hager: Sure. I don't have much to tell you regarding formal education. I actually got into this profession rather backwards through a musical connection. Years ago I was working in retail and playing guitar in a band with a fellow who had just received his Ph.D. in audiology from Michigan State, his name was Tom Simpson. Tom was looking for someone to do technician work such as noise exposure assessment and measurement for some of his customers and accounts at James Anderson and Associates, and 15 years later, I'm still here. We've developed all sorts of services and approaches to address noise in the workplace and we've grown to about 40 employees.
AO/Beck: Additionally, you are involved with Safe-At-Work. What is the connection between James Anderson and Associates and Safe-At-Work?
Hager: The main company is James Anderson and Associates. Richard James and Robert Anderson started the company and they're both noise control engineers. They came out of General Motors in the early 1970s.
The other company is the Safe-At-Work entity, that's a new group. Safe-At-Work is actually a partnership between our main group and a group in Chicago called the Hawkwa Group. The partnership was established to and develop and promote and market the HearTrak software program. That's a software program that is used to administer and track industrial hearing screenings, noise histories, non-occupational noise exposure, industrial noise exposure levels and related data.
AO/Beck: Who are the primary users of James Anderson services?
Hager: Primarily we work with major automotive manufacturers. We provide noise control and hearing preservation services, noise monitoring services, and pretty much all services related to the Hearing Conservation Amendment, except we do not provide hearing testing. Hearing tests are not within our area of expertise, so we stay out of that. We want to stay focused on what we know and do best. We are noise control engineers and we don't want to spread ourselves too thin!
AO/Beck: Do you have any audiologists on board?
Hager: We have a few consulting audiologists, but no, we do not have any audiologist employees.
AO/Beck: OK, very good. Tell me a little more about the Safe-At-Work products please.
Hager: The Safe-At Work software is called HearTrak and it's used by about 1800 users in the USA. The users include clinics, mobile van services, audiologists who deal with industrial programs, all kinds of industrial testing facilities and on and on. HearTrak is used to manage hearing conservation programs. The original software was developed in DOS by the Hawka group.
AO/Beck: So then, how old is Safe-At-Work, and how long has James Anderson been around?
Hager: Safe-At-Work is three years old and James Anderson has been around for some 20 years.
AO/Beck: Let's switch gears a bit. Please tell me your thoughts on the current rules and regs which govern noise in the workplace.
Hager: I have a certain level of discomfort with the current set of rules and regs for both technical and philosophical reasons. When we started down this road of having the government involved in managing and regulating noise issues, starting with Walsh-Healy in the late 1960s, the primary focus was on noise control engineering. The goal was to eliminate the hazards from the workplace, and then the health risk would go away. As you know, Doug, by the time the Hearing Conservation Amendment (HCA) went into law in 1983, the focus had changed 180 degrees. The HCA focused on measuring noise and measuring hearing. If you have a noisy workplace, but do nothing but measure hearing and measure noise, you are very likely to be compliant, but you are also likely to be producing hearing loss too! There is nothing in the current rule that penalizes or punishes the factories (and other noisy locations) when they destroy hearing. The punishment comes in only if you do not document the noise or the hearing.
AO/Beck: What about workmen's compensation (WC) laws as a source of protecting the worker after the injury has occurred?
Hager: Some folks may argue that workmen's compensation laws punish the negligent employer, but as you know, the battles are tough and lengthy and the winners are typically not well compensated. Further, WC laws vary terrifically state-by-state and by the time the cash gets to the worker, it's not very much. For example, if the worker gets an award of 15 thousand, the attorney gets 1/3rd of that, digital hearing aids cost another 1/3rd, and then the worker is left with $5000.00. If they have to pay taxes on the 15 grand, they broke even!
AO/Beck: There is a really nice chapter with a state-by-state chart on WC laws, awards and related issues by Dobie and Megerson in the new book titled The Noise Manual, Fifth Edition by Berger, Royster, Royster, Driscoll and Layne (published by AIHA Press). Lee, what are your thoughts on the current federal 5 dB exchange rate? I know NIOSH came out supporting the 3 dB exchange rate years ago and I think the primary resistance issue is money. Apparently, it is just phenomenally expensive to re-issue noise regulations. For example, in Dave Lipscomb's excellent text ( Hearing Conservation In Industry, Schools and the Military published by Singular Publishing) he stated that in 1976, the cost in changing the standard from 90 dBA to 85 dBA would cost (in 1976 dollars) 18 billion dollars, which represented about 1 to 2 percent of the nation's GNP that year!
Hager: I believe the 5 dB exchange rate was a political compromise and it has very little to do with science. It's also important to realize that most industrial manufacturing noise is reasonably steady-state noise. It varies by a few dB across the work shift. Given that situation, the difference between the 3 dB and the 5 dB exchange rate is inconsequential. Importantly, the question shouldn't be the cost of hearing protection, the question ought to be what is the best predictor of hearing loss and what do we need to do to prevent hearing loss in the work force. If the 5 dB exchange rate is not protecting the worker, then the 5 dB exchange rate needs to go. If the 3 dB exchange rate works well, then we ought to go there.
AO/Beck: So the bottom line is the HCA does not protect workers from noisy situations, it simply documents noise exposure and hearing thresholds?
Hager: That's exactly correct. You can have a 100 percent compliant hearing conservation program and the result can be that many workers will lose hearing from industrial noise exposure. Importantly, some of the expectations we set as hearing professionals are part of the problem. In other words, we go in, we test their hearing, we tell them they may lose some hearing from noise exposure. Importantly, the worker may think If I lose enough hearing, I get the bonus when I retire. Of course the bonus here is the WC award. And then of course, when the worker realizes how horrible it is to lose hearing, and when they realize the bonus is so inconsequential, they are very annoyed and frustrated, and they have no alternatives left.
AO/Beck: Lee, I've enjoyed catching up with you. Can you please tell me the best way for the readers to get in touch with you if they would like to get specific information or contact you directly.
Hager: Sure, the The website is www.safe-at-work.com, and they can also send email to me at leehager@safe-at-work.com, or they can call me at 517-349-8066.
AO/Beck: Thanks Lee, it's been a real pleasure.
Hager: Thank you too Doug. It's been a lot of fun.
