flat glass logistics council may 1, 2003chicago council meeting 1 flat glass logistics council...

May 1, 2003 Chicago Council Meeting 1Flat Glass Logistics Council

Flat Glass Logistics Council

Issues

Chicago, May 1, 2003


Who are we?


Evolution

• Don Osterberg – Military Logistics Officer– Took responsibility for Schneider Specialized Carriers– Recognized key industry problems

• Asked UT for help• Together we recognized it was an industry rather

than a Schneider problem• Amendable to an industry standards committee

approach


Two Conference Calls

• Call 1 – Everyone reluctant especially about antitrust issues & role of group

• Call 2 – Who would be willing to participate


Two Chicago Meetings

• October 9, 2002 – Six issues raised and discussed by industry teams– Specified data needed to analyze safety issues

• November 21, 2002 – Reviewed safety data– Standardized data categories for future data collection– Group decision to move forward and form group


Conclusion:

There are major industry problems.

There is no other group to address these issues.

If this group does not do it, it will not be done.


What are the major issues?


Distribution costs have been steadily decreasing since 1980.

Flat Glass has not benefited from this cost reduction.


Index of Distribution Costs Over 20 years


Expectations are changing

• In a world of – Efficient Consumer Response (ECR)– Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI)– Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR)– Need for greater communication & standards for efficiencies

• The world is expecting– Quick response– Short Lead Times– Synchronized Delivery– Greater Variety (mixed shipments)– Lower landed cost– Greater flexibility


But we say

• Flat glass is different– Inability to adjust production level– We acknowledge this.

• But there are many areas where problems are self-inflicted.


What are these self-inflicted areas?

• Driver safety and worker compensation costs

• Driver retention

• Loss and damage claims

• Capacity utilization

• Lack of supply chain collaboration

• Lack of participation on standards committees


Today we will address the first issue – Driver Safety

• In an era of strict OSHA guidelines on safety issues, flat glass has not been covered

• OSHA covers plant workers

• DOT regulates safety issues for drivers– Drivers do not typically load truck


OSHA Requirement

• Workers must have protective railing and/or tethers when work off the floor

• Limitations on weight employees are expected to lift without mechanical assistance

• Special attention must be given to employees working on wet or slippery surfaces


130 lbs tarp


How Would You Like to Explain?

• Drivers working 13’ 6” above the ground without railings or teathers

• Where they carry, spread and secure a 130# tarp• Surrounded by a product that is famous for sharp

edges and the ability to cut (sharp as glass)• Some times working outside where it has rained

and material is slippery


Why are we here today?

• To develop best practice guidelines to reduce injuries• Why?

– Humanitarian – you want to protect workers– Reduce cost of worker’s compensation– Keep drivers on the road to reduce cost of retraining and recruiting– Don’t want a problem to occur and have OSHA and DOT impose

solutions– Supply chain interruptions


How important is transportation to delivered cost of glass?

• High percentage– 16%

• Low percentage– 9%


How important are losses to transportation costs?

Revenue % Compensation % Fuel %

Total Revenue

Purchased Transportation

Company Revenue

Driver Compensation 29.29% 100.00%

Fuel 13.38% 45.68% 100.00%

Equipment 13.79% 47.08% 103.06%

Risk: 6.47% 22.09% 48.36%

Accidents 1.25% 4.27% 9.34%

Work Comp 2.30% 7.85% 17.19%

Claims 1.50% 5.12% 11.21%

Recruiting 2.48% 8.47% 18.54%

Other

S, G, & A

Total Costs

EBIT


• Activity when Injured

Amount of Loss AccidentsPercentage of Losses

Percentage of Accidents

Driving $34,375.76 4 2.5% 3.2%Loading $339,801.80 44 24.6% 35.2%Non-driving $0.00 1

0.0% 0.8%Unloading $1,008,505.93 76

72.9% 60.8%Total $1,382,683.49 125 100.0% 100.0%

Activities When Injured


Type of Injury Driving LoadingNon-

drivingUnloading Total Percentage

BRUISE/CONTUSION $41,244.77 $15,200.76 56445.53 4.3%CARPAL TUNNEL $9,824.00 9824 0.7%CONCUSSION $0.00 0 0.0%CONTUSION $243.00 $2,727.00 2970 0.2%Cuts\Contusions $2,790.30 2790.3 0.2%DISC DAMAGE $8,981.00 $52,466.00 61447 4.6%FRACTURE $19,088.04 $151,983.96 171072 12.9%FROSTBITE $548.20 548.2 0.0%HERNIA/RUPTURE $3,981.42 $39,307.00 43288.42 3.3%INFECTION $28.36 28.36 0.0%INFLAM/SWELLING $75.27 $174.93 $7,083.94 7334.14 0.6%LACERATION/CUT $5,940.21 $4,208.52 10148.73 0.8%MULT. EXTERNAL INJ $19,699.57 $3,351.29 23050.86 1.7%MULT. INTERNAL INJ $12,952.45 12952.45 1.0%OTHER/ILLNESS $13.00 13 0.0%PAIN $238.08 $0.00 $94,548.32 94786.4 7.1%PULLED/TORN MUSCLE $3,259.40 3259.4 0.2%PUNCTURE $187.00 187 0.0%SCRATCH/SCRAPE $168,268.13 168268.13 12.7%Soft Tissue $15,495.49 $37.50 15532.99 1.2%SPRAIN $536.60 $34,348.03 34884.63 2.6%Strain $129,823.62 $468,386.32 598209.94 45.1%STROKE $5,871.00 5871 0.4%UNCONSCIOUS $59,718.00 59718 4.5%UNKNOWN $53.01 53.01 0.0%Total $34,375.76 $298,557.03 $0.00 $993,305.17 $1,326,237.96 100.0%Percentage 2.6% 22.5% 0.0% 74.9% 100.0%

Injury by Activity


Injured Part Driving Loading Non-driving Unloading Total Percentage

$15,495.49 $19,937.65 $289,157.74 $324,590.88 23.48%Abdomen $8,405.24 $73,827.49 $82,232.73 5.95%Ankle $4,018.60 $496.31 $4,514.91 0.33%Arm $12,773.75 $2,207.74 $14,981.49 1.08%Back $8,981.00 $133,338.69 $398,551.72 $540,871.41 39.12%Chest $596.42 $895.32 $1,491.74 0.11%Elbow $83,910.31 $7,467.44 $91,377.75 6.61%Eyes $0.00 $455.83 $455.83 0.03%Foot $28.36 $13,702.03 $13,730.39 0.99%Hand $2,954.63 $7,046.00 $10,000.63 0.72%Head $66,550.00 $933.70 $67,483.70 4.88%Knee $75.27 $189.00 $68,292.91 $68,557.18 4.96%leg $187.00 $239.14 $426.14 0.03%Wrist $9,824.00 $6,912.15 $145,232.56 $161,968.71 11.71%Total $34,375.76 $339,801.80 $0.00 $1,008,505.93 $1,382,683.49 100.00%Percentage 2.5% 24.6% 0.0% 72.9% 100.0%

Injured Part by Activity


Age Group

Driving LoadingNon

DrivingUnloading Total %

20 $1,133.26 $73,864.05 $74,997.31 5.4%30 $198,318.73 $0.00 $278,297.97 $476,616.70 34.5%40 $34,375.76 $21,265.65 $512,233.99 $567,875.40 41.1%50 $37,174.16 $98,383.37 $135,557.53 9.8%60 $81,910.00 $38,844.00 $120,754.00 8.7%70 $6,882.55 $6,882.55 0.5%

Total $34,375.76 $339,801.80 $0.00 $1,008,505.93 $1,382,683.49 100.0%% 2.5% 24.6% 0.0% 72.9% 100.0%

Injury by Activity and Age


Tenure Driving Loading Unloading Total %0 $186,509 $75,248 $261,757 57.0%1 $9,824 $38,730 $35,917 $84,471 18.4%2 $9,971 $80,026 $89,997 19.6%3 $5,871 $2,727 $8,598 1.9%4 $111 $111 0.0%5 $8,981 $418 $9,399 2.0%6 $3,884 $3,884 0.8%7 $1,241 $1,241 0.3%9 $13 $13 0.0%

12 $75 $75 0.0%Total $18,880 $245,396 $195,270 $459,546 100.0%

% 4.1% 53.4% 42.5% 100.0%

Injury by Tenure and Activity

Did not have hire data for part of sample.


Probability of Injury

• 10 percent of work force

• Higher rate for new employees


Post Injury Activity

Driving Loading Non-driving Unloading Total %

$15,570.76 $94,405.80 $0.00 $813,235.93 $923,212.49 66.8%

Disabled $132,515.00 $132,515.00 9.6%

Retired $91,009.00 $68,616.00 $159,625.00 11.5%

Return to Work

$18,805.00 $21,872.00 $126,654.00 $167,331.00 12.1%

Total$34,375.76 $339,801.80 $0.00 $1,008,505.93 $1,382,683.49 100.0%

What Happens to Workers After Injury?


Specific Injured

part<> Disabled Retired

Return to Work

Total %

$324,591 $324,591 23.5%abdomen $10,343 $32,570 $39,320 $82,233 5.9%

Ankle $844 $3,671 $4,515 0.3%Arm $14,208 $773 $14,981 1.1%Back $425,351 $91,009 $24,511 $540,871 39.1%Chest $1,492 $1,492 0.1%Elbow $8,482 $81,667 $1,229 $91,378 6.6%Eyes $456 $456 0.0%Foot $13,730 $13,730 1.0%Hand $8,055 $1,946 $10,001 0.7%Head $541 $50,848 $16,095 $67,484 4.9%Knee $63,080 $5,477 $68,557 5.0%Leg $239 $187 $426 0.0%Wrist $51,801 $36,046 $74,122 $161,969 11.7%Total $923,212 $132,515 $159,625 $167,331 $1,382,683 100.0%

% 66.8% 9.6% 11.5% 12.1% 100.0%

Losses by Post Accident Activity and Injured Part


Summary

• High level of driver turnover

• High cost of driver recruitment

• High cost of driver training

• High probability of driver injury especially the first year

• High cost of injury

• Rapid decline in availability of new drivers


Summary (cont)

• Loading and unloading procedures are not in conformance to OSHA guidelines because the drivers are in a no-mans area

• Unless this group does something to make area safer, standards will be imposed.


Mission

• How to develop best practice guidelines to reduce loading and unloading accidents?

• How do you secure and tarp loads?– Faster – Safer

• How can drivers be protected while securing and tarping loads?


Other Issues

• There are many other issues but they must wait until subsequent meetings.

• Safety is our first issue. We need to do it: – For humanitarian reasons. You cannot hire an

employee to be injured.– Do it now for cost reasons. – Do it before OSHA and DOT make you do it.


Bright Spot

• One carrier here uses different methods– Did not have a single injury in 2001.


NEW SLIDE

• Group Vision: The Flatglass Logistics Council will help make the flatglass supply chain safer and more responsive to customers with lower cost for consumers. The Council is an organization of flatglass logistics professionals and firms involved in manufacturing, transportation, and fabrication of flatglass, who are interested in improving the safety and supply chain management process in the industry. It is primarily interested in identifying best practices, developing standardized training programs, and adapting information and other standards that will improve logistics practice in their respective organization

• Group Mission:1.Develop improved safety practices in the transportation/ handling of flat glass

and educate firms on the use of these practices.2.Identify best practices in the supply chain management and educate the industry

in the use of these best practices3. Develop industry standards that facilitate the labeling, packaging, and

distribution of flat glass and educate the members on the use of these standards and encourage their adoption industry-wide.

flat glass logistics council may 1, 2003chicago council meeting 1 flat glass logistics council...

Documents