Originally Posted by Fizzer

Oh boy do I have a lot of issues with some of the quoted comments. FYI my job is to screen people for disability claims and also to screen prospective employees for risk of injury. The latter is TBH a waste of time in my opinion and I typically counsel against it.

There is quite a lot of pretty convincing evidence that the incidence of work injuries is less related to the risks of the job than it is to employee job satisfaction. Whenever I see a quote such as "screeners have one of the federal government's highest rates of job-related injuries, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,"my spidey senses go on high alert.

What is actually been said here is that screeners have one of the highest rates of claims made. The two are not the same thing at all. It is the same argument offered by Canada Post unions who claim that because of the number of injuries reported, letter carrying is an inherently dangerous job.The evidence is pretty stong that people who enjoy their jobs are far less likely to make a claim than someone who hates their job with the same injury. When they do have an injury those who are happy at work will experience less pain and disability and will be statistically more likely to return to work, with a shorter duration of disability.

Whenever I see information about high rates of injury my first job as a consultant is to tell employers that they need to look at what part of their management style or policies are making your workforce so disatisfied. That is by far the most effective way to reduce injury costs. Far more than pre employment screening, which for the most part is ineffective.Now if the TSA Management applied this philosophy. It is now apparent to me that the reason some agents are so crabby is that they hate their jobs.