Identifying and Reducing Workforce Fatigue in Rapid Renewal Projects (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 research, and the time periods during which it was con- ducted, is as follows: • Florida, SR-50: March 2011 • New York, I-287: May 2011 • Washington, SR-520: Feb., March, and June 2011 Each of these projects is described in greater detail in Appendix A. For each of the projects, the team attempted to schedule field work in such a way as to permit survey data collection from workers on both day and night shifts. Due to construction task sequencing, this did not occur on any project. The Washington state SR-520 project, however, did provide the opportunity to gather survey data from respondents who had just participated in a 55-h closure weekend. General Field Work Methodology Procedures Data collection began at each project with a general orienta- tion to the job site, which included driving to the site with the contractor and a review of work completed, work in progress, and makeup and distribution of crews across the site. In gen- eral, the team relied on contractor and DOT supervisors for access to their employees. SME interview respondents were obtained through snowball sampling; after the team inter- viewed the primary on-site contact for the project, the team solicited recommendations for other personnel who could offer a systematic perspective on an aspect of the project. SMEs were given a briefing document that provided an over- view of the research and outlined their rights as research sub- jects. Interviews were usually conducted individually (two interviews included pairs of respondents), lasted between 30 and 60 min, and were audio recorded and transcribed. Inter- views with three SMEs were conducted by telephone. Introduction To obtain a more detailed and practical understanding of the nature and severity of worker fatigue in rapid renewal high- way construction, the team carried out a field study using survey and subject matter expert (SME) interview techniques. This chapter describes the specific methods for the field research, data analysis, and findings. Recruiting Research Participants Recruiting for field research participants was based on the initial contacts to state DOTs provided by the TRB steering committee. From each of the six states solicited for involve- ment (New York, Florida, Washington, Utah, California, and Illinois), the team identified candidate projects as described in Appendix A, along with key state DOT contacts. These DOT contacts were further solicited for prospective partici- pation as working group members, and they were requested to provide contacts with the contractor companies for those projects that were still in the active phase of construction. This was followed by an initial e-mail solicitation to the con- struction company project managers, and followed up with telephone discussions with those companies expressing inter- est in supporting the research. The team had obtained agreement on the initial set of projects in July 2010. Delays associated with project plan approvals and Institutional Review Board reviews required re-constituting the sample in February 2011. The team considered attempting data-gathering among managers and work crews for projects that had concluded, but deter- mined that it would be too difficult to locate workers who had moved on to other projects and, also, that the survey and interview data these workers could provide about con- cluded projects would be less useful when collected retro- spectively. The final set of projects for conducting field C h a P t e R 3 Field Study of Fatigue Factors in Rapid Renewal Projects

25 The bulk of recruitment for the survey was performed by supervisors and, in one case, the safety officer for the project. This method of recruitment was necessary in order to both ensure the safety of the research team and to minimize dis- ruption to the work, and the team allowed supervisors to determine the best method given their particular situations. About half the time, contractor supervisors drove research team members to specific areas of the job site, introduced them to workers, and then allowed them to recruit from among the available workers in that area; in these cases the team tried to interview all available workers who consented. At other times, workers were brought to the field office and were surveyed there, sometimes during and sometimes before work hours. Survey respondents were selected opportunisti- cally, though the team did communicate some basic sampling guidelines (e.g., the desirability of obtaining a range of roles and occupational types), and supervisors accommodated the team’s requests when possible. Survey respondents gave informed consent before begin- ning the survey. Surveys were conducted with individual respondents in private or, if total privacy was not possible (e.g., on the side of the road), out of the hearing of others. When possible, two team members conducted the surveys, one per- son reading questions and the other noting responses, but for about half the surveys one research team member read and took notes simultaneously. The process of consenting and administering the survey took 30 to 35 min. Survey and interview respondents who were not DOT employees were compensated $50 for their time; DOT employ- ees were not permitted to accept compensation. The survey instrument and interview guide are provided in Appendix B. Sample The team conducted interviews with 20 SMEs and adminis- tered the survey to 47 respondents, including both manage- ment and labor (Table 3.1). Note that six SMEs were also surveyed, for a total of 61 unique respondents. Interview respondents came from a broad range of occupational types and included project managers, construction managers, project and field engineers, general superintendents, and inspection managers. Among these, six were state DOT representatives and 14 represented contractors and subcontractors. All respondents had worked on projects with rapid renewal scheduling charac- teristics in the past. Survey respondents were also sampled from a range of roles. Respondents were broadly categorized as management/ professional, superintendents, foremen/supervisors, or labor (Figure 3.1), with labor making up the largest group in the sample. Respondents were also asked to identify all of the activities they performed regularly, reporting their activities as follows: seven (15%) engineering, seven (15%) inspection, 12 (26%) labor, 14 (30%) operators, 10 (21%) traffic control, and five (11%) truck driving. The majority of respondents were paid an hourly wage and approximately one-third over- all were union members (Figure 3.2). The level of work expe- rience in this sample was fairly high: 32 (68%) had more than 10 years’ experience, and 12 (26%) more than 25 years’ expe- rience (Figure 3.3). Key Fatigue Exposure Measures: Survey The survey included several measures of fatigue exposure, based on characteristics of reported work and sleep sched- ules. As used in the present study, exposure refers to the degree to which individuals have worked schedules that affect their Table 3.1. Interview and Survey Respondents by State Interview Respondents Survey Respondents Total Respondents Florida 3 18 19 New York 5 14 18 Washington 12 15 24 Total 20 47 61 23% 34% 43% Salaried Union Hourly Non-Union Hourly Figure 3.2. Pay structure, survey respondents (n  47). 17% 11% 17% 55% Management/ Professional Superintendents Foremen/ Supervisors Labor Figure 3.1. Occupational type, survey respondents (n  47).

26 15% 17% 21% 21% 26% ≤5 6-10 11-15 16-25 >25 Figure 3.3. Years’ work experience in highway construction, survey respondents (n  47). sleep opportunity. Two direct work schedule measures used were (1) the number of hours worked one week prior to the survey and (2) the longest period of consecutive days worked on the project without a day off. Two sleep schedule measures used were hours of sleep in the prior 24- and 48-h periods. A fifth fatigue exposure measure used PSWM (Dawson and McCulloch 2005) to predict each respondent’s risk for fatigue- related error at the end of the work day on the day they were surveyed. The last three measures were derived from a 48-h work-sleep calendar and typical commute time. For the fifth measure, respondents were considered at risk for fatigue-related error if their 48-h calendar indicated (1) they had received fewer than 5 h sleep in the prior 24 h, (2) they had received fewer than 12 h sleep in the prior 48 h, or (3) their number of hours awake at the time they expected to arrive home on the day of the inter- view exceeded the number of hours they had slept in the prior 48 h. Whether the respondent was currently working night shift would have been a key fatigue exposure measure; how- ever, all respondents were working day shift at the time they were surveyed. Key Fatigue Experience Measures: Survey Exposure, as described above, influences the experience of fatigue. The team used three measures of fatigue, including two validated scales and a composite measure of respondents’ reported difficulty remaining awake at work. First, the team used the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) (Johns 1991), a vali- dated scale used to evaluate excessive daytime sleepiness. Respondents were instructed to rate their likelihood of falling asleep in eight different situations; ratings were summed for a total score. ESS scores greater than 10 indicate abnormal daytime sleepiness. Second, the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (SOFI) (Åhsberg et al. 1997) is used to compare relative factor loadings on five fatigue components across occupations; here the team used the sleepiness subscale to measure fatigue. Respondents were asked to rate how well each of several words described how they felt at the end of the day; item ratings are averaged to provide an overall sleepiness measure. Third, respondents were asked: (1) whether they had ever fallen asleep on their current job site; (2) whether they had even been afraid they might fall asleep on their cur- rent job site; and (3) whether they regularly had difficulty staying awake during their commute home. Respondents who answered “yes” to any of these were considered to have had a sleepiness event at work. Countermeasures, Training, and Attitudes: Survey Respondents were asked to report on fatigue countermeasures they used at work or on work days, such as napping (“Do you ever take naps on your lunch break?”) and caffeine use (“Do you drink any beverages containing caffeine on days that you work?”). They were also asked two questions about fatigue safety training they may have received (“Is fatigue a topic cov- ered in your organizational safety training?” and “Does your training include material on how to get a good night’s sleep and reduce or avoid fatigue on the job?”). Respondents were also asked questions to gauge attitudes about work-related fatigue (level of agreement with the statements: “fatigue on the job is really not a problem—just something you can ‘muscle through’” and “fatigue at work is a safety problem”). Analytic Plan and a Natural Experiment: Survey Given the manner in which survey respondents were recruited, the resulting sample is a convenience sample. This kind of sam- ple is appropriate for an exploratory study, particularly in a population that is continually in flux and, therefore, extremely difficult to identify in advance. Appropriate analytic goals for this kind of sample include establishing the range of responses and making basic comparisons when warranted. The sample included a group of nine respondents (laborers, foremen, and supervisors) who had just finished working a 55-h weekend closure at the time they were interviewed. The weekend clo- sure had involved 12-h day and night shifts constituted from the regular work crews. The inclusion of these respondents made possible a kind of natural experiment, wherein their fatigue outcomes under a recent “extreme” schedule condition could be compared with fatigue outcomes in other groups who had not recently experienced an extreme schedule. Com- parisons are, therefore, provided for the key fatigue exposure and fatigue experience measures for the closure group relative to several relevant comparators; details are provided below. Means and ranges are reported for continuous measures of fatigue exposure (e.g., consecutive days worked). Percentages are reported for dichotomous measures of fatigue exposure (e.g., at risk for fatigue-related error) and fatigue level (e.g., abnormal daytime sleepiness). Statistics for fatigue exposure and fatigue experience measures are reported for subsets of the sample to allow for basic comparisons based on the respon- dents’ current or recent work schedule at the time of the interview: (1) worked recent closure weekend; (2) all others

27 (no closure weekend); (3) among all others, those who cur- rently work a 5 × 8 schedule; (4) among all others, those who had 2 full days’ work (no time off) prior to interview. The last three groups (Groups 2 to 4) serve as comparators for those working the closure weekend (Group 1); Groups 2 to 4 are not mutually exclusive. Percentages using various individual countermeasures (e.g., caffeine, napping) are reported over- all, and attitudes are reported overall and for a few key groups. Unless otherwise noted, statistics are not reported for groups of fewer than five respondents. Inferential statistics such as chi-squares or t-tests are not reported because of the explor- atory nature of this study, which employs a non-random, convenience sample of workers. SME Interview Results Work Schedule Practices and Beliefs Managers have diverse heuristics about schedule impacts on fatigue. At one site, a manager estimated at least a 50% pro- ductivity loss after 10 h, and noted that paying overtime for 12-h shifts was, therefore, counterproductive, though 12-h shifts in the short term could be useful. At another site, the project manager preferred to schedule 8-h rather than 10-h shifts, due to productivity decline, and at the third, manage- ment preferred to schedule an extra day (usually a Saturday) over extending regular shifts. Management at two projects reported that employees liked the longer or extra shifts, since (as one put it) “90%” of their annual pay is made in five to six months. Fatigue Training Fatigue training was cited by managers at all three projects, but they did not provide specifics. Safety training, while insti- tutionalized on all projects the team visited, appeared to be largely informal and responsive to recent events or immedi- ate work conditions. When discussing fatigue training, man- agers at two sites emphasized the importance of training for heat exhaustion and hydration during summer months. Managers at one site with a large proportion of Spanish- speaking laborers described cultural differences in dress and preferences for resting that they felt put immigrant laborers at greater risk for heat exhaustion. Fatigue Assessment Managers reported that they “know” worker fatigue when they see it. Indications managers cited that a worker is fatigued included erratic work, irritability, and declining social interac- tion, slowing down or just not working as hard, physical weak- ness, and appearing red in the face. One manager noted that workers became sloppier (more “mentally” fatigued) when performing monotonous tasks. The same manager expressed concern in particular about erratic work from operators, since they could “easily kill someone.” Another manager said that he paid attention to variability in workers’ ability to work extended shifts—some could do a lot of extra work while others could not—and tried to direct additional work to those he thought could handle it. Fatigue Countermeasure Practices and Attitudes Most fatigue countermeasures are applied informally. At two sites, managers reported that salaried personnel could expect the company to cover the cost of hotel rooms when circum- stances warranted it, but no formal policy had been instituted on at least one of the projects. Managers were cognizant of the desirability of giving workers a full day off when switch- ing between day and night shifts, and reported that they did this when possible, but no formal practices or guidelines were in place at any project. At one site, it was reported that man- agement tried to make all such switches happen over a week- end. One manager said that he had instructed workers who appear fatigued when arriving at work to “sleep it off” in their car. Breaks are provided as necessary for heat stress and hydra- tion. Informal comp time was sometimes used for salaried employees. Managers were asked about napping at work—whether they had seen it and how they felt about it in their workforce. Most reported having seen it on occasion. Managers at two sites acknowledged that it was hard to argue that workers did not have the right to take naps on their lunch breaks (“it’s their time”) but they were uncomfortable with it. The general feeling was that workers should not be “that tired” and should arrive at work well-rested. One manager said he was worried that workers who napped on night shift would have difficulty waking sufficiently to continue work. This manager also dis- approved of workers napping during down time, and gave the example of a truck driver waiting 30 min for a load. A man- ager at another project cited safety problems when workers napped “in the field.” Commuting and On-site Presence Among other issues raised by management was commuting. On one project, commute times of 1.5 h each way or more were not uncommon, particularly among the salaried person- nel. On this project, laborers tended to be drawn from the region immediately surrounding the project, while company management sometimes traveled long distances to job sites. There was concern that very long commutes contributed sig- nificantly to fatigue and also detracted from the ability of these personnel to respond to emergencies after hours. Related to this latter point, another manager cited an “on-call” effect,

28 when he could not sufficiently relax while at home due to the likelihood that he might be called for problems. Several man- agers mentioned this as a fact of life in their chosen profession. Both issues relate to another point the team raised, which was whether there was a system of “coverage,” wherein key person- nel could expect others to handle calls or other concerns late at night, or to spell one another during periods of night work. The typical response was illustrated by one manager: “If I’ve got him, what do I need you for?” Relevant to both the “on-call” effect mentioned above and the general lack of redundancy in supervisory staff, managers reported a tendency to be on site whenever work was taking place. During continuous closure activities this can lead to extremely extended periods of work and severe sleep disrup- tion. Figure 3.4 illustrates the schedule for one manager dur- ing a continuous weekend closure, starting with his regular workday on Friday, with the closure beginning Friday eve- ning and ending Monday morning. This figure shows that during the course of the weekend closure, the manager is very sleep deprived and at risk for fatigue during the entire period. The work week following the closure is generally a standard schedule, so there is no off- work recovery time. Survey Results Sociodemographics Of the sampled workers, four (9%) were women; only two (4%) were under the age of 25; 14 (30%) were aged 25 to 39; 16 (34%) aged 40 to 49; and 15 (32%) aged 50 and older. Most were married (72%) and just under half had children under age 18 living in their homes (45%). The team esti- mated that eight respondents (17%) were not native English speakers. Work Schedules, Rest, and Preferences All survey respondents were working day shift when sur- veyed. Base schedules (i.e., excluding occasional weekend work) for the 36 hourly workers are shown in Figure 3.5; 5 days of 8-h shifts (a “5 × 8”) was the most commonly reported schedule. Most of the respondents working this schedule were on a project in its final stages. All but six out of 33 hourly workers with a preference reported preferring day shift to night shift, and the main rea- sons offered for this preference were less disruption to family life (44%) and a sense of “normalcy” (33%), which many defined as better sleep opportunity (19%). Reports of typical sleep obtained in a 24-h period averaged 2 more hours while working day shift compared with night shift, and even more Day Cumulative Hour Time Event Sleep Duration 1 – Friday 0 0600 Work in office 6 hours (prior night) 12 1800 Return home, eat, no sleep 17 2300 Return to job site 2 – Saturday 22.5 0430 Return home 25.5 0800 Sleep 29.5 1200 Wake 4 hours 30 1230 Return to job site 40.5 2300 Return home 3 – Sunday 42.5 0100 Sleep 46.5 0530 Wake 4.5 hours 48 0700 Return to job site 60 1900 Return home 63 2200 Sleep 4 – Monday 68.5 0330 Wake 5.5 hours 69 0400 Return to job site 70 0500 Closure ends Figure 3.4. Work–sleep timeline for manager during 55-h weekend closure. 43% 20% 9% 29% 5x8 5x10 5x12 4x10 +8 Figure 3.5. Base schedule, hourly workers (n = 36).

29 on days off (Figure 3.6). Only three hourly workers reported getting more sleep while working nights than while working days (9.4%). Most hourly respondents reported standard meal (one 30-min) and rest (two 15-min) breaks, but then noted that breaks were actually discretionary, with many volunteering that they usually had plenty of time for breaks. With respect to days off, all but one respondent reported getting at least 36 h between shifts every time (76%) or nearly every time (22%) they got a day off. The mean shortest break reported between two shifts on the respondent’s current job was 9.5 h (range: 0, 24), although for salaried respondents the mean as well as the maximum shortest break was somewhat lower (8.1 h; range: 4, 12). Among hourly workers, 10 (28%) reported wanting to work more hours than they had in the prior 2 weeks, while seven (19%) would have preferred to work less (Figure 3.7). Desire for additional hours appeared to be negatively corre- lated with hours worked in the prior 2-week period, with respondents working 40 or fewer hours a week mostly want- ing more hours (63%), those working more than 60 h mostly wanting fewer hours (57%), and two-thirds of those working between 40 and 60 h preferring “about the same.” No salaried respondent wanted to work more hours, but nine of them (82%) reported preferring to work about the same amount as they had worked in the prior 2 weeks, which averaged about 52 h per week. One quarter of hourly workers reported working fewer than 12 months out of the year in highway construction. Fatigue Outcomes, Closure versus Others Survey respondents reported excessive fatigue exposure with rapid renewal practices, in this case, a 55-h weekend closure at one site. The nine respondents who had worked the closure just prior to the survey reported nearly 73 h of work on aver- age by the end of the closure Saturday, for example, by the end of Day 6 of what for most of them was a 12-day stretch (Table 3.2, Group 1). This group reported an average of 14 h sleep (ranging as low as 10 h) in the prior 48 h, and two-thirds of this group were at risk for fatigue-related error at the end of the weekend closure. By way of contrast, respondents who did not work a closure weekend immediately prior to the sur- vey (Group 2) reported working an average of 25 fewer hours in the prior week, got an average of nearly 90 min more sleep in the prior 48 h, and only 11% were at risk of fatigue-related error at the time of the survey. Respondents working the weekend closure also had higher fatigue levels than those who did not: One-third of those working the closure had abnormal daytime sleepiness relative to only 9% of others; and those working the closure had a mean SOFI score of 3.3 compared with 2.2 for all others. Also, two-thirds of the closure group had a sleepiness event on the project, compared with only about one-third of others. Non-closure respondents with the least-intensive sched- ules, that is, a “traditional” 5 × 8 work week (Group 3), also reported lower rates of fatigue exposure and lower fatigue levels than those working the closure. They had worked nearly 34 fewer hours in the prior week and had gotten nearly 90 min more sleep in the prior 48 h, and their rate of being at risk for a fatigue-related error dropped to zero. None experi- enced abnormal sleepiness, their mean SOFI score was half that of the closure group, and fewer than half reported a sleepiness event. Respondents in the group that had no shifts off in the prior 48 h (Group 4) were included as a comparison group in order to more closely match the recent work patterns of those who had just worked a closure. These respondents also reported substantially lower levels of fatigue exposure and fatigue level at the time of the interview compared to respondents who worked the closure, even though this group had worked more than 50 h, on average, in the prior week and reported an aver- age of eight consecutive days at work as the maximum on their current project. Figure 3.6. Typical hours sleep under varying conditions, mean and range (n  24). 7.2 5.1 8.0 7.8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Day Shift Night Shift Days Off On Vacation Figure 3.7. Desire for additional hours, hourly respondents (n  36). 28% 53% 19% Would Like to Work More Would Like to Work About the Same Would Like to Work Less

30 Weather and Fatigue Nearly all respondents (89%) indicated that weather condi- tions made them more fatigued at least some of the time. The most commonly reported fatiguing weather conditions were heat and/or humidity (70%) and rain (35%), but other condi- tions reported included wind (24%), cold (20%), overcast (11%), and snow or ice (11%). One respondent who indicated that ice was fatiguing noted that it was the strain of being on “high alert” due to traffic conditions that was so tiring. While specific weather conditions were commonly reported as sources of fatigue, only a few respondents said weather was a frequent source of fatigue, with most saying that weather rarely (64%) or never (23%) made them more tired. Injuries and Near-Misses About half (47%) of respondents reported that they had had an injury on a highway construction job at some time in their careers, and one-third of these missed at least one day of work due to the injury. None reported fatigue as a contributing fac- tor; however, some reasons cited were suggestive (e.g., “mis- communication,” “not paying attention,” “just trying to get it done”). An even higher proportion of respondents reported a “near miss” (59%) at some point on a highway job, which the team defined for them as a situation that might have resulted in a serious injury if they had not acted in time. While all but one injury reported occurred on a day shift, more than half of near misses occurred at night (57%). In addition, six near misses were directly attributed to fatigue by the respondent. Near misses reported were primarily traffic-related (56%), including two police car chases and three incidents involving heavy equipment on site. In two instances, respondents at different projects reported that they mistook an active lane of traffic for a closed lane at night while struggling with fatigue. Countermeasures and Attitudes Napping was a reported countermeasure on highway con- struction sites; one in six respondents admitted to napping during breaks (Figure 3.8). Caffeine was used by nearly every- one, with half the sample drinking more than two caffeinated beverages per workday, and a quarter consuming more than three. Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported getting fatigue safety training, but when asked whether that training addressed adequate sleep, the proportion who reported train- ing fell by one-third. The attitude that fatigue could be overcome through force of will was expressed by nearly half of respondents overall (Figure 3.9). This attitude varied by occupational category, with professional and supervisory personnel being much less likely than labor to hold this attitude. Also, older workers were less likely than younger workers to hold this attitude. There was little variation in the belief that “fatigue is a safety problem,” with 91% agreement. However, 44% of those who agreed that fatigue is a safety problem also agreed that fatigue could be muscled through. Implications of Field Work Results The team documented a general awareness of fatigue as a problem, especially for managers. Across the job sites the team visited, however, the team found little evidence of focused, systematic attention to the problem. The team were assured that fatigue training did take place, but this training appears Table 3.2. Fatigue Exposure and Fatigue Experience by Type of Work Schedule Work Schedule Group Fatigue Exposure Fatigue Level Most Consecutive Days Worked on Project Hours Worked Last Week Hours Slept in Prior 24 Hours Slept in Prior 48 At Risk for Fatigue- Related Error ESS, Abnormal SOFI Sleepiness Event on Project Mean (range) Mean (range) Mean (range) Mean (range) % % Mean (range) % 1) Weekend Closure (n=9) 11.2 (6,12) 72.7 (63,90) 7.3 (5.5,13) 14.0 (10,20.5) 67% 33% 3.3 (0.2,9) 67% 2) All others (n=38) 6.4 (5,30) 47.4 (28,65) 7.6 (4.3,15.5) 15.3 (12,20.8) 11% 9% 2.2 (0,6.4) 36% 3) Others, 5×8 shifts (n=13) 5.9 (5,6) 39.1 (28,48) 7.5 (5,10.3) 15.3 (12,20.8) 0% 0% 1.6 (0,4.6) 44% 4) Others, no days off in prior 48 h (n=8) 8.0 (6,15) 51.5 (44,65) 7.7 (6.5,9.3) 15.5 (13.3,19.3) 13% 13% 2.8 (0.8,5.2) 43%

31 to be largely informal, and may not focus on the importance of sleep. With rapid renewal practices (e.g., weekend closures) work- ers reported excessive work hours. The nine respondents who worked the weekend closure reported about 73 h of work on average by the end of the Saturday, that is, by the end of Day 6 of what for most of them was a 12-day stretch. Individuals who worked the closure reported substantially higher levels of fatigue exposure as measured by both work schedule and sleep, as well as higher levels of sleepiness and critical sleepi- ness events. Findings from the team’s natural experiment directly suggest a context-specific countermeasure: Personnel who work weekend closures should probably get Monday off. The finding about critical sleepiness events is instructive; the questions were asked about sleepiness events (e.g., falling asleep at work, drowsiness while driving home) that occurred at any point during the respondent’s current project, but respondents who had just come off of an extreme schedule were more likely to report such events than were others. This may simply be due to the question’s greater salience for these respondents; more recent experiences are more likely to be recalled, which suggests that such sleepiness events may be underreported when stressors are farther in the past. Respondents generally did not attribute injuries to fatigue, but their offered explanations may mask fatigue as a contrib- uting factor. For near misses, fatigue combined with reduced visibility at night is clearly reflected in the traffic-related inci- dents reported. Respondents reported using common countermeasures such as napping and caffeine. Napping is also likely to be underreported in this population due in part to widespread attitudes about fatigue, but also due to perceived or actual dis- approval from peers and supervisors. Also, while employees reported receiving fatigue training, many managers interpret fatigue training as training related to heat exhaustion; rela- tively few survey respondents could recall safety training related to getting adequate sleep. High apparent agreement that fatigue is a safety problem may be due to respondents’ desire to provide the acceptable response; however, it may also indicate a basic disconnect: Fatigue is a safety problem, but only if you can’t muscle through it. Finally, redundancy in supervisory staff, particularly man- agers and superintendents, is not highly valued. This lack of backup for key personnel directly contributes to both the long hours and high levels of fatigue widely reported anec- dotally as being problematic among management in general. 16% 96% 47% 28% 62% 41% Takes Naps on Lunch Break Uses Caffeine on Work Days More than 2 Cups Daily More than 3 Cups Daily Reports Fatigue Training Reports Training about Sleep Figure 3.8. Individual fatigue countermeasures employed (n  47). Figure 3.9. Agrees fatigue on the job can be “muscled through.” 45% 24% 67% 56% 27% Overall Supervisory/ Professional Labor 18-49 50+ Occupational Group Age Group