<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for zahlis</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/zahlis/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/zahlis/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:48:17 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Active Agenda: Incentives</title><link>http://ehstoday.com/safety/incentives/ehs_imp_81506/#comment-2717926</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Jeff. Dan Zahlis (author) here. I would be happy to share more details about the incentive program mentioned in this column. Yes, the program was successful in controlling risk. The incentive criteria grew over time and included things like: reporting an incident, reporting a verified instance of WC fraud, terminating a WC attorney, reporting a hazard, participating on an inspection/audit team, submitting a suggestion that resulted in implementation, and many other QUANTIFIABLE actions. The incentive program was integrated into the overall incentive program so that points earned could be additive and contribute to the redemption of points for greater rewards (gift cards, etc.). The integration of criteria across the enterprise also reinforced the parallel importance of traditionally competing business functions (i.e. quality, safety, labor relations, operations, engineering, finance, etc.) and ended the old process of saying one thing ("safety first") and doing another.  &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">zahlis</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:48:17 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>