In every organization, a small group of employees seems to defy the odds, repeatedly “getting injured on the job.” They’re often called “frequent flyers.” While easy to spot in the data, their stories are anything but uniform. Some are just unlucky, accident-prone (usually at home as well as on the job) or always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some cut corners on safety to meet production targets. A few use claims as a workaround for denied vacation, like those who are mysteriously injured just before hunting season. And some treat the system as a means of leverage or litigation.
In my career, this problem has been constant.
Whatever the cause, the pattern isn’t just a financial headache, it’s a strategic and cultural landmine. These repeated claims drain resources, frustrate supervisors, and exhaust coworkers who pick up the slack. They also consume an outsized share of claims examiners’ time, which could be better spent supporting recovery or resolving other complex cases. Frequent flyers are one of the reasons employers lose confidence in the workers’ compensation system and begin to believe that all injured workers are frauds or faking their injuries.
Historically, the most common solution was to remove the employee through a lump-sum settlement tied to a resignation or through progressive disciplinary action aimed at termination. In non-union environments, this was often the path of least resistance. The process was slower and more contested in union shops, but the goal was always to get the employee out of the organization. This persisted even though terminating someone for having had an industrial injury is illegal and is an uninsurable risk. Still, employer anger and frustration often pushed decision-makers toward risky, reactive strategies.
Can the cycle be broken? Absolutely. Here’s how.
A Constructive Alternative
Recently, a more strategic and constructive approach has emerged. Rather than viewing frequent flyers as liabilities, some organizations reframe them as safety assets. By involving these employees in prevention efforts—turning them into safety advocates, peer educators, and hazard spotters—organizations can break the cycle of individual injury and simultaneously strengthen their safety culture.
In one notable case, a large retail organization assigned employees with recurrent injury patterns to help lead safety initiatives. Some were given full-time assignments, while others retained their original duties and took on safety as an adjunct responsibility. The physical risks of their roles remained, but the shift in focus changed everything. Their experience gave them credibility. Their new role gave them purpose. And being trusted by leadership fundamentally changed how they approached their work. The results? A measurable drop in injury rates—not just for the individuals involved, but across the workforce—proves this new approach’s success.
Rethinking the Problem: Insights from Other Industries
This model of turning risk into value isn’t unique to workers’ compensation. Similar transformations have occurred in other sectors.
In hospitality, some hotels have hired former dissatisfied guests as service consultants. Their insight into customer frustration lets them pinpoint pain points that managers miss. In addiction recovery, peer coaches—people who’ve battled addiction themselves—guide others through recovery, not because of their credentials, but because of their lived experience. Their credibility helps rebuild trust, offer hope, and reduce relapse.
The same principle applies in the workplace. When workers with a history of injuries are empowered to prevent them, not only in themselves but also in others, they become a cultural bridge. Their past becomes a tool for progress, inspiring others to take control of their safety.
Strategic Goals of the Safety Assignment
1. Individual Risk Mitigation
The immediate goal is to stop the cycle of injury. By shifting the employee into a purpose-driven safety role, the organization reduces physical exposure and reframes the worker’s identity from risk to resource. The result is often a change in behavior, mindset, and long-term outcomes.
2. Systemwide Claims Reduction
Frequent flyers understand how injuries happen. They know where safety breaks down, what shortcuts people take, and how coworkers think. Their lived experience gives them authenticity, allowing them to influence behavior more effectively than policies or posters ever could.
3. OSHA Compliance as a Structural Benefit
Designating frontline safety advocates also helps ensure compliance with OSHA standards. While compliance alone won’t prevent every injury, it provides a framework for tracking, accountability, and continuous improvement.
4. Practical Experience in Safety Leadership
Engineers, EHS professionals, or managers often fill traditional safety roles. While technically skilled, these individuals may not always understand the day-to-day realities of physically demanding jobs. Employees with firsthand experience, especially those injured—bring a different, practical perspective. They know what it’s like to work through pain, to manage awkward equipment, and to deal with unclear instructions. When these employees lead safety initiatives, their recommendations often carry more weight and resonate more deeply with the broader workforce. They also reflect the diversity of the workforce’s experience—physical, cognitive, and linguistic—which helps build more inclusive and realistic safety solutions. Injured workers, especially those who are older, smaller, bilingual, or from historically marginalized groups—bring new insights that lead to better, more inclusive solutions, making everyone feel included and valued in the safety process.
The same is true in safety. A back-injured worker might identify a poor lift table design. A Spanish-speaking employee might flag that half the shift didn’t understand the safety video. A worker with carpal tunnel might spot the flaw in a commonly used hand tool.
Changing who leads safety can change how safety is designed and implemented on the front line.
Implementation Strategy: Making It Work
For this model to succeed, it must be implemented with intention, transparency, and structure. Key steps include:
- Careful Selection: Not every frequent flyer is ready for this role. Choose those with insight, influence, and the willingness to contribute positively.
- Mentorship & Training: Pair new safety leaders with experienced professionals to ensure guidance, credibility, and technical grounding.
- Pilot Assignments: Before expanding responsibilities, start small—toolbox talks, hazard walks, or peer check-ins.
- Workforce Communication: Be clear about the role’s purpose. This is not a reward or punishment, it’s a strategy rooted in accountability and prevention.
- Oversight & Metrics: Track individual performance and overall safety outcomes to ensure the program’s integrity and effectiveness.
Poor Implementation Can Backfire
When mishandled, this strategy can do more harm than good. Watch for these pitfalls:
- Poor Selection: Some workers just are not suited to lead others.
- Lack of Training: Unprepared employees can spread misinformation or overlook hazards.
- Lack of Management Support: If senior leaders don’t visibly back the effort or supervisors undercut it with sarcasm or exclusion, the employee is set up to fail.
- Damaged Credibility: If peers see the assignment as performative or punitive, the role will lack influence, and trust across the workforce could quickly erode.
In short, this approach builds trust and engagement when done well. When done poorly, it undermines safety culture.
Metrics and Equipment: Non-Negotiable Foundations
No safety strategy can succeed without proper equipment and data. Metrics help identify trends, validate success, and catch issues early. Near misses, leading indicators, and engagement levels should all be tracked.
Likewise, safety leaders must be equipped with what they need—functioning PPE, ergonomic tools, and proper lighting. A strong culture can’t compensate for broken gear or missing gloves.
Clarifying the Difference: Recurrent Injury vs. At-Risk Employees
It’s essential to distinguish between employees with recurrent injuries and those considered “at-risk.” The former group may benefit from structured leadership roles and accountability. The latter—often individuals with Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), poor coping skills, or psychological distress—require early intervention, support, and care coordination.
Conflating the two leads to misaligned strategies. Addressing them separately allows for more precise, practical solutions.
Leadership Sets the Tone
No safety program will thrive without visible, consistent leadership from the top. When senior leaders prioritize safe production over fast production, they send a clear signal. The message is just as loud when they fail to act or reward corner cutting. Safe production has been proven to be faster, with fewer disruptions, less downtime, and lower total costs.
Assigning frequent flyers to safety roles works best when the company culture supports it. When workers see that the effort is real and their voices matter, they believe that safety is everyone’s job.
Parallels with Deming’s System of Management
This approach to engaging employees with recurrent injuries in meaningful safety leadership roles strongly echoes the management philosophy of W. Edwards Deming. Deming emphasized continuous improvement, eliminating fear in the workplace, and leadership that fosters pride in one’s work. By reframing injured employees as valuable contributors, this model replaces fear with trust, encourages open feedback, and promotes systemic learning—hallmarks of Deming’s principles. It also breaks down traditional silos between labor and management and shifts data usage from punitive enforcement to constructive insight. Most importantly, this strategy acknowledges that performance issues often stem from system design rather than individual failure, precisely the kind of systemic thinking Deming championed.
Conclusion: Turning Cost Centers into Culture Builders
The traditional approach to repeat injury is reactive: settle the claim, remove the employee, move on. But a better path exists.
By reframing these individuals as safety contributors—rooted in experience, guided by structure, and supported by leadership—organizations can reduce claims, improve compliance, and strengthen their culture from the inside out.
With the proper training, tools, and trust, what was once a chronic cost becomes a powerful catalyst for lasting, measurable change.
