Learning Center
![Loading...](https://nelsonjameson.com/pub/static/version1721336664/frontend/Codazon/unlimited_child/en_US/images/loader-1.gif)
Part three & conclusion of a conversation with John Nelson, CEO and Jerry Lippert, President of Nelson-Jameson, Inc.
In the last post we caught a glimpse of how Nelson-Jameson’s product offerings evolved over time. This time, it veers into a discussion of how they listen, observe, and anticipate customer needs.
Solutions for Our Customers
John: One of the biggest costs is product trapped in the supply chain itself. It is not really inventory at all; it is essentially just stuff that is on trucks and ships, doing nothing. Any disruption is of course, very expensive. We take that weight off of our customers’ shoulders even though they may not notice.
We refer to another problem that we solve as “lumpy loads.” We deliver everything
From school labs to medical labs to QA/QC labs in places like the food industry, eye protection is a safety concern that receives a lot of attention. Rightly so, as every day in the United States, about 2000 workers are treated medically for an eye injury. In addition, eye injuries "alone cost more than $300 million per year in lost production time, medical expenses, and worker compensation." The proper use of goggles and safety glasses can make a significant difference in lowering these numbers.
One can browse through countless policy manuals for schools, government agencies, and some industrial settings, where eye protection is mandated. With such universal attention paid to eye safety, why do the numbers of injuries and costs remain so high? The answer isn't a simple one, but some factors can include the following: compliance and standards issues, user error, or simply put: momentary indifference.
Compliance and standards issues involve many possibly enabling factors for eye injuries in the lab. A lack of employee training can factor in, as can a lack of knowledge of federal and state standards. For instance, an employee may not understand that their daily glasses do not provide sufficient protection. Contact users and glasses-wearers need to have additional eye protection, such as goggles that fit around the glasses, or have their prescription incorporated into an ANSI Z87.1 compliant design. These issues may seem quite obvious to some operations, but these causes for concern continue to occur in the lab. To learn more or to refresh your knowledge on eye protection in the workplace click here.
In terms of accidents in the lab, user error is another factor that can come into play. Employees need to ensure that their eye protection is Z87 compliant. Further, they need to know what kinds of hazards exist, and to select the proper eyewear for those hazards. Finally, the eyewear must be properly fitted. For some helpful information on hazards and choosing the proper eyewear for the job, click here.
Recently here at Nelson-Jameson, we had an employee deal with a food safety issue where they had purchased a compromised food item. Though not a pleasant experience, the process
A pen is a pen; a glove is a glove, right? When purchasers are trying to adhere to the bottom line, this might make some sense. It doesn’t seem right that you should have to spend more on metal-detectable products, when you can buy it at the base price. As you figure out what is best for your operation, consider this: the price of something like a box of metal-detectable pens or a box of metal-detectable gloves are much less expensive than a recall caused by plastics contamination in your product.
For those that keep track of food recalls, “plastic contamination” is an all-too-familiar phrase. From cake to tuna to dog food, the discovery of plastic contaminates is a troubling event for both the customer and for the producer. Pen caps, pens, gloves, aprons, etc. are possible contaminants that can show up in a finished product, acting as choking hazards, laceration hazards, biological hazards, and as a shock to those consuming the product or to those serving it.
From August through October, “The Wide Line” blog will feature a series of columns authored by Dan Strongin, a well-known name in the food industry.
In the past several years we’ve seen an unprecedented amount of debate as well as cooperative planning amongst governmental agencies, health researchers and healthcare providers, food industry interests, and many others to address concerns regarding the amount of salt Americans are consuming. The potential fallout, according to the CDC, of our national taste for salt includes hypertension (high blood pressure), “a major contributor to cardiovascular diseases, which are a leading cause of death, disability, and health-care costs in the United States.”
For cheese-makers this poses a few problems. The use of salt in cheese-making, a necessary part of the process, has been a focus in this debate. In cheese, salt
From August through October, “The Wide Line” blog will feature a series of columns authored by Dan Strongin, a well-known name in the food industry.
Snippets from a conversation with John Nelson, CEO and Jerry Lippert, President of Nelson-Jameson, Inc.
I sat down with John and Jerry for a chat recently, by way of Skype, in order to help understand the view from the top.
John –I'll offer an historical perspective. In 1947 when we began, our original business model was a general store for cheese manufacturers. This was the perception of a guy named Jameson, who left the company within a couple of years. He had been a salesman for a long time in the cheese industry, selling equipment, and peering over the fence. He thought that a one-stop shop, or a general store seemed like a good idea, and the model has worked very well. One of the best rationales I think, even today, was/is the impact on freight cost. Often when companies look at their cost of merchandise and material, they don't add in freight cost; they put it in a separate column.