SafetyAtWorkBlog has repeatedly called for the release of the report into the Beaconsfield mine disaster that was undertaken by Greg Melick, QC. The Tasmanian Government has today made the report and appendices available online.
The OHS-specific reports by Professor Michael Quinlan have also been released.
In February 2009, BHP Billiton forecast a full-year production target of 130 million tonnes of iron ore. On 6 May 2009, the BHP president, Ian Ashby, has admitted that the company will be a “few million tonnes short”. The reason? Workplace deaths.
Ian Ashby was talking at a conference yesterday and pledged to improve safety however BHP, as has been pointed out in previous SafetyAtWorkBlog postings, has professed to place a high value on safety and its staff for some years. This is not a new issue for the company and that is what makes the statements of the president potentially hollow.
It is useful to look at the areas that Ashby has identified for additional attention for the implication is that this is where the OHS management system has been deficient. The measures to be adopted, according to media reports, include
In 2008 the spot price for iron ore had reached $US190 per tonne. In late 2008, the price fell to $US77 per tonne. BHP is currently negotiating prices for its iron ore so no accurate figure of value is available. But let’s allocate a conservative figure of 3 million tonnes to the Ashby quote above and perform a rough calculation for the cost of poorly managed OHS in BHP.
3 million x $US77 = $US231 million; or
3 million x $US190 = $US570 million
Following the economic crisis of 2008-09, shareholders are going to be less forgiving on corporate performance. This has already been seen on the issue of executive salaries but the BHP experience should have shareholders asking why the management activity has not kept up with the safety rhetoric and the corporate values. Because soon the poor safety practices in the outback mines of Australia will be hitting the shareholders’ pockets and they are justified in expecting answers form the executives.
The trap for shareholders is to forget the deaths of the workers and only hear the commitments of the executives for the future. Should one believe the future promises when the corporate values of safety have not been upheld in the recent past?
Note: an independent government review was undertaken and a report was handed to the government in early May. The report has yet to be released and may not be.
A spokesperson for the West Australian Dept of Mines & Petroleum has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that the report into BHP was undertaken under Section 45 of the Act and therefore cannot be released unless in the course of a prosecution. However, just as has occurred with the Melick Report into the Beaconsfield Mine collapse, there is always hope.
Recently I wrote an article for National Safety magazine entitled “Trials and Tribulations”. It came about because I heard about an OHS consultancy that was offering safety management services that included a component of insurance. The insurance was explained to me as covering any OHS fines or penalties that may eventuate for the consultancy’s clients.
This combination of services is very attractive and addresses fundamental OHS questions asked by employers of different sizes – “do I comply?” and “how do I know that I have a safe workplace?”. They’re slightly different questions but ones I come across regularly.
OHS regulators are getting better at helping small business establish a compliance benchmark through the use of compliance codes for some elements of workplace safety management – a semi-return to prescription. However, many small business owner do as much as they can to provide a safe workplace and still get prosecuted by the OHS regulator. This is frustrating and demoralising and in this context an insurance policy is attractive. The insurance would cover any penalties that the business receives even if the incident that generated the prosecution was “unforeseeable”.
The National Safety article includes legal opinions and insurance company opinions that don’t quite fit.
Some of the interviews I conducted with insurance brokers did little to assuage my unease at insurance policies. It seems to me that some insurance policies are taken out unnecessarily while other policies often exempt coverage for the very risks one thought the policy covered. I agree with many insurers who recommend that business insurance is best handled by an experienced risk manager. Sadly many OHS professionals do not have those skills.
In the context of the OHS consultancy, clients may be reassured by such an insurance policy but it should be an unnecessary expense. The consultancy provides a monthly assessment service that steers the company through specific workplace hazards. The consultancy provides some initial OHS advice and resources but no independent audits of the OHS system and the monthly monitors are not trained in OHS.
The consultancy says that following this system will provide compliance, and maybe it does. But even compliant workplaces can have incidents that could generate a prosecution. It is here where the insurance policy should apply.
The monthly assessment system needs to be diligently followed and payments kept current because non-compliance with the obligations of the system could leave an “out” for the insurer.
Statutory liability insurance, particularly for small business, needs to be examined by the OHS regulators. Most regulators approached would not comment on the record about such policies, others were dismissive. The article examines the legal issues further and, sadly, the article is not available online.
If the regulators are truly supportive of small business and OHS compliance for this sector, there should be some guidance on statutory liability issued. But like OHS professionals, regulators are not comfortable with policies that compensate (other than workers compensation). They focus on prevention and prosecution. It’s time to establish a broader source of OHS policy development, one which includes insurance companies, brokers and risk managers.
There is some debate today about whether Swine Flu (in deference to the request from some pig farmers, now renamed “the Mexican Flu outbreak of 2009“) has peaked. Colleagues in Asia over the weekend told SafetyAtWorkBlog that in most circles, the Mexican Flu outbreak has not generated the same level of interest, or concern, as elsewhere. Perhaps the media studies academics can contribute to a redefinition of “global pandemic” as any disease outbreak that occurs in a country next to the United States. (Beware the Canadian Beaver Flu)
But flippancy aside, this dry-run at an influenza pandemic has many benefits and one particularly useful benefit will be a change in attitude to presenteeism in workplaces.
As the Southern Hemisphere enters its flu season and the early round of flu vaccinations concludes, Australia and others will be a test case for any attitudinal change in workers towards bringing their flu-ridden bodies to work, or in workers objecting to the contagious hazards that the presenteeists (?) introduce.
It has always been a suitable HR and OHS process to send someone home who appears impaired or unfit-for-work. In the past “essential” staff would continue to work for the sake of workload or productivity. Over time the folly of such an attitude has become obvious and workplace safety advocates have had a major role in this change. The increased absenteeism of, and the decreased productivity from, a team who have been infected by a single member is now an unacceptable health hazard and productivity threat.
This change has also been helped by the increasingly viable option in some industries for people to work from home.
The Mexican flu outbreak is likely to verify the reality of presenteeism, probably from colleagues demanding that control measures be taken on the unthinking infectious workmate. Masks may be tolerated but in the tradition of the hierarchy of controls, elimination is always preferable to personal protective equipment.
In the 1980s taxation department and many other workplaces, telephone hygienists were employed to disinfect telephone handsets. Modern handsets cannot be disassembled in the same way however, SafetyAtWorkBlog was reminded of this, at the time, peculiar hygiene practices when watching Mexicans disinfecting subways and public telephones.
In all things there must be balance, but the Mexican flu outbreak of 2009 will undoubtedly revise the way people touch things and others. In relation to influenza this is a good thing.
Last night SafetyAtWorkBlog interviewed Rex Hoy, Group Manager with Safe Work Australia, the national safety awards night in Canberra. A podcast of an exclusive interview with Rex is available now.
Safe Work Australia is a fairly new configuration for Australia’s OHS department but it’s awards have been going for some years. On 28 April 2009 the awards were held in Canberra. The timings don’t seem quite right but that is the scheduling of these sorts of things in Australia.
The award winners from the State events are nominated for national awards, usually, conducted six months later. SafetytWorkBlog has written elsewhere about the need to review this system.
The winners this evening were congratulated by the Workplace Relations Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Julie Gillard and were
The obvious peculiarity in the award winners is the absence of winners from Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland, states with large populations and/or large mining sectors.
The Dorsal Boutique Hotel gained considerable kudos in New South Wales’s awards in October 2008 with its bed elevator that reduces the need for housekeepers to bend when making the beds. It is a good example of thinking further into the problem and asking why beds are designed the way they are and why can’t we change it. It has a limited use but considerable appeal to the millions of hotels around the world. More information can be found on the solution at the NSW WorkCover Awards site.
It is always more gratifying to see successful things rather than successful programs as the things are often transferable to many workplaces and are visual solutions to problems, sometimes problems we weren’t aware of. Leadership and management awards are more a recognition that a company has taken safety seriously which has been a legislative requirement on business for decades. There is little innovation to show in these areas. More the award is for the fact that known techniques have been applied in difficult work situations or industry sectors or company configurations.
This is not to say the effort of the award winners is less valuable than tangible solutions but often these changes come from a changed management structure or a traumatic event or new focus from the board. It is easier to understand the significance of these OHS “agents for change” when focusing on an individual achievement. The award for Viki Coad is a great example of the difference one person can make. It is these achievements that should be more widely applauded.
Indeed readers could benefit greatly from looking at the State winners in this individual category for that is where inspiration can be found.
(Kevin was invited to attend the awards event by Safe Work Australia)
I have experienced two situations recently which made me question the value of corporate mission statements.
Recently the CEO of an Australian company spoke about how safety was a core value and how committed to safety she was. She is a recognised leader in safety and directly involves herself in safety management and meetings. However, her employees in the audience were shaking their heads because the safety culture she espoused was not as widespread through the company structure as she believed.
The other situation was a staff meeting I attended with a regional CEO and International CEO where they were unaware that employees in regional offices and undertaking shiftwork had not been integrated into the corporation. In fact the shiftworkers had not been informed of the CEO visits until the last minute. The company has “integration” as a corporate value.
Leadership (a most dubiously-applied concept in my mind) and vision statements may “come from the top” but they do not flow by themselves to the four corners of a company. They must be worked on, almost as a full time mission.
Vision statements have been promoted in so many corporations that have fallen over through mismanagement that statements have become a bit of a joke, in most circumstances. Nothing kills motivation quicker than hypocrisy.
(This also occurs in organisations that begin a program of corporate restructure and positioning, and the first item on the agenda is a “sexy new logo.)
It is important to remember that Enron’s motto was “Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence.” If one thinks that Enron is an unfair corporate example, look at one’s own company statement and seriously ask yourself whether all elements of the company are operating to those standards. Perhaps, someone needs to provide corporate morality audits.
Lastly, any vision statement must accept and mention that the principal aim of any company is to make money (a fact I learnt from Peter Sandman). To omit this reality immediately shows that the statement is not grounded and is simply management spin.
