The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 160,000 times in 2011. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 7 days for that many people to see it.
Australia has embraced a bizarre safety concept of “pro-activity” that is confusing our understanding of intention in the next phase of OHS laws, active safety management.
It is essential to have an active safety management system, a safety management system that is not passive. Having a positive duty for safety, as required by the upcoming new Australian OHS laws, means that companies must be active in managing safety and not sitting back, complacent in their (supposed) compliance, waiting to react to the latest hazard and implementing a new policy related to the hazard but not fixing the hazard. It is a little like the difference between active and passive fall protection devices. In which would you place greater trust in saving your life?
Many safety people urge others to be pro-active on safety but “pro” has many meanings. (a brief history of the term is at wiktionary) The definition most relevant to the new terminological context is “before in time, place, order….” It is urging businesses and professionals to anticipate the action on safety, or to bring that action forward in time. Is it any surprise that companies look at safety professionals and wonder what they are on about?
“Pro” may also imply an increased level of support for safety, as in a “pro and con”. It is doubtful that the definition of ‘pro” as being shortened from “prostitute” is relevant in the OHS context but it would only take a prostitution support group to start advocating a “pro-active safety management system” for the sex industry for “pro-active” to die the death it deserves.
Every industry and profession has jargon but every industry and profession must also communicate with society in Plain English. Jargon has no place in broad communication and workplace safety, to succeed and improve, must communicate broadly.
Let’s put “pro-active” with other unhelpful safety terms such as “best practice” and “zero harm”.
Contemporary safety training is increasing discussing the core values of employees and managers. This focus can be very confronting for many people as core values are rarely discussed or even acknowledged, yet they could be central to the modern approach to safety management and safety compliance.
New safety legislation in Australia applies a common obligation across jurisdictions and industries to consult about health and safety, to communicate, to listen. But personal and corporate OHS obligations are well established so will the reiteration of these obligations in the consultative process have the impact expected? Does this conversation make safety more important, more “front of mind?
A better result may come from discussing core values in the workplace safety and health context. Some may look for these core values to be exposed via expensive training courses and awareness gurus but the first step could be to simply ask one’s self, or discuss with one’s partner, the question “what are my core values?” or “what do I believe?” or “what is most important to me?” Continue reading “Examining core values may benefit safety”
Several times recently people have suggested that common sense is an adequate control measure for some workplace hazards. The United Kingdom’s politicians have been talking about common sense and OHS for several months but perhaps we can apply the broad concept of commonality, implicit in the UK’s advocacy of “common sense”, to OHS information so that people and businesses feel empowered to educate themselves on how to work safety and without risks to health.
Australia’s (seemingly) derailed review of OHS legislation is based on removing red tape but a major focus of OHS reviews in England is
“…putting common sense back at the heart of Britain’s health and safety system…”
Even though reducing bureaucracy is part of the UK review, common sense is certainly the political mantra being applied to the review, being under taken by Professor Ragnar E Löfstedt for the Department of Work and Pensions, as seen by a recent speech by Prime Minister David Cameron to the Conservative Party conference, when discussing the empowerment of local councils:
“…one of the biggest things holding people back is the shadow of health and safety. I was told recently about a school that wanted to buy a set of highlighter pens. But with the pens came a warning. Not so fast – make sure you comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Including plenty of fresh air and hand and eye protection. Try highlighting in all that.”
According to an audio interview with one of the members of the Löfstedt review, Andrew Bridgen MP, the report is due to go to the Minister, Chris Grayling, at the end of October 2011.
In the interview, Bridgen states that people:
“…use health and safety as an excuse not to do things they don’t want to do.”
But the UK is struggling with what to do in response. There has been a strong campaign by the OHS regulator, Health and Safety Executive, to tackle the “elf ‘n’ safety” myths but this will take a long concerted effort and is likely never to succeed completely. Many in the media like reporting about seemingly silly local government and regulatory decisions. This helps depict government as the “fun vampires“.
However the current situation in England, and its echoes in Australia, illustrates the importance of planning for the long term. Continue reading “OHS reviews need to leap forward to relevance”
[Originally submitted as a comment to a “safety costs” article]
I’ve spent a coupla hours dipping into what looked to me like the important bits of the WHS reg RIS, and I gotta say it don’t add up. I’d also say that the RIS does, in general terms, do what it should do, in terms of making the reasoning processes it uses relatively clear. The merit of the conclusions is up for debate of course, but at least the RIS seems to have made a fair fist of explaining how the conclusions were reached.
For mine there are 2 key flaws.
1. The options to the proposed reg (chapter 4 pg. 19) are just not sufficient. I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to provide 2 “options” which are: do nothing or make the regs. Roger, it might be reasonable to conclude that a big public consultation exercise has happened with the WHS Act, so why revisit a lot of other options? But the fact is the COAG RIS guidelines say a “range of options” should be included, and it’s common practice in RISs to at least have a few genuine alternatives to consider. (See link to the guidelines: ).
The agreement (as it is) by jurisdictions to put the WHS Act into operation doesn’t come with an all-or-nothing conclusion that the WHS regulations is the only option. We have to acknowledge that when it comes to Regulations, we are getting down to tin-tacks when it comes to statutory obligations; it’s that thing about Regulations “giving practical effect to an Act.” That means a big effort is needed to get it right as far as options go. Continue reading “Work Health and Safety Regulation Impact Statement could do better”
In November 2001, prominent risk communicator, Peter Sandman, examined the 9/11 attacks in a long article trying to clarify the impact and the context of the attacks. Shortly after the attacks I had the chance to interview Peter Sandman for the online magazine I was then publishing, safetyATWORK. Below is the text of that 2001 interview.
“SAW: As a resident of New Jersey and a risk communicator, what effect has the September 11 attacks had?
PS: I was very lucky. I live a sufficient distance away, that neither I nor anyone really close to me was lost. But lots of people close to people close to me were lost. Everybody in this part of the country is one or two steps removed from someone who died that day. But, professionally, I’m trying to think through, as I assume anybody in risk communication would be trying to think through what we can say to our countrymen and countrywomen about living in a dangerous world. This is obviously a situation where the outrage is entirely justified. The last thing I want to be doing is telling people they ought not to be outraged. But it’s also a situation where the hazard is serious. Most of my work is in either a high-outrage low-hazard situation, where the risk communication job is to reduce the outrage, calm people down; or a high-hazard low-outrage situation, where the job is to increase the outrage, get people to protect themselves. September 11 and its aftermath have to be described as high-hazard high-outrage. Neither paradigm works. And yet clearly the message to people has got to be you need to live your life. You need to take what precautions you can take and recognise that you’re not going to be completely safe and live your life anyway. You need to get on aeroplanes, and go to ball games. You need to go into big cities. I think in the months ahead people like me are going to be trying to figure out how to say that and say it honestly and honourably and credibly to a population that desperately needs to hear it and understand it. Continue reading “Peter Sandman interview in the aftermath of 9/11”
A recent article in the Journal of Health Safety Research & Practice (JHSRP) quoted the findings of some research into construction and safe design by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). One of the NIOSH recommendations listed was that “… the trickle-down concept is appealing.” The “trickle-down concept” may be appealing in many areas of policy, practice and the advocacy of leadership but its effectiveness is questionable.
It has become a mantra of some areas of the safety professional that safety can only be improved when introduced from the top. A whole sector of safety leadership sellers has been created on this belief and an important element of the salesmanship is that good safety practices will trickle-down. This sounds logical but it is necessary to analyse this concept, a concept that originated well outside of safety management.
Trickle-down has been described as a marketing concept, which seems based, partly, on envy. Wikipedia says that, when applied to fashion,
“…this theory states that when the lowest social class, or simply a perceived lower social class, adopts the fashion, it is no longer desirable to the leaders in the highest social class.”
If this can be applied to safety leadership, it may be that by the time the leadership values reach the shopfloor workers, the leadership advocates, the executives, may be no longer interested. The transience of trickle-down should be considered when leadership is applied. How can safety change be sustained through leadership? What can keep leadership fresh and relevant? Continue reading “Is the trickling down of safety information sufficient?”