We all do it, we use language to both inform and at times mislead. However, when the latter happens in the field of OHS it can be a very damaging to standards. I’d like to draw attention to one such (class of) circumstance but I’m not sure that the very language I need to use as demonstration will be acceptable within this communication domain.
Some years back I tried to provide a means for linguistic interaction between some academic language and that of workers. I hoped that parcels of theory and practice could interact to highlight strengths and weaknesses, as a kind of OHS reality check. Once a word or a concept is understood communication has only started as an approximation. I was trying to allude to other, subtler tools of language that must also be understood. For example, it’s important to take note of tone, irony, sarcasm, analogy and metaphor. These are all tools used in ordinary conversations, they not only deliver information, but may in fact provide pointers to essential meanings intended. It’s hardly news to state that even a pause or a comma can make all the difference. Try, “What is this thing called ‘Love’?” and “What is this thing called, Love?”
I asked a worker on a large demolition project (that within a year killed a man) how good was the local OHS system and how well was it supported by management. The response was less than enthusiastic. I then tried to get a sense for actual OHS practice, I needed a real example. I asked this measured, neck-tattooed forklift operator of about 56 how he decided what size and type of forklift to use for which load. Was there a policy? Was there a standard operating procedure (SOP)? Was there any written document…….. or what? He was sitting at the time in one of the heavy forklifts on the site, a large machine about to lift and shift a huge load. Continue reading “A gut feeling for workplace risk”
