The How, How likely and How much of workplace safety

I return to the observation Ken made in his article, the obs about the most successful safety places where

“…safety is driven at the shop floor level and led by a committed team of senior executives who can be relied upon to show it by their actions and not just words.”

Of course, at first blush this is about ownership, commitment etc.  But I get the impression that it’s something even more fundamental and that’s about pragmatism.

I’m not sure OHS-World is so good at How, How likely and How much: the things that I’d suggest cut-to-the-chase on defining pragmatism.

In contrast, we seem to get all caught up in What and Why as if that is enough to motivate good safety performance.  What manifests itself as interminable reports of all the horrible safety failures and the injuries that accompany them.  For mine, the only What in this context is a What that matters to the punter.  Did something go wrong in a way and situation that is completely relevant to the punter, so it can be used to look for similar potential at the punter’s place?  The Why I’m referring to is why a punter should fix stuff, specifically in the context of fixing stuff ’cause it’s the right thing to do or ’cause ya can get busted.  Continue reading “The How, How likely and How much of workplace safety”

Understanding people is understanding safety

SafetyAtWorkBlog reader Ken Malcolm submitted this comment in response to Yossi Berger’s article of 21 March 2011 but I think it warrants a post of its own:

It is often said two safety professionals never agree however I do agree SA law has been ineffective.  However let me explain why I think this way.

I am in Victoria, in the business of making sustainable changes in the workplace.  I am convinced that prescriptive legislation does not cut it when you want to improve safety, as Lord Robens recognised.  All you get are thicker law books and people less willing to read them.  In most businesses I consult to, they have a problem and the problem is quite simple.  They have excellent systems but nobody is implementing or enforcing them; or the employees are just not following them. In many cases they have an eager OHS Manager with perfect sets of graphs and records; he or she is busily tracking failure.  What they can’t do is drive a culture change.  BTW, safety culture is what you get when the boss isn’t there.

The requirement to find hazards and manage them according to the unique circumstances of the work environment and of the persons within it, does affect culture if this process is supported by senior execs and fostered or encouraged properly.  Laws that encourage that approach are desirable.  With regards to getting tough, fear motivation does not achieve lasting change and with a normalisation of deviance, greater risks are tolerated by degree until people are climbing on safety rails to clean equipment 6 metres from the ground.  Continue reading “Understanding people is understanding safety”

Safe Work Method Statements and independent positions

Over the last few months most Australian OHS regulators, and many labour law firms,have been conducting workshops and public seminars on Australia’s plans to harmonise its OHS legislation.  In those workshops, the consultative process and timeframes have been described by some as a “nightmare”, which is not exactly inspiring participants who are seeking clarity from the confusion.

Significantly, others are encouraging the audience to advocate specific positions in potential submissions.

Recently, concerns were raised over the revisions to Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) provisions.  It was suggested that SWMS have the potential to bloat beyond several pages due to the need to include “associated risks”.  Most safety management systems and OHS professionals would already have include secondary, ancillary or associated risks as part of the job safety analyses and SWMS. Continue reading “Safe Work Method Statements and independent positions”

People enter the quad bike ROPS debate

A week on from Australia’s The Weekly Times using its front page to open a debate about roll over protection structures (ROPS), the debate has continued in the letters and op-ed pages of The Weekly Times.

Dr Yossi Berger of the Australian Workers Union asks the valid question in his opinion piece – should all the responsibility for quad bike incidents be placed on riders or can manufacturers do better?  If injuries and deaths on quad bikes continue to occur after rider-focused control measures have been advocated and encouraged for many years, isn’t it time to look at more than PPE and administrative controls?  As Albert Einstein is alleged to have said:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Rhys Griffiths of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries says in his piece that the quad bike manufacturers are frustrated that low-cost, in safety-speak, administrative controls are not being applied by riders or endorsed by safety regulators.  The control measures recommended are likely to have positive safety impacts but these could be improved further by the integration of a ROPS.  However Griffiths says that :

“Roll Over Protection Systems are not the answer”.

I agree but safety is rarely about “the” answer.  Better outcomes are mostly achieved by a combination of controls that can accommodate the varying work characteristics. Continue reading “People enter the quad bike ROPS debate”

Good Comcare content on effects of OHS harmonisation

Australia’s Comcare was the first of the OHS regulators to provide an information session on Australia’s attempts to harmonise its OHS laws across many different jurisdictions and industry sectors.  The Melbourne seminar on 7 February 2011 could have been presented better but some useful information was available.

Content – Inspectorate

The most significant OHS information to come out of the event was that Comcare is making a serious attempt to move its enforcement from the investigatory model to inspectorate.  Michael Barnes acknowledged that this will be a considerable culture change for Comcare staff and, by extension, many Comcare clients.  This is a major change of emphasis as illustrated by Victoria’s WorkSafe that went through this exercise over the last five years or so.  This program will take many years to introduce and still more years to be accepted.

Basically the OHS “policeman” will have additional obligations to advise clients on ways to comply with OHS laws.  There has always been a tension when OHS inspectors, who often know the most appropriate control measure in work situations, are bound to not advise as they would be overstepping their authority. Continue reading “Good Comcare content on effects of OHS harmonisation”

Quad bike safety issues continue with no end in sight

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been following the discussions about safety of all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes for some time.  This is because the use of these vehicles encapsulate so many of the issues that workplace safety needs to deal with:

  • Safe design
  • Personal protective equipment
  • Hierarchy of controls
  • The line between private activity and work activity
  • Personal responsibility
  • The “nanny state”
  • Regulatory safety guidance
  • Industry-based codes of practice

On 19 December 2010, the New Zealand Sunday Star Times ran a feature article on quad bikes, written by Amanda Cropp (I can’t find the article online but please send a link if you can) entitled “Risky Business”.  The article is a fair summation of many of the perspectives and attitudes to quad bike safety.

For those readers who like statistics, Cropp writes that

“The annual ACC [Accident Compensation Corporation] bill for quad bike-related injuries is around $7 million, and Hobbs’ claim was among 2533 in 2009, a sizeable increase on the 457 new claims accepted in 2000.” [link added] Continue reading “Quad bike safety issues continue with no end in sight”

Undercover Boss is an example of executive alienation

Undercover Boss” has become a popular television program in many countries over the last few years.  The format is fresh and the results revealing.  The eyes of each boss are opened to the deficiencies of a business and to the value of the workforce.  Each episode ends with the reward of acknowledgement to the workers and new wisdom to the boss.

But the show is also an indictment of the attitudes of, and the management training provided, to senior executives.  Why were the employees not being valued by the executives already?  How did the executives lose touch?

If business management, corporate structures, and management training was rooted in the reality of work rather than profit, a series like Undercover Boss would never have been possible.

The concept of an executive maintaining a perspective of frontline customer contact is not new.   Continue reading “Undercover Boss is an example of executive alienation”

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd