Category: education

Blue Card training needs a review

Most workers meet OHS training through short courses, perhaps even inductions.  Few have the time, the desire of the finances to pursue a tertiary qualification.

Australia has recently achieved a uniformity in its “card system” of OHS training for construction workers.  The card concept originated from the Safety Passport used in some European industries and is intended to provide a common set of OHS skills to workers so as to reduce on-site induction time and costs.  It is a worthy initiative and has improved safety awareness on work sites however any training program needs to include self-improvement.

(A national OHS induction system should be part of the Australian Government’s response to the recommendations of the model OHS law review panel.)

Current training seems to have reached the point where too much is trying to be done in too little time. Blue Card training can be undertaken in 6 hours and covers over 50 workplace issues!!  Yes the training is only for “safety awareness” but 50 issues in around 5 hours is absurd unless the training runs something like

  • Smoking in the Workplace – DON’T DO IT
  • Job Safety Analysis – GOT TO HAVE ONE
  • Fatigue Management – GO TO BED EARLY
  • Alcohol and Drug – MAKE SURE THE EFFECTS ARE GONE BY MONDAY MORNING
  • PPE – WEAR WHATEVER THEY GIVE YOU

One would have to ask if this training is really worth it.  The main reason the training is offered at all is that it is a mandatory requirement for many worksites and the construction industry.  But what good is having a Blue Card if the training is too simple, too generic?

A universal/national level of safety awareness or induction would be ideal but the current system and its implementation leaves a lot to be desired.  Let’s hope that reform of this process is on the agenda of the new Safe Work Australia organisation.

Kevin Jones

Below are the components of a Blue Card safety awareness training program currently offered in Australia: 

Module 1: OSH – The Law, Your Employer and You

  • legislation, regulations, codes of practice, guidelines and standards
  • right to refuse work
  • responsibility for regulation by WorkSafe
  • general duties of care – public safety, employee, employer, manufacturers and suppliers
  • safety and health representatives and safety and health committees
  • resolution of safety and health issues
  • workplace policies and procedures
  • reporting of serious occurrences, injuries and hazards
  • workers’ compensation

Module 2: Managing Risks in the Workplace

  • understanding the meaning of hazard and risk
  • risk assessment/management
  • control methods for managing risks
  • job safety analysis worksheets
  • five steps to complete a JSA
  • emergency procedures and response plans
  • emergency situations
  • emergency response training

Module 3: Staying Safe in the Building and Construction Industry

  • employee responsibility
  • effects of shift work
  • how to manage the effects of shift work
  • fatigue
  • your personal alertness
  • diabetes
  • obesity
  • depression
  • safety management systems
  • benefits of a safety management system
  • examples of safety rules – equipment and tool safety
  • performing high risk work
  • housekeeping
  • personal protective equipment
  • prevention of skin cancer, eye damage and mosquito born viruses
  • safe manual handling
  • alcohol and other drugs at the workplace
  • smoking
  • alarm systems and emergency exits/escape routes
  • responding to emergencies
  • fire equipment
  • first aid

Module 4: Environment and Other Considerations

  • the working environment and weather conditions
  • heat stress
  • hypothermia
  • safety signage
  • tag and lock out isolation procedures
  • environmental issues and responsibilities
  • vegetation
  • native fauna
  • water pollution
  • atmospheric pollution
  • entry into confined spaces
  • working at heights
  • safety rules for working on ladders
  • electrical safety
  • hazardous substances

Is there a Mars safety and a Venus safety?

A research paper released last month in Germany caught my attention even though it does not relate directly to research undertaken in a work environment.  

There seems to be an established train of thought that men and women choose to take risks based on some sort of gender criteria.

Alison L. Booth and  Patrick J. Nolen have published “Gender Differences in Risk Behaviour: Does Nurture Matter?”  They researched risk behaviour along gender lines in secondary education, a different sample choice to other researchers who mostly looked at their university students.  Booth and Nolen found

“…gender differences in preferences for risk-taking are sensitive to the gender mix of the experimental group, with girls being more likely to choose risky outcomes when assigned to all-girl groups.  This suggests that observed gender differences in behaviour under uncertainty found in previous studies might reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits.”

Gender studies are fraught with ideological baggage and it is a brave person who chooses this line of study, as I learnt through studying sociology and Russian literature at university (but that’s another story).

The full report is heavy going for those with no sociology background but the research flags an issue that could be useful to pose to the growing band of workplace psychologists and culture gurus – what are the gender-based variations in unsafe behaviours in the workplace?

Could the available research mean different safety management approaches in workplaces with different gender mixes?  

When people talk about workplace culture, could there be a male culture and a female culture?  (We certainly refer to a macho culture in some industries)  In other words, is there a Mars safety and a Venus safety?

Workplace safety tries hard to be generic but has variations based on industry types.  Perhaps we should be looking more closely at the demographics of these types and varying our safety management approaches?

Kevin Jones

Safety Qualifications

Each year Australian recruiting company SafeSearch releases a remuneration survey.  This year the report was released in late-February 2009.

A media release from SafeSearch reports that

“Almost all HSE Managers hold formal safety qualifications with 90% reaching Diploma level or higher.”

In Victoria, in particular, there is a strong professional community generated from the Victorian Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, located at the University of Ballarat.  The OHS studies at VIOSH have always been the course of choice because it is one of the oldest of the OHS courses and it was given a high profile by the lecturer also being on the national OHS body, Professor Dennis Else.

The standing of VIOSH graduates is high but it seems that part of the reason is that the students have always been drawn from the already-employed.  The course has also required a four-week residency that may generate considerable focus on OHS and has the benefit of established a camaraderie reminiscent of boarding school.  Many students seem to be drawn from those corporations or government departments that allow for study leave.

The SafeSearch report says the trend to degree-qualified safety professionals is only a recent phenomenon.  The Director of SafeSearch, Julie Honore said

“While we have always seen a strong requirement for Environmental professionals to be degree qualified the trend for safety professionals has only been evolving and becoming stronger more recently.  

Whereas once our clients were prepared to consider unqualified people, that is no longer the case. We are seeing a trend of experienced Managers enrolling to take on more studies to ensure they are competitive in the market.”

Honore also warns about students implying a greater level of knowledge than reality

“We have had numerous instances where candidates have included qualifications on their resumes but once these are checked out further, you often find that they have only recently commenced studying towards a qualification as they have recognised the need for formal qualifications to assist in making them marketable. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is important that this is correctly stated on the resume”.

From the recruiter’s perspective, verification of qualifications is very important but, more broadly, it is important to look at the quality of the course in order to gauge the quality of the qualification.  Is one diploma of OHS the same as another? – No.  Is the quality of instruction the same across tertiary institutions? – No.  But is this important?  Perhaps we should be assessing the person and not the paper.

But how do we do that with a new recruit?  Wouldn’t it be helpful to have an external assessment of safety management skills? Perhaps, a registration system?  But many of those stem from a base qualification of a university degree.

Safety qualifications and competencies is a difficult area to understand and most of the people investigating the issue are from academia and so have a vested interest in the research.

The Safety Profession is at risk of limiting its selection criteria too narrowly and developing irrelevance.  It is similar to the operation of political parties where candidates for election on the conservative side come mostly from law practices and employer associations and those on the left of politics come from law practices and trade unions.  The  politicians may still be able to represent their constituents but they do not reflect the electorate and, it could be argued, represent narrow desires of the electorate.

The Safety Profession needs to draw from a much broader pool of skills, understanding and experience if it is to continue to develop and improve.  It should not only draw upon those who can afford a tertiary qualification or who is supported by their employers financially or through study leave.

Even if the bulk of the profession is tertiary qualified it must actively seek those from outside the established structures.  Any profession that does not recruit widely and wisely runs the risk of becoming too “chummy”, elitist and, eventually, irrelevant.

Kevin Jones

Note: the author is one unit shy of a Graduate Diploma in Risk Management (OHS) from Swinburne University

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2024. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

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