evidence – Page 160 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Rotting fish, safety leadership and wizards

In business, government and public authorities, CEOs and executives regularly resign during periods of controversy. Within the 24 hours of each other in 2010 two prominent Australian executives resigned – Brian Waldron and Russell Rees. Waldron because the rugby league team, Melbourne Storm, his previous CEO appointment, was found to have operated unethically during his time at the top. Rees resigned because, he said it is the right time to leave, however there had been serious questions put in a Royal Commission about his handling of the events in Black Saturday bushfires when over 170 people died.

The dominant mantra in occupational safety management is that safety cannot be improved without leadership from the executives. Australian safety conferences are laden with mentions of leadership. Leaders have the potential to inspire, although some stay on for too long.

The leadership sellers in the corporate marketplace (some not dissimilar to wizards) are all pushing the positive benefits of leadership. But there are good leaders and bad leaders. There are inspirational leaders and there are selfish leaders. There are those executives who lead in positive directions and there are those who lead organisations and others astray. There are some people who are not suited to being leaders at all. Continue reading “Rotting fish, safety leadership and wizards”

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”

Authority in denial?

Polite or ignorant?

Coroners can be a polite lot, preferring what they would call ‘substance’ to emotion, accuracy to grand standing. They also hope that their Findings make a difference and help to protect people against a range of lethal circumstances. Ex-coroner Graeme Johnstone (Victoria) was an outstanding example in OHS. So any comments in their Findings ought to be considered against this background.

However, the comments by the South Australian State Coroner Mark Frederick Johns in his Findings (9/2/2011) in the death of Daniel Nicholas Madeley who died (6/6/2004) as a result of an occupational incident are puzzling. Either the man is being very polite or seriously ignorant of what really goes on in industry. And it does matter because coroners carry a lot of authority. Work by Johnstone, Olle and Tasmanian coroners (mining disasters) has been very helpful.

Poor guarding

To paraphrase: Daniel was 18 years old when he died of ‘horrific injuries sustained when he was caught in a horizontal boring machine’. He became entangled in the machine Continue reading “Authority in denial?”

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”

Evidence on the need for safe job design

One reader has provided an example of recent research that supports the previous SafetyAtWorkBlog article on the importance of quality and safety in job creation.

In the March 2011 online edition of the Occupational & Environmental Medicine journal, Australian researchers have analysed data concerning “the psychosocial quality of work”. According to an accompanying media release (not available online yet) they found that

“The impact on mental health of a badly paid, poorly supported, or short term job can be as harmful as no job at all…” Continue reading “Evidence on the need for safe job design”

New quad bike research and practical safety guidance

A major Australian rural newspaper, The Weekly Times, has devoted its front page to an article on rollover protective devices on quad bikes. It has taken as the base new information released by the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (ACAHS) through a media release. The new policy paper and the supporting Practical Management Guide acknowledge new research from independent engineers that has finally questioned the established knowledge base on the safety of quad bikes.

ACAHS has come to a position where it states:

“Farmers and other owners of quad bikes should be encouraged to fit suitably tested protective devices to reduce death and serious injury from rollovers.” Continue reading “New quad bike research and practical safety guidance”

You can lead a stressed horse to water……

England’s Trades Union Congress (TUC) released results of a survey of union representatives on 24 February 2011 that shows that workplace stress is

“now by far the most common health and safety problem at work.”

Even taking into consideration the inherent bias of such union surveys of reps, the figures are significant. The 24 February 2011 media release states:

“Nearly two thirds (62%) of reps say that stress is in the top five problems faced by the workers they represent and more than a quarter of reps (27%) pick out stress as the hazard at work that most concerns them. Another recent report from the British Academy states that the global economic downturn is to blame for the soaring stress levels due to the sharp rise in job strain and job-insecurity; both determinants of work-related stress. In the last 2 years, work stress levels rose by more than 4%, compared to the previous rises of 0.1% from 1992 to 2009.” [link added]

So what can be done to reverse this trend?

If the global economic downturn has generated increased stress levels, OHS practitioners and activists need to look at the big picture and begin pushing for better economic health – an action that, outside of the union movement, hardly ever gets a mention.

If OHS principles are based around the need to eliminate hazards then OHS professionals should be strong advocates of sustainable development where the mental health of workers needs as much support for sustainability as the environment receives, if not more. Continue reading “You can lead a stressed horse to water……”

Category: evidence

Rotting fish, safety leadership and wizards

Like this:

The How, How likely and How much of workplace safety

Like this:

Authority in denial?

Like this:

People enter the quad bike ROPS debate

Like this:

Evidence on the need for safe job design

Like this:

New quad bike research and practical safety guidance

Like this:

You can lead a stressed horse to water……

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: