Lessons Learnt…?

I would like to pose a question, or questions: are OHS professionals and the community in general, in all honesty, learning and applying the lessons we are being taught from workplace events?

Are we, or our organisations, being truly effective in preventing the recurrence of events in our workplaces, work processes or activities?

Do we, in truth, actually prevent risk before it has the opportunity to arise, or do we at best eliminate it once it does?

Most, if not all, will answer “yes, yes and yes”. And mean it. But let us take a good, hard look in the mirror.

Almost every day, most of us will become aware of another work-related fatality, another court case won or lost, another event which has resulted in significant harm to person, property, environment – or a combination thereof. What makes these events of note? Continue reading “Lessons Learnt…?”

Silly safety memes, knowledge dumps, body of knowledge and accreditation.

Kevin Jones’s piece on the HSE dilemma with odd reporting of OH&S issues (silly stuff like the popular media reporting HSE banning toothpicks) got me thinkin’ about how silly attitudes about OH&S requirements come about. And maybe there is something to learn from this when thinking about the OH&S body of knowledge and accreditation system.

Clearly the HSE has every reason to be disturbed by the tone that is developing about OH&S in the UK. A contemptuous tone has a knock-on effect that undermines confidence in OH&S generally.

But how does this come about in the first place? Are they spontaneous, or is it a case of one ill-considered bit of advice spreading as a meme?[1] And irrespective of the cause, why are these silly safety memes embraced so readily?

Is it because there are enough people more than happy to join in on denigrating OH&S because they simply have had enough of overly complex or unrealistic obligations? Or maybe the average punter has tired of high-sounding OH&S objectives that don’t turn real in a way that matters to them? Continue reading “Silly safety memes, knowledge dumps, body of knowledge and accreditation.”

Lord Young OHS review welcomed by UK’s HSE

The latest podcast by the Health & Safety Executive includes an interesting interview with the chair of the HSE, Judith Hackitt.

Hackitt admits that any review of occupational health and safety needed

“someone who could look beyond the remit of the Health and Safety Executive and look at what the other factors are out there that create the problems that we all know only too well that create all the nonsense and the myths.”

Lord Young certainly looks at other factors such as over-enthusiastic legal firms but it is hard to not think that someone other than Lord Young could have undertaken the review and come out with a more constructive plan of attack. In many ways his report confirms the misperceptions of OHS. Lord Young says, in his report:

“…the standing of health and safety in the eyes of the public has never been lower, and there is a growing fear among business owners of having to pay out for even the most unreasonable claims. Press articles recounting stories where health and safety rules have been applied in the most absurd manner, or disproportionate compensation claims have been awarded for trivial reasons, are a daily feature of our newspapers.”

This says more about the UK media than it does about the OHS laws themselves. Lord young is very light on his recommendations to curb or counter the inaccurate reporting by the media. He recommends combining food safety and OHS:

“Promote usage of the scheme by consumers by harnessing the power and influence of local and national media.”

He should have gone further but that would require looking at issues such as accuracy in reporting and the UK media is notorious for beat-ups and entrapment. UK newspapers feed on the “Yes Minister” absurdities of bureaucracy and when health and safety relates to children, in particular, they go all out. Continue reading “Lord Young OHS review welcomed by UK’s HSE”

Avoiding the OHS training dead-end

[Ed: There has been a terrific response to Col Finie’s post on training and OHS qualifications both on and off the SafetyAtWorkBlog. Col provides a further article below]

Brett’s point is critical for mine.

[“I reiterate my point that practical experience is the key, because if you do not use that “core body of knowledge” on a regular basis, then you will most likely forget what you have learned, or at a minimum it may become redundant.”]

It goes to the heart of what has to drive the core body of knowledge and accreditation.

Every qualification is no more (or less) than a catalyst for future learning. I heard someone mention there is a rule of thumb that any qualification, at any level, becomes redundant within 5 years after completing it if it isn’t supplemented with on-going learning.

Clearly the question of a minimum qualification to start the passage of on-going learning has to be informed by the complex thing of describing a core body of knowledge. A complex project can only be dealt with properly by dividing into discrete bunches of key issues. And ideally, that division should be done with as few preconceived ideas as possible.

For mine I think there have been some preconceived ideas brought to the project table that look like they are sending the project into a “solutions cul-de-sac”. Continue reading “Avoiding the OHS training dead-end”

What academic qualifications are needed to be a safety professional?

The Safety Institute of Australia has been investigating the development of a “core body of knowledge” for OHS in Australia for some years. Recently the institute released a discussion paper on the proposed accreditation idea for OH&S professionals. There is some similarity to moves in other countries such as the UK and to the situation in Canada. Regular contributor Col Finnie comments below:

“……after a read of [the SIA document I] got very confused. As far as I can see the accreditation thing seems to not paying any regard to the VET (vocational education) sector, and all the OH&S related quals. Before I make any comment on the proposed accreditation paper I thought I should look for some clarification from people who are more aware of the nitty gritty. To that end I posted a topic on the SIA Educators forum [members only]. But to reach a bigger audience I have provided a reproduction of the SIA member’s forum post here.

It’s part question, part observation of what seems to be an anomaly in the way the accreditation conversation seems to be heading. I’m keen to see what you people reckon. Continue reading “What academic qualifications are needed to be a safety professional?”

Safety website says OHS association is heartless

Safety In Australia has posted an extraordinary article questioning the decision of the Safety Institute of Australia to proceed with a process to consider the expulsion of one of its members regardless of the member recently suffering a heart attack.

The article says that the SIA has received a doctor’s letter saying that Phil Kamay, the member in question, should not attend the special general meeting on health grounds but the SIA has decided to proceed regardless. Safety In Australia questions this decision on the grounds of fairness. It is unclear who, if anyone, will be presenting Kamay’s rebuttal of the accusations against him that have led to the expulsion moves.

On an unrelated note, it is understood that the SIA has two tables booked for Worksafe Victoria’s Safety Awards late next week and that Phil Kamay is a guest at one of those tables.

Kevin Jones

Major rethink on Australian Standards needed

A recent download of a “free” guide from the Victorian Building Commission on retrofitting a home for bushfire protection raised the ongoing nonsense of Australian Standards costs. Sure enough, this free guide is only notionally so; if you don’t hand over $100 then the guide has limited use.

The guide I got, “A guide to retrofit your home for better protection from a bushfire”, is packed with useful info, up to the point you need the nitty-gritty. Time and time again the reader is sent off to AS 3959 – Construction of buildings in bush-fire prone areas. Being in OH&S-World we get used to that little double-blind. Happens all the time with regs and codes and all sorts of guidance stuff. And it is ridiculous. Its gotta change.

As best as I know a massive cost of development of Australian Standards is born by the participating development organizations. They are the ones that foot the salary bill to have their staff go off to meetings to formulate the Standards. Sure, there is going to be lots of other costs, but from what I can see this critical contribution to the development of Australian Standards is a cost to the businesses and government agencies taking part (ultimately a community cost) and the double whammy comes when you want to buy a Standard.

The fact that such an important bit of guidance on protecting homes from bushfire is essentially diminished by the need to spend $100 to get the Standard really slams home the point that change has to happen.

For mine, all PDF downloads of Australian Standards should be free. A cost recovery cost for a hard copy seems fair enough. I don’t know about the experience of others, but it borders on embarrassing to be giving a punter help on this or that OH&S issue and then have to add “Oh and I think you have no choice but to fork out $XXX for this Standard.” I hate that, and where I can I avoid it. But clearly there’s times when it’s impossible.

Perhaps it’s time to get fair dinkum about improved standards of safety, and fair dinkum in way that truly cuts the bullshit? And that means nationally developed Standards become the nation’s product; PDF copies free to anyone who needs to use ‘em.

Col Finnie
col@finiohs.com

Category: Professional standards

Lessons Learnt…?

I would like to pose a question, or questions: are OHS professionals and the community in general, in all honesty, learning and applying the lessons we are being taught from workplace events?

Like this:

Silly safety memes, knowledge dumps, body of knowledge and accreditation.

Like this:

Lord Young OHS review welcomed by UK’s HSE

Like this:

Avoiding the OHS training dead-end

Like this:

What academic qualifications are needed to be a safety professional?

Like this:

Safety website says OHS association is heartless

Like this:

Major rethink on Australian Standards needed

Like this:

I would like to pose a question, or questions: are OHS professionals and the community in general, in all honesty, learning and applying the lessons we are being taught from workplace events?

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: