SafetyAtWorkBlog originated from the SafetyAtWork magazine, a PDF subscription magazine that ran for a few years. In October 2001 we published a special edition of the magazine focussed on the 9/11 disaster. It has some exclusive articles and other safety content from a range of authors. We have made it available for the first time through this blog to mark the 15th anniversary of the event.
Dr Maureen Hassall (pictured below on the left)says that mining has done great work in improving safety but the fatality rate has not dropped even though there has been some fluctuation. And the catastrophes have had similar causes. So why are mine workers continuing to die?
Perhaps another question should be asked on whether the penalties for recurrent fatalities need to be escalated across the industry? Perhaps it could be possible to apply penalties across an industry sector, such as mining.
The Safety Institute’s Safety Convention is becoming more conventional where the radical discussions of the first session today are being diluted. A significant question asked was all of this information is available but so what? What do we do to use this disruption? Those questions are what persist in delegates as they move to diverse streams and back to traditional safety discussions.
Dr Hassall spoke about the importance of defining control mechanisms and the need to assess and investigate and that mine safety has focused on devices, plant and equipment. Her presentation was curious because some of the most exciting OHS issues in mining have involved safety management – Digging Deeper – or the mental health of fly-in fly-out workers. There was no discussion of these risks even though they contributed to work-related fatalities. (Maybe I was in the wrong session or frame of mind)
There is also confusion in the delegates over the role of the Hierarchy of Controls and Critical Control Management. It seemed odd that a new approach, Critical Controls, was being proposed so many decades into OHS legislation when Controls were supposed to have already been well understood. Maybe disruption can come late to the party but still be effective.
Dr Hassall’s presentation supports the use of and collation of data digitally and in real time but the challenges that are present in mining, as identified by Dr Hassall needs discussion to clarify, which is one of the advantages of being at a safety conference.
Dr Gerry Ayers‘ (pictured above on-screen) presentation was all about death. He went through a list of construction industry deaths and importantly provided a personality to each of the deaths – who was left behind, who was affected by the death. Every safety conference needs this type of presentation to provide the real behind the theory.
Ayers’ presentation fits the theme of this conference because, as he says, there is nothing more disruptive than a workplace fatality. Some may see his presentation as focussing on the past with little pathway to the future and it would have been better to have Ayers in the audience so that he could contribute to the previous disruptive discussions, but his presentation was rightly described as sobering.
Trish Kerin (picture above, middle)of the Institution of Chemical Engineers Safety Centre spoke about the catastrophes in the process industries. To some extent, Kerin’s presentation illustrates the criticism of Dr David Borys about the gap between research dominated by inquiries into disasters and the safety management of the majority of businesses that exist in the small business sector. Disasters are politically significant so that is part of the reason.
The IChemE Safety Centre seems to be trying to redress the inhumanity that seems to have existed in process safety for decades. For a long time, process industry disasters have mostly been academic puzzles of what went wrong. Even when why what went wrong is considered, the attention was rarely on the leadership and executive (mis)management. This changed with Longford and Professor Andrew Hopkins’ report on the resultant Royal Commission. In the US, this changed with Texas City and Deepwater Horizon. It needs to continue more and before the next disaster.
This session has been very conventional compared to other sessions but the first session of the day did set an almost unreachable benchmark. It was one of those sessions whose importance is not realised until seen in the context of the whole conference.
Podcasting is not always as easy as talking to a microphone or interviewing someone across a desk. Episode 4 of the Cabbage Salad and Safety podcast that is posted online today was the third take.
Part of the challenge with podcasting is trusting that what you are saying is interesting, another part is not to talk shit. Thankfully (we think) it was the first of these challenges that caused us to re-record. Very few of us hear our conversations back. Our threads of thought are usually clear to ourselves but we are unsure of how it sounds to others. It is the difference between speaking and listening in a conversation. Listening to what one says can be a confronting experieince.
Episode 4 uses Corr’s Mid-year Review as the launching pad for a discussion on disruption, duty of care, contractor management and my inadequacies.
The next episode will be recorded at the Safety Convention in Sydney, taking in some of the topics being presented but also including a short review of the conference.
As always, please include your comments about the podcast below or email me by clicking on my name.
Part of the reason that workplace safety seems complicated to many business owners is that, sometimes, occupational health and safety (OHS) consultants over-complicate safety. Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are safety documents designed for high risk work activities that this blog has written about previously. Recently SWMS have begun to be sold through a major office stationery…
Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reviewed a safety book of terrific content but poor presentation. Last week I received an Australian book which presented different issues. “Risky Conversations – The Law, Social Psychology and Risk” has been written by Dr Robert Long, lawyer Greg Smith and consultant Craig Ashhurst and is the fifth in a series of books about risk. The title is accurate as the book is essentially a transcript of conversations between the authors but reading is complicated by videos of these conversations also being available on-line through a password available to purchasers of the book. The authors seem to have tried to do too much with the information they have.
Format and Marketing
Freelance writers in this new world of computer technology and social media are advised to maximise their media opportunities when attending a conference or interviewing someone. An interview can be recorded for its video and its audio. The interview could be photographed and the audio could be transcribed. All of these formats can come from a single interview. It seems that Long, Smith and Ashhurst have followed these opportunities by writing a book and producing videos of a three-way conversation recorded over several days but why offer both media formats to the book’s purchasers, when the information is the same? Why incur the cost of videoing a conversation that could have been conducted over a teleconference?
One reason may be that Long is much in demand as a speaker at conferences and an adviser to companies that are looking for a fresh way to look at safety management, and he cannot be everywhere. Andrew Hopkins undertook a similar option when he partnered with FutureMedia in the wake of his successful book on the Longford disaster.
The package of information may be confusing but is the content of the book any good? Reading transcripts can be difficult, even edited and cleaned transcripts as are found in this book. Interview transcripts are usually easy because there are only two voices, including the interviewer, the thread of the conversation is clear and the format is familiar. This book’s transcripts are more difficult to follow even though there is a good amount of facilitation and the conversation diversions are minimised. The book hopes to get its own tone after a while but never seems to establish its own personality.
The information in the videos is a little easier to follow as the three voices are represented visually. The viewer hears the three personalities and accepts the three perspectives. The book tries to unify or harmonise the voices, or perhaps it is the mind of the readers that does this, but reading the book requires a great deal of attention.
The previous safety book referenced above, written by Carsten Busch, had an enormous amount of footnotes and references. The level of detail was appreciated but the book format did not seem to suit it. Long, Smith & Ashhurst prefer annotations to footnotes and this book reads better for it. The annotations sometimes explain a concept where an explanation in the conversations would have interrupted the flow. Sometimes they include hyperlinks for more information. These are not quite text boxes but they are reminiscent of the boxes used so successfully in the Dummies series, though without the bomb symbols and thumbs-up. Annotations allow for the reader to leave reading these until chapter ends or the whole book.
Another advantage is the format required for annotations also leaves plenty of space for the reader to include their own annotations.
Wickedity?
Sometimes the book sounds like a panel discussion of three academics who are very enthusiastic about the topic. And it is easy to have this wash over the reader. But annotations help pull this back to attention. For instance, Long encourages Ashhurst to talk about “Wicked Problems”, the apparent topic of Ashhurst’s PhD. The annotation provides a brief explanation:
“The idea of ‘wickedity’ and ’emergence’ are critical concepts for understanding dialectic and paradox in tackling risk.
The very act of seeking certainty and control by fallible people for things that are uncertain sets the scene for fascinating interacts between the known and the unknown.” (page 14)
Wickedity may be a new and useful concept but the outline is not helped by creating doubt in the reader’s capability by using a verb – interact – as a noun. This forces the reader to reread the sentence to interpret something that should have been pretty clear on the first read through.
One paper that mentions wickedity reports that
“Rittel and Webber (1973) introduced the notion of wicked problems in the context of urban planning where such issues as safety, aesthetics and ease of movement within a given space represent just a few of the more intractable and unique daily challenges facing urban planners.”
The application of concepts from one discipline to another is a major tool of the occupational health and safety consultant and can provide new understandings but wickedity, even as it is expanded upon later in the book, seems to be short hand for multifactorial considerations. The concept is not new but the shortcut is.
Is it any good?
This article has not discussed the content of the book as much as was intended. Partly this is because the book covers so many interesting topics. Partly it is because so many of the conversations seem to require a good knowledge of the books that have come before.
One of the options for purchasing this book is as part of a package of five books and this is an attractive option for those coming to Long’s work for the first time. In some ways this book is like a favourite trilogy. You read each book wanting the next and when the next one comes, you want the pleasure of reading the first book again. Risky Conversations took me back to the first book which still holds the revelations about risk that the current book discusses.
Sometimes articles based on books reveal a great deal of content and identify the dominant themes. I have struggled with this article because while reading the book I felt like I was intruding on a discussion of peers or a study group. The discussion is intriguing but I was from listening from outside the circle or even listening in at the window. Perhaps it has been too long since I studied and immersed myself in the academic rather than working in the real world of applying safety, selling safety and being as creative as I can within the organisational structures I work within.
Rob Long, especially, needs to keep communicating his ideas and this book is a great addition to anyone’s safety library. By including other voices in this book, he is showing that others have embraced his thoughts and are pushing them in new directions, sometimes bizarre ones. His books deserve careful consideration or, even better, to generate discussions. It seems his thoughts demand explanation, refinement, expansion and challenge. In a way this is reflected in Risky Conversations.
Law firms have been producing newsletters and case summaries for a long time. Ostensibly these are for marketing purposes but occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals have benefited from these potted histories and examinations, even though the perspectives are often limited to the legal precedents. Over the last few years though, law firms have been…
Office workers need to exercise more. This is one of the simplest occupational health and safety (OHS) statements that can be made. Whether one stands while answering a telephone, walks to a photocopier, have a walking meeting or take the stairs instead of the lift or escalator, you will be healthier by moving. Too often this simple OHS message is confused by sellers of apps, products, furniture and training courses that promise success from a single intervention. The way to avoid this is to look at the research and some recent Australian research into sedentary work is a useful reference in determining workplace safety interventions.
The research “A Cluster RCT to Reduce Office Worker’s Sitting Time: Impact on Activity Outcomes” has been written by a swag of researchers from around Australia and found that a:
“workplace-delivered multicomponent intervention was successful at reducing workplace and overall daily sitting time in both the short- and long- term.”