Category: safety culture

BBC podcast on UK’s OHS review

The BBC’s radio program, Politics UK, for 18 June 2010 includes an uncredited discussion on the OHS review announced by Prime Minister Cameron recently.  The discussion occurs at the 20 minute mark of the podcast which is available to download for a short time.

Much of the content seems to reflect the thoughts and comments of The Telegraph article by Philip Johnston but at least the BBC reporter acknowledges that the issue is not really health and safety but the “fear of litigation”.

There is an interesting reference to the “goldplating” of European Union directions and the issue of food safety and cheese is mentioned.  The impression given is that the more significant and, perhaps, the more difficult challenge for Lord Young is not OHS but the “compensation culture”.  If this is the case, OHS may come off the worse of the two as it may be given a secondary priority.

Kevin Jones

Comcare at Senate Estimates – enforcement performance indicators

Comcare is often seen as a minor player in OHS regulation in Australia because, although it has national coverage, it limits its OHS and workers’ compensation activities to specific industrial and public service sectors.  Although it is limited, it has a monopoly in those sectors and is powerful.  Its role in Australia’s harmonisation program seems to be just another OHS regulator but it has a unique role and structure.

Recently, Comcare’s CEO, Paul O’Connor, and Deputy CEO, Steve Kibble, addressed the Australian Senate’s Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee in the annual Estimates hearings.  Hansard reports Kibble’s comments (around page 32) on the enforcement activity of Comcare:

“Comcare has initiated 16 civil court proceedings in relation to alleged breaches of the OHS Act since 2004…..

Recent prosecutions include a matter in relation to a federal agent of the Australian Federal Police for a breach of his individual duties of care.   Continue reading “Comcare at Senate Estimates – enforcement performance indicators”

Yesmanship – the biggest threat to safety culture

The recent release of a new book on Operation Mincemeat has again raised the term “yesmanship” in  the media.  Online definitions explain the term as

“An atmosphere in which people claim to agree with leadership for political reasons, even when they don’t actually agree with leadership” .

The significance of the term in relation to the current trend of “safety culture” should not be underestimated.  Below are some definitions of safety culture that illustrate the similarities to or risk from yesmanship.

“The product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organization’s health and safety management” Continue reading “Yesmanship – the biggest threat to safety culture”

A safe (social) system of work

For years Australian OHS legislation has focused on establishing a “safe system of work”.  This focus is inclusive and is an understandable approach to safety regulation but it has also generated a fair share of confusion.  If a business does not have a documented safety management system, does it have a system of work?  Yes it does but the lack of documentation makes it very difficult to describe, particularly if there is a performance benchmark such as “compliance”.  Humans like to have a clean line of cause and effect or a linear, causative management process.  So vague concepts like “system of work” can be challenging.

Prescriptive rules used to be the way that safety compliance could be met but that world is long gone.  Its distance can be seen by looking at the Australian Government’s new model Work Health and Safety Act which compounds the vagueness by including “as far as reasonably practicable” wherever possible.  All of this vagueness makes the lot of the business operator more complex and more costly as the business operator seeks clarity from others such as lawyers, OHS consultants, auditors and Standards organizations.  Is it any wonder that safety is seen as an exorbitant cost?  In essence, OHS regulators have outsourced the responsibility, and the cost, to employers. Continue reading “A safe (social) system of work”

Independent safety investigation into BP’s Gulf disaster requested by Congress

On 8 July 2010 the United States government asked its Chemical Safety Board (CSB) to consider investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  It would be good news for safety and the environment for the CSB to take on this role.

Primarily, CSB is well placed to consider any issues concerning the safety management structure and culture of BP that may have contributed to the environmental disaster and the deaths of 11 workers on the rig.  As the CSB media statement outlines

“The CSB thoroughly investigated the BP Texas City refinery explosion of 2005 and issued a lengthy report and hour-long CSB Safety Video following our investigation, and as the letter from the committee chairmen states, we would be in a unique position to address numerous questions about BP’s safety culture and practices, and to answer the questions outlined in the House committee letter today.”

The letter from the chairman of the US Congress’ Committee on Energy and Commerce, Henry Waxman, has asked the CSB to consider the following questions

Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership?

Can a country be run in a similar way to running a business?  Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership?  It would be possible to find examples in support of both these questions and as much evidence to counter them but the contextual difference is important to note when considering leadership in general.

A crucial difference in the two sectors is that the corporate executive or CEO must operate to the satisfaction of the shareholders, regardless of the humanistic and social veneer applied.  A politician or a Prime Minister must serve for the benefit of the people, regardless of the political views held as this social obligation originates with the public office.  Politicians have wriggle room not afforded to CEOs because not all the citizens subscribe to the same values.  In the corporate world there is a clearly visible commitment to capitalism, a clarity not possible in the political world.

At the moment in England, it seems that the newly elected coalition government is starting to prepare for a social capitalism – capitalism with a human edge.  The path to economic restabilisation will be difficult and, according to the newspapers on 8 June 2010, the government is set to call on the services of the former CEO of BP, Lord John Browne.

Browne has graced the pages of the SafetyAtWorkBlog twice previously and not in flattering terms.  One writer said Browne:

“…. was admired by his peers but not as much as he was by himself….” [who] “…As CEO … surrounded himself with sycophants and yes-men enshrouded in a cloud of corporate hubris.”

Continue reading “Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership?”

Suicides in China – is this a Foxconn problem or an Apple problem?

Foxconn, a large technology manufacturer in China has a cluster of suicides.  This issue is getting more attention than normal in Western media because the company manufactures products for Apple and the Apple iPad went on sale around the world at the same time news about the suicides broke.

The question that must be asked is “is this a Foxconn problem or an Apple problem?” Continue reading “Suicides in China – is this a Foxconn problem or an Apple problem?”

© 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