Category: technology

FindTheBest seriously misjudges on its data services for workplace deaths and injuries

Many organisations are beginning to assess their performance in occupational health and safety (OHS), mostly through spreadsheet graphics and lead and lag indicators.  These “databases” provide comparisons of activity with the hope of showing positive progress on safety.  FindTheBest.com has been building comparison websites for some time and has applied their mystical Web2.0 algorithms to workplace safety data from the United States in its FindTheData website.  It has several sites that may be of interest to OHS professionals – Work Injuries and Death and Dangerous Jobs.

Dangerous Jobs allows you to select the occupational categories you are interested in and then compare their statistical data.  For instance, comparing Farmers and Ranchers to Structural Steel Workers shows an annual fatality rate of 39.7 to 30.3 based on hours, respectively.  These comparisons are based on data from the United States Department of Labor statistics.  But the question on the comparison is so what?  What benefit can be gained by comparing these two sets of data?  None, as far as I can see.

The glossary for Dangerous Jobs lists the top couple of popular comparisons as

  • Top 7 Most Dangerous Jobs in US
  • Police and sheriff’s patrol officers vs. Electricians

The first has curiosity value but the second is reminiscent of the adolescent (or drunk) speculation on who would win in a fight between Darth Vader and Gigantor?  Pointless speculation that sounds like it could result in some interesting information.  Just maybe.  Perhaps. Continue reading “FindTheBest seriously misjudges on its data services for workplace deaths and injuries”

Inductions, technology and effectiveness

In relation to the new harmonised laws in Australia Amy Towers recently stated in a media release that

“Many employers still haven’t got it quite right. While most have an understanding of their new health and safety responsibilities, we’re finding the practices they do have in place don’t sufficiently meet the new compliance requirements – particularly for managing temporary or contracting staff…”

This is no great surprise.  While reviewing the compliance with incoming legislation, many law firms have similarly found that clients were not compliant with existing OHS laws.

Towers goes on to say that “businesses are most at risk of non-compliance in these areas:

Construction induction certification could move online

E-learning has become an acceptable option for many industry training sectors.  In Australia, this industry is still in its early stages.  One of those reasons is that the internet resources are not as extensive as in other countries but the Federal Government began to establish a National Broadband Network (NBN) that should allow better e-learning servicing.

Last week, occupational health and safety inductions were provided with the NBN and e-learning approach.  According to a media statement issued in early February 2012:

“With Australia moving to adopt a national qualification to enable workers to enter a construction site, a project is currently underway to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of an immersive 3D computer game to deliver occupational health and safety (‘White Card’) certification training for the construction industry.

This would enable workers to use a training computer game to learn and be assessed for the unit of competency required by the National Code of Practice for Induction for Construction Work, without being compromised by time and place. Importantly, it also allows trainees to gain real world experience ‘on site’ or ‘using’ industrial equipment without exposing them to potential risk.” [links added]

SafetyAtWorkBlog posed some questions to one of the participants of the program, Skills Tasmania, and received the following responses from one of the program partners, Mark O’Rourke, the Educational Advisor of the Curriculum Innovation Unit of the Victoria University Continue reading “Construction induction certification could move online”

OHS app is attractive but may be no better than a paper system

Over the last few months I have been using my iPad to take photographs of good and bad workplace practices.  These photos are usually shown to a site or business manager after a visit so that control measures can be identified.  The advantage of an iPad is that no one has to squint at a small screen to try to see the hazard.  I have kept my eyes open for potentially useful OHS apps for the iPad.  One app recommended to me is iJSA.

iJSA, designed for the iPhone initially, is packed with features that could assist the tech-savvy OHS professional in developing Job Safety Analyses (JSA) (Job Hazard Analysis in the United States).  However any app must prove to be better, more convenient and more effective than existing measures and I am not sure that iJSA does this. Continue reading “OHS app is attractive but may be no better than a paper system”

OHS reviews need to leap forward to relevance

Several times recently people have suggested that common sense is an adequate control measure for some workplace hazards.  The United Kingdom’s politicians have been talking about common sense and OHS for several months but perhaps we can apply the broad concept of commonality, implicit in the UK’s advocacy of “common sense”, to OHS information so that people and businesses feel empowered to educate themselves on how to work safety and without risks to health.

Australia’s (seemingly) derailed review of OHS legislation is based on removing red tape but a major focus of OHS reviews in England is

“…putting common sense back at the heart of Britain’s health and safety system…”

Even though reducing bureaucracy is part of the UK review, common sense is certainly the political mantra being applied to the review, being under taken by Professor Ragnar E Löfstedt for the Department of Work and Pensions, as seen by a recent speech by Prime Minister David Cameron to the Conservative Party conference, when discussing the empowerment of local councils:

“…one of the biggest things holding people back is the shadow of health and safety.  I was told recently about a school that wanted to buy a set of highlighter pens. But with the pens came a warning.  Not so fast – make sure you comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002.  Including plenty of fresh air and hand and eye protection.  Try highlighting in all that.”

According to an audio interview with one of the members of the Löfstedt review, Andrew Bridgen MP, the report is due to go to the Minister, Chris Grayling, at the end of October 2011.

In the interview, Bridgen states that people:

“…use health and safety as an excuse not to do things they don’t want to do.”

But the UK is struggling with what to do in response.  There has been a strong campaign by the OHS regulator, Health and Safety Executive, to tackle the “elf ‘n’ safety” myths but this will take a long concerted effort and is likely never to succeed completely.  Many in the media like reporting about seemingly silly local government and regulatory decisions.  This helps depict government as the “fun vampires“.

However the current situation in England, and its echoes in Australia, illustrates the importance of planning for the long term.   Continue reading “OHS reviews need to leap forward to relevance”

Working Alone gets regulatory boost

Over many years OHS regulators in Australia have produced guidance notes and Codes of Practice to assist businesses in addressing the hazard of workers working alone.  The new model Work Heath and Safety (WHS)  Regulations due to be released with several Codes on 26 September 2011 brings the serious hazard of working alone to the front of business’ workplace safety considerations with a specific regulation on control the hazards of “remote or isolated work”.  The inclusion of this hazard overtly in these regulations will mean that addressing the hazard of working alone becomes a legal requirement.

Division 6 of the model WHS Regulations defines “remote or isolated work” as being:

“…in relation to a workers, means work that is isolated from the assistance of other persons because of location, time or nature of work.”

It is worth considering some of the occupations this might apply to:

LiquidKeyboard may have substantial ergonomic benefits

As an iPad user for well over 6 months, the iPad is a terrific device for reading but it is not the best for writing.  This may be due to having typed since the age of 14 on everything from a solid old Remington typewriter to an IBM golf ball electric typewriter and various keyboards over the decades.  Typing on glass is possible but the limited keyboard size on the iPad is a struggle.  But that struggle may be replaced by an even greater challenge.

The iPad, and many other devices, are bound by a QWERTY keyboard.  Others have argued that the QWERTY layout is outdated but it is possible to produce a presentable email holding an iPad in one hand and typing with the other.  It is likely that , over a short period of time, the shortcomings of that arrangement will create ergonomic problems.

Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have not introduced an alternative to the QWERTY keyboard but rather tweaked it into a new layout.  LiquidKeyboard is the system and, in short

  • “A new keyboard that makes it easier to type on touch screen devices has been invented
  • LiquidKeyboard enables people to use both hands in typing in the traditional way
  • As soon as your first four fingers touch the surface – in one fluid motion – an entire keyboard is constructed using the QWERTY format”

As with many innovations, productivity is the main motivation or it may be that productivity is the language needed to gain broad media attention but the potential ergonomic benefits are just as interesting.   If ergonomics is “the science of designing the workplace environment to fit the user” then the ergonomic benefits of LiquidKeyboard are self-evident.  Just because the  use of  a virtual keyboard has not identified any hazards yet does not mean that research into alternative, more ergonomic methods is not warranted.  The forethought of Christian Sax and other researchers is to be applauded.

Kevin Jones

© 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