Comments on: The smell of ‘corruption’

By: Miketree

Miketree — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:29:54 +0000

Nice read
It seems the more successful OH&S people are, the more problems we create.
People get \”safety fatigue\”
The longer we go without incidents the more complacent people become.
Perhaps we need more synthetic, non lethal incidents to sharpen peoples focus

By: mark mckenzie

mark mckenzie — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:51:06 +0000

question

why is it that employers have to pay their workcover premiums in advance but providers to workcover/worksafe are not paid for late payments for services rendered. recently we mentioned where a provider was paid 5 years or more after the provision of services

By: Stephen Sandilands

Stephen Sandilands — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:50:29 +0000

Not just small organisations but major ones. Look at the heavy penalties in the late 1990\’s when the DuPont system was exposed for falsifying figures purely to make the system look so good.
Had to deal recently with an HSE manager who had been in mining for over 23 years and had never once had to deal with an improvement notice (shades of extensive carpet sweeping!). Unfortunately the overt and covert pressure on personnel in so many ways is as rife today as it was 100 years ago in relation to reporting and industry leaders are to blame for this continuing. CEO\’s who tell all the staff that their door is open, their email is available to bring concerns to them only for everyone to find out a few weeks later that various personnel who had taken that opportunity are no longer part of the workforce.
Unfortunate as it is it still amazes me that companies – no sorry not companies, but the current crop of senior management, can think like this and in some cases the board and chairman are not aware as they are only being fed what senior management want them to hear, not the truth or reality. The advent of the various forms of WHS in OZ with the PCBU impact can only be a good thing to make management and boards wake up and accept the real responsibility. Unfortunately in some companies even getting HSE managers to promote the information to give guidance to the upper echelons is proving a hard struggle too.
As Greg Smith recently said \”HSE managers are managers too\” and therefore are accountable. More power to this part of the OSH legislation.

By: Yossi

Yossi — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:15 +0000

Actually

Bill,

I think you\’re onto something with the use of the terms \’hood winked\’. Given a choice between running a decent and safe workplace and a knowingly dangerous one I reckon most managers and supervisors would go for the safe one. You see why I sympathised with the worker\’s comment that \’the system was buggered\’. The trick is to make it possible for managers – who know what\’s going on – to insist on daily H&S standards they\’d want for someone they loved. And that\’s where the business of \’hood winked\’ could do with some accurate exploration.

I think there\’s something psychologically deep lurking in those terms used in this context.

By: Tony Harrison

Tony Harrison — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:59:46 +0000

The rule book has been developed for a purpose and that is to reduce injuries in the workplace. Is that not the objective of all who have an interest in the promotion of safety?

If we can\’t play by the rules we should expect consequences and the rule book spells those out quite succinctly. Are we suggesting the rule makers and their myriad of specialist advisers have no idea of what constitutes a fair and reasonable approach to managing safety in the work place, I think not.

Since the industrial resolution employers have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table to improve the lot of workers and nothing has changed that much particularly in the area of safety, so why would anyone think that employers will change attitudes. The only way an employer will be really proactive with safety is where a without doubt clear case is made for major cost benefit outcomes that are emphatically proven, that is the only incentive that will work and where the research money should be targeted.

Create a no risk, win situation and you will change the attitude of the great majority of employers and the outcome for safety in the workplace can only be good, Then the non complying perpetrators can really pay the penalty of non compliance.

Some times the answers can be simple and while the fiddling with after the fact statistics may have some effect on the fringes of the matter they are not in themselves, drivers of change. It will take a complete re-focusing of strategy to a different model to get this stalled safety vehicle moving again.

By: Bill T

Bill T — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:14:01 +0000

Dr Yossi,

Well said. This is so true.

The only thing you didn\’t say is that the main driver for engaging or not, compliance or non compliance or not caring is the almighty dollar.

It drives so much and unfortunately the managers and supervisors of today can be hood winked.

By: Ross Macfarlane

Ross Macfarlane — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:35:20 +0000

Even more egregious than the failures at Moura and Pike River, hard to believe though that may be, were those at Upper Big Branch in West Virginia that killed 29 men in April 2010. Management simply thumbed its nose at repeated citations from the regulators who were seemingly utterly toothless. Use of rock dust, for the best part of a century the accepted control to mitigate against coal dust explosions, was found to be deficient in 80% of samples taken after the explosion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster

http://www.msha.gov/Fatals/2010/UBB/PerformanceCoalUBB.asp

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/96334/upperbigbranchreport.pdf

By: John Ats

John Ats — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:09:41 +0000

It may be fair to draw conclusions from Pike River, Longford and Baker about Pike River, Longford and Baker but it is quite a different matter to suggest that the failings therein identified apply to all organisations. While the difficult and complex tasks in managing organisations with significant hazards can be identified, what can be done to help those responsible to keep people safe. Blaming them, threatening them and punishment may create short term compliance but how can we build long term approaches that address the needs of all.

I resist the temptation to simply blame and punish a few individuals and leave it at that.

I know truly safety minded people at all levels of many organisations. Let\’s try to help them with good research, solid data, effective education, coaching in the workplace and better ways of managing.

Waving the rule book is only part of the answer that I would prefer.

By: Tony Harrison

Tony Harrison — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:19:03 +0000

In response to John Aps, the reason we have legislation, consequent law and prosecution of transgressors is to fairly point the finger of blame and it certainly would help a great deal more if examples were made of transgressors.

The argument is basically very simple \”BE ETHICAL AND COMPLY WITH THE LAW\” sure there will always be genuine accidents but the hundreds of thousands of unguarded machines and other paraphernalia waiting to rip an arm off or similar along with other injury causing agencies, does very little to instill confidence that research methodologies will have any direct affect.on the reduction of injuries to any large extent.

Even handedness you say, Tell that to the 1000\’s of workers injured every year still waiting for the results of a myriad of reports to be action-ed that will stop their mates being injured.

I\’m with Yossi on this one.

By: Yossi

Yossi — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:54:17 +0000

Then tell me

John,

why the Pike River commission of inquiry was the 12th of its kind in NZ? Why 21 warning about high levels of methane in that coal mine were not acted on decisively? Tell me why workers keep losing arms in unguarded machinery in Australia nowadays? Surely you don\’t need \’solid research methodologies\’ to understand the fix to this?! Is that really all that ‘complex and multifactorial’?

So far as the finger of blame goes: do you disagree with the conclusions of the Pike River coal mine Royal Commission? Or that of the Longford one? Or the conclusions of the Baker report?

I hope that you accept that I’m genuine when I write that it would be pertinent to know exactly what you mean. I wonder if you\’ be interested to provide some detail of your views here.