Comments on: Criticism of “safety differently” rebuffed

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:57:13 +0000

In reply to Rob Long.

Rob, I do think “Safety Differently” deserves more scrutiny and I think it is getting towards addressing power but as with many new concepts, it is often the second generation who provides the most relevant application.

Originators of ideas are often hesitant to let go of the idea sufficiently for others to apply the idea in new and unintended directions.

“Safety differently” desperately needs case studies of the application of the theory and for these to be replicated and verified. I suspect though that, without case studies, “safety Differnetly” may be seen more as a reaction to a bogged-down OHS profession rather than a clear path forward. I think we are still looking for the new paths.

By: Rob Long

Rob Long — Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:36:19 +0000

The endorsement of ‘more of the same’ philosophy is not surprising from this source. Moist of its interpretation of safety differently is a distortion, anchored to traditional notions of power and control.

By: jonathanstolk

jonathanstolk — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:03:26 +0000

Hi Kevin thanks for the sharing of this interview! Good to see that work force engagement is finding way into real work places. The more people are becoming ‘Safety Changers’, the better it is!

By: Dave Clarke

Dave Clarke — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:41:40 +0000

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.

By: Tony Collins

Tony Collins — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:27:49 +0000

“Zero Harm suggests every damaging occurrence is unacceptable from a Class I fatality to a Class III paper cut. The inevitable and logical conclusion of the Zero Harm proposition is that resources will not be allocated appropriately.”

Or “Managing the many Class III Minor damaging occurrences does not manage the few Class I and permanently life altering damaging occurrences.”

Google search “AWHS026-Kahler_Roger.PDF” for the full submission.

By: stephen Sandilands

stephen Sandilands — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:18:13 +0000

If one reads teh responses and accepts what has been provided in responses as correct,then there does not appear to be a huge lot that is different. Of concern then is the issue that UCATT has not seen fit to talk with the company (talking with the other concerned party is something we have all been remiss in doing at times).
However to continue to wage what sounds like the traditional union battle without having some discussion to either understand or to explain concerns is a reminder of the union movement of 30 years ago and significantly most unions and businesses have moved forward.
If the approach of front lone workers being involved in planning and risk control is working then that is great, but again something that is not really new, butrather something that has taken time to get businesses to adopt. If it improves the actual design of job provesses to be more in line with a realistic work scenario, then all the better for that.
On that point so much of what I have seen in the last 15 years has been academics designing jobs without understanding the work, purely because companies have laid it out that way getting experts in to do the task in the shortest possible time rather than considering all the real issues involved