Australasian Mine Safety is the leading voice for all key decision makers within Mining company's and major contractors. Delivering the latest industry news as it breaks.
Issue link: http://ebook.aprs.com.au/i/29218
SAFETY DAVE HAT CHEESES ME OFF… (IN WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY ANYWAY) Safety Dave Whitefield talks about the things that make you go: What the…? I don’t mean to be too negative, but you know how things just frustrate you sometimes? Things that just make you wonder what is going on? Well, below is a collection of those things, and if they are going on at your site then maybe it’s time to have a think about safety. Training is not supervision I deal with a lot of managers who genuinely hold on to the belief that once someone has been trained their obligation essentially ends. They assume that because they can produce a signed training record they will have a defence should something go wrong. What seems to be missed by many of these managers is that training is not the same as supervision. From both a legislative and practical point of view this is obvious. In outlining both an organisation’s common and statute law responsibilities training and supervision are listed separately. From a practical sense, we just simply know that worker necessarily do everything even though they have been told. A manager must invest in adequate supervision processes to ensure compliance with the rules they go to so much effort to communicate. Developing systems to prove compliance rather than improving safety This is a problem I see when organisations are focused too much on compliance, and typically results in the development of lots of bits of paper – particularly checklists and forms. The mindset is all about being able to prove things. Prove that a particular inspection has been done. Prove that an assessment has been completed, and so on. The question to ask is whether filling out the bit of paper actually adds to the safety outcomes. If it isn’t, then seriously consider getting rid of the process. Chances are that it is not being used properly by workers anyway as they probably won’t see the value in it either. Making workers fill out forms just for the sake of compliance, where there is no real value in completing them actually harms the safety culture in place. Safety over productivity This is a very touchy issue with many, and so me, it is mainly how the statement gets thrown around without management understanding the implications of using it. Don’t get me wrong, it sounds great, and ideal. We certainly don’t want productivity over safety, but does that mean we want it the other way around. The challenge created by stating that you prioritise safety over productivity is that you then get yourself into trouble when the company makes a decision that may look like it is a financial one. This could simply be purchasing a cheaper product, delaying a capital expenditure program related to safety, or simply saying no to any safety related expenditure. You see, in a worker’s mind they may interpret that any time you seem to compromise in this area you are going against the commitment you made, and this destroys safety culture. Measuring safety performance with data This is an age-old debate that centres around the need to have data to measure how well the organisation is performing with regards to safety. There is just something so convenient about presenting a nice colourful line graph that shows a downward trend on the Lost Times Injury Frequency Rates (LTIFR). Of course, as the old saying goes, ‘be careful what you ask for’. The real risk is when the data starts driving improvement, rather than it just being one indicator amongst many. The more incident data is discussed, the more potential there is for managers and supervisors throughout the business to assume that they may be being measured on it (and of course in some business they are with money sometimes riding on the figure). The general opinion is that this will just drive underreporting. Zero Harm… Zero Benefit I’ve saved my favourite pet hate until last, and I’ll be specific, stop using “Zero Harm” as the slogan for safety. While it is meant to heighten awareness of safety and provide a constant focus, in my opinion it just makes a mockery of safety and destroys culture. To clarify, this isn’t about whether I think it is possible to have Zero Harm either, this is AUSTRALASIAN MINE SAFETY JOURNAL 55 about the problems that are created when you try to use it as the focus for safety. At present, I believe many workers think it isn’t possible, and so when they hear zero harm they laugh. Put simply, they don’t believe it, so they don’t believe the person saying it, and that’s not great for culture when workers don’t believe anyone from management. Just to make it a little worse, if anyone from management did try to step outside the norm by not towing the zero harm line they would be ostracised. Final words Zero Harm also drives under reporting of incidents, and often drives organisation to focus on minor incidents with lower energies involved (because they occur more often), instead of much less frequent events with much more damaging energies. In this case it’s about taking your eye off the ball because you have to be seen to react to everything. Maybe some harm should be OK. Maybe we should just let some workers do lower- risk tasks without making them fill out a bit of paper. Maybe we should give our supervisors people skills so they can actually supervisor. Maybe we should be honest with everyone and acknowledge that running a business is about balance and compromise, and that we can’t be productive without being safe, not instead of being safe. Safety Dave Whitefield Consulting Manager Baseline Training & Consulting