Safety and Risk Critique: Marks View.

I have observed

~ I have observed ~ By the Safety Cynic (that's me)

I have observed the poor and careless efforts of leaders, I have seen the result of lax systems and overcomplicated methodologies. I have seen the promotion of hiding valuable truths and judging with a protective bias. I have seen the misguided.

It is for these deficiencies I get frustrated...doing is so easy.

We often see a long list of recommendations after a major incident, we often see over reactive actions. We see many say what should have happened, what should have been done and what should have been in place, this said often by those who should have done in the first place. This in-itself is reactive. "Those should haves, should have done".

I believe what we all need to "do" is get talking, get asking questions, get thinking, get listening, get time to evaluate news and information, get time to read and learn from experts and non-experts who have been writing about how to improve safety for years and get active by being proactively focused on failures.

We need to not only read through these mindful views; we need to put them into practice. I have heard many people say "yeah, I read that or went to that course" only to not apply anything that was promoted.

The only way we are ever going to reduce these controllable incidents is if we "get serious" not "consider serious". Training has to be functional, risk management has to be implemented, incident investigations need to be thorough and most of all; we need to ensure pressures are controlled in an manner that gives conducting tasks an ethical sense of practicality.

Safety does not belong to the safety department or to the safety officer; safety belongs to each one of us and each one of us is within an entity, and entities should be as one. MD

If you feel anything on this site is incorrect or false, please let me know and I will investigate.

I also need to aplogise for any spelling mistakes...I am not an educated person and believe it or not left school mostly illiterate.

Marks View.

Accidents are always going to happen and we need to move away from unrealistic safety targets and the endorsement of ass covering methods that hide the real truths of why incidents really happen.
It’s such a delusion to for any entity to promote safety first, and a deceit to advertise the caring of people as their number one priority. Safety has become a sector about ass covering and "litigation mitigation".

Most safety managers I know and have worked under have no interest in promoting real safety as they are comfortable in the zone of incompetence. To be honest, I really do not know what they proactively do with their time outside lunch, coffee and YouTube.

The main causal factor in all incidents is money (greed); Greed by society (who expect everything cheap), greed by the organisation (who wants to gain as much as possible to make money) and greed of the individual (who wants all the trappings life has on offer at the lowest price possible; you buy a cheap T-shirt and you are paying for and supporting slave labour).

We are not allowed to be practicably safe, period!. Safe people get sacked, Safe people are outcast, safe people are criticized…why? Because they slow up production, think too much about solving risks and take too much care for others; real safety people do not concern themselves with profit.

I believe we could sack all safety people today doing the current role of a safety person (jack of all trades except safety) and I bet accidents and incidents will not be reduced.

PEOPLE…THE MATERIALISTIC CAPITALIST WORLD WE HAVE CREATED HAS NO TIME FOR PRACTICAL SAFETY!

Can you imagine having to review a SOP or write a JHA/SWMS every time you do a task. Imagine having 10 new tasks in one day to do. Say the manager yells out to you (who is in a budgetary hurry as usual), can you do this thing for me ASAP– you reply with – ok just let me read up on the thing first, check with the safety advisor my legal options and write a SWMS. Then I will give the SWMS back to you to verify and see if my work method process is going to be SAFE. Then just before I do the task, I will Stop the Job and complete a Start Card/Take Five to review the task, because something might have changed in the hour since I started the whole safety process.

I continue;

Safety (not talking about safety in design) as we perceive it today is becoming a total waste of time and resources, both for the individual and for the organisation. Safety is becoming a factious elucidation with no end in sight. We are spiralling out of control; we are in a confused state of over complicated jargon and system controls. We have thrown basic practice out the ethical door an into impractical hands of some experts who have no idea...other than about self promotion!.

I think we could do away with current safety people roles (those employed as a full time safety professionals in organisations), who have just become or are on their way to becoming data entry and document checking specialists, HR assistants, RTW coordinators, tick sheet auditors, reactive Incident investigators and pretend psychologists, and focus more on “proper training” (not what I call “the new age tick and flick get them out quick with a cert style training either) and use buddy up systems where people are trained on the job by committed and focused competent persons/leaders who are not only just good at the job, but who are somewhat innately skilled in human communication (by this mean genuine ability, not something you should have to learn), and I bet safety and in particular respect for safety would improve immensely.

We have to remember that safety is providing the topics for people to be safe, and this is the only thing we can really have some control over. If you give workers the best practicable means (time, procedure, training, respect etc and tools (PPE, equipment, plant etc) to do a job, then you are doing as much as you can to ensure the worker does the task in a manner that is prescribed and tested and that these choices they make are made easier by the whole safety in design process.

We could rid many SWMS, take 5, cards, start cards, think cards, think more about thinking cards etc today and I bet this would have no effect on incidents rates going up or down. In fact, I challenge anyone to take up the research to study these processes and there application in the real working environment. Do people follow systems or rely on experience (heuristics). How many people remember 15 steps read out in a SWMS before a task is to be done? How many circumstances (what I call chaos points) change and alter the method that makes it impossible to follow the procedure as originally prescribed? What do people do in this occasion – they go back to heuristic knowledge and or novel decision making. I have baked a few cakes and every time I do so something is different.

We could rid the pretty management graphs that show LTI rates and stop conformance checking KPIs, lose those management by objective boards, and focus more on real audits that find real issues. These real issues could then be solved with real proactive practical solutions by caring and mindful management who act on such insight. The extra time given to management by not reactively reviewing trivial data trending scores etc would free up time so mangers could focus more on doing more frontline management roles instead of living in their caves of self denial.

Why is it in Australia that around 200 people die at work each year even though the government puts in place trivial safety programs (which I have been involved with in the WHS QLD business program) that prove nothing more than the company does not really care about safety (because the safety person has to do the whole thing with no keen interest shown from senior officers) and that they only really want the tick of approval to gain more work.

The government implements safety programs to create some fear (for both good and bad). The introduction of the 2012 OHS harmonisation laws I feel is a prime example how the government "implemented responsibility" by way of safety ownership by fear. This program "forced" offices to show care...think about it. If the government was serious they would have more safety inspectors visiting all business from small to big to help them and or to punish them for not choosing safety methods.

SOPs and SWMS are used more today to find blame after an incident has occurred than ensuring the task is being done to meet the organisation ideals. One incident I investigated showed the high risk SOP was reviewed by management 4 years ago. This is a management error, not a worker error (keep in mind here what I have said earlier about freeing up time to manage real safety issues). Organisations only really review SOPs after they are written, they do not check through development. They are used to “prove” a company has a safe system of work in place that “should” be followed by their workers. They are a “documented checking fault finding process”. If this whole procedure process was treated with respect, then respect would be given. I have great respect for procedures, but time governance does not allow for any respect here.

If people are trained well, do they need to review SOP all the time (I don’t review an SOP to drive my car each day which is the most dangerous thing I do). I am not taking about high end procedures that ensure a process is done to exacting standards like a complex pre-flight start checks, I am talking about the larger workforce where we have a procedure to dig a hole, lift a box and do various other things we have been trained in. Does a Doctor write a SOP for an operation? No they use their training and experience because every operation can vary and can change. What is different about safety? The doctor is competent and we trust the doctor.

Take a military pilot; if they are not in a war, all they do is train. No workplace I know gives even 5% of training time to their workers and they wonder why we have accidents. On top of this not many workplaces practice what to do when things go wrong (not talking about fire evacuation scenarios either that are legal requirements)

Just as we have no time to be safe due to “greed/pressure to produce” people will not be able to be human, be it a fallible one at that. Sure, there are few of us who are enlightened to a better way, but history is full of people with good intentions who could not change the wicked ways of the human. As I continue to say, our culture is driven by so many pressures to make money, any concept that will slow our materialistic gain will be disadvantaged. We humans are simply controlled by money and greed and to give time and resources to ensure human life is put first is not what we do.

I do not see safety improving anytime in the near future and we would be years away from becoming enlightened to the true meaning of safety and the act of making safe safety.

# 3

I once worked for a company that ignored putting up hand rails on mobile camps because the onsite managers could not be bothered to get workers to do the task, as this action cut into their drinking time (was a wet camp) after a day of travel. The old school managers said "we are miles from anywhere, who is going to care what we do, we have not put these up for years and the last safety guy didn't care". I advised my manager and he said "what can you do". A girl fell and twisted her ankle, this injury was not enough to make change, best leave it for a broken neck, it was my last hitch

# 4

I once worked for a company that was clearing some trees with an excavator. The excavator knocked over a 20m dead tree and it come crashing down where workers were welding formwork, lucky they were not working in the spot and that exact time. The requirements for the job did not allow any tree (living or dead) to be removed without permission from the Government. I started to conduct investigation but was told to leave it alone by site managment. The tree was removed in typical arse covering manner and the issue was forgotten about. I was later told this was the second time in a month this had happened but another worker...the company has an excellent low incident rate! (as nothing is reported). I was talking to a truck driver who was working on the Ipswich hwy upgrade and he told me that a truck rolled on that site and the same company righted it with an excavtor and no incident was reported...that's safety culture for you.

# 6

I once worked for manager that forced me to give a safety talk on safety equipment that was not fit for use and was not a prescribed safety device in Australia, if I did not give the talk I would have been given a warning. This manager also had 6 external consultants to help her do her job. It was interesting to see how the visits were about walking around pointing the manager finger and questioning workers as to why they have not been safe. This was for a major military contractor for governmental helicopters. I was forced to leave because I did not agree with old school methods of safety and to be honest I cannot work under such incompetence.

Philosophy #1

My philosophy of safety is keeping it as simple as it needs to be. I have seen tier one organisational safety operations bogged down with self imposed over-complicated safety management systems (SMS) and safety processes that just confuse everyone,
turn people off, and take up valuable time. It’s not the quantity of paper work that matters or that of having thousands of safe work method statements (SWMS) that covers every task your organisation does that ensures a safe workplace and that ensures that they are meeting legal requirements. It is far better having a safety system people can understand and take ownership than having one that is not used, no one understands or people don’t have time for.

Philosophy #2

I used to believe in this code, but all I ever got was the negativity from the wrong boss.

“If all you do is work faithfully and conscientiously, the verdict in such cases generally is that you perform your present duties so well that you had better continue to perform them,” said Carnegie.

Carnegie said that the secret of his early success was not in asking what “What must I do for my employer?” but, “What can I do?” Never content to simply do what was expected of him and leave it at that, Carnegie thrived on exceeding both his own and others’ expectations. It was in taking his actions to the next level that Carnegie gained not only the reputation but also the success that he did. Carnegie believed in going above and beyond his own responsibilities and finding ways to improve the business whether or not it was his duty to do so. Carnegie always subscribed in the belief that the company should be put first. “Do not think a man has done his full duty when he has performed the work assigned him,” he said. “A man will never rise if he does only this. Promotion comes from exception work. A man must discover where his employer's interests can be served beyond the range of the special work allotted to him; and whenever he sees his employer's interests suffer, or wherever the latter's interests can be promoted, tell him so.” Carnegie applied the same logic whether he was working for someone else or if he was his own boss. Success, he believed, would never come if he simply settled for good; he wanted to do the best and be the best that he could. “There is no service so low and simple, neither any so high, in which the young man of ability and willing disposition cannot readily and almost daily prove himself capable of greater trust and usefulness, and, what is equally important, show his invincible determination to rise,” said Carnegie. “Do your duty and a little more and the future will take care of itself.” Well aware of the risks of going above the call of duty, Carnegie paid no matter. “You may be right or you may be wrong, but in either case you have gained the first condition of success,” said Carnegie. “You have attracted attention. Your initiative might sometimes put you into conflict with your superiors, but that is a risk worth taking.” “Boss your boss just as soon as you can,” said Carnegie. “There is nothing he will like so well, if he is the right kind of boss. If he is not, he is not the man for you to remain with. Leave him whenever you can, even at a present sacrifice, and find one capable of discerning genius.” Carnegie believed that it was the first man who gets the oyster, while the second man settles for the shell. While both would achieved something of worth, it is the first man, the one who is willing to take risks, push the boundaries and challenge authority, who receives the bigger reward.

Help Solve Safety and Get Culture

If you want to help solve the safety industry and create culture, you don't need all this talk about psychology and BBS and how it will save the industry. Safety is about giving the workers what they need to do their job; good tools, good training, good procedures, flexible environment, ownership, support etc. Giving these basic gifts equals positive attitudes, high workplace moral, culture and a safer workplace (and better production). If you do these things, then you don't have to go around pretending you are a psychologist and change manager trying to find reasons why things are so bad. You don't need to look that hard to see why safety is failing.

99% fear of doing

99% of safety people I have had any dealings with are scared and anxious about applying safety in any practicable manner as raising real issue threatens their job. When talking to them about an issue that needs practical resolve, a resolve they know they cannot raise due to fear of being attacked by production, the most common reply I have heard is “I know, but what can you do”, this is a cop out and weak.

This is referencing the fact that they have chosen to ignore an issue, have preferred to take the easy way out, they have failed as a person practicing due diligence. These people are not safety practitioners of any real value, for if risk management cannot be taken serious, then there cannot be any real value applied to it. Anyway their reward for ignorance is job security.

LTI rates are trending down

The real reason incident rates are trending down is simply because of underreporting and return to work programs. If you really look at the data, some industries that would not be concerned with under reporting incidents have stayed my the same, yet those like mining, construction have tended down (culture of underreporting).

Now the bullet;

Then if you look at the death rates over that same period, they have stayed much the same (mean level). How can incident rates go down yet death rates stay the same, this proves my point

Complicated is much better

People often look for more complicated solutions to solve a simple issue because they simply have not mastered the basic stuff first. So when someone asks, how’s the basic stuff going, they untruthfully reply with; great, but we have just found out about this new and improved silver bullet that will be even better, thus buying those some time because the simple has not even been done. Then 2 years later the same person asks, how’s the new thing going, the reply is; not so good, maybe we should go back to basics or try this new thing that is guaranteed to work

SM

I believe most safety management today is ad-hoc, reactive, and has lost meaning and direction. Safety is mostly managed by calculative, trivial safety programs at best. Sadly, I also feel that safety, in it’s mostly satellite function, has lost the means to apply the practical time needed to gain and apply risk mitigation knowledge. This is because of the pressure to produce production time restraints and reactive incident investigations and compliance audits. Basically, everyone in safety is chasing their tail dealing with reactive data and retrospective sense making instead of forward looking proactive sense making. Adding pressure to produce into the risk equation I feel increases the likelihood on an unfortunate event occurring.

Defence of cynic

My defense is that not all cynics make for a negative toxic workplaces (although it is very easy to think this because of peoples wrong perceptions and biases and fear of people who stand up for the art of questioning), and that this negative framing done by closed minds experts has totally discredited all those people right now who are raising valid safety concerns. Those others are too afraid to raise. I feel that some experts prefer to support conformity and fear by way of taking peoples free right to be cynical, doubtful, skeptical and cautious; the very thing we need more of. I think this is dangerous, and I am standing up for the positive side of being cynical.

Driving forces

The driving forces behind pressure to produce (PTP) is corporate greed and self-interest. Governments and business leaders often display those negative qualities in their quest for material gains.

In the department-store collapse in Seoul, Government officials accepted bribes from contractors who knew that paying a bribe would be less costly than using proper building materials and
construction practices and a job done on time. This happens in Australia also within the business world but it is hidden deep. And we think terrorism is bad!

Harmonisation works

The new harmonisation laws that were introduced in 2012 have done their job very well. We are now seeing officers take more responsibility for safety; dam shame it took the risk of losing their assets or prison time to make them come around and become ethical! Who said laws dont work.

Note; we are also hearing about safety magic bullet programs working also, maybe a coincidence!!

"a safety law is only introduced and fines applied because we humans are not motivated by ethical values, we prefere to take the easy route which is very often the risky easy way, but the more profitable way"

Dont think for the manager

Much to learn

We all have much to learn in regards to safety in the real sense of the meaning (that being a continual concerted effort by mindful people to protect others), and we owe it to every worker who has died on the job to ensure that we as a country, organisation or individual make it our obligation to ensure we report hazards and stop the job if there are any questions borne from a concern that may result in harm. Management including government) have to accept that their obligation is diverse and accountable and being mindful should not only be about possible fines and litigation or for that matter, meeting statuary requirements.

How are we to ever know

What is the status quo we need to challenge in the safety sector which is governed by laws and regulations that must be adhered to (we humans are bred to follow rules) and followed under many restraints that void such concern.

This is my concern with the pshcology as the next thing; that safety people might be nudged into thinking that all they know is wrong and that we only need to learn about the human mind to stop events. These experts are telling us to unlearn all we know about safety, not so clever when much is good, but not used.

Tell me how you are going to understand each and every individual workers mindset in the workplace to know how to make any difference to them?

I was once reminded

An expert once kindly reminded me that I was not educated, and that I was not a critical thinker or a philosopher. I assume he had pleasure making these statements and making a point to all his followers, as it is easier to denounce a person that way and stay true to a cause. You should have seen the man who said to the Priest that god did not exist. Anyway, I am not sure what this expert thinks a philosopher is, but I do know that it is one who questions, ponders, and who lives according to a way of life. I don't think you don’t need a degree to think or ponder.

System One and Two Heuristics

Throw a new concept at an expert like heuristics being born form negative experiences and they quickly denounce the idea because it has not been researched and put into a telling book.
Some experts are so afraid of a new idea not borne from them. If heuristics are simply experience based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal, then I propose that heuristics used under current pressures could indeed be borne from previous pressured (any form of pressure) experiences,
learning's and discoveries. Maybe there could be such term as System One and Two Heuristics not yet acknowledged or studied in the academic world that we need to be open minded too, not bounded by what is known. An international expert has like my concept is that says anything.

Read it here; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B30P4aQNj_whOHFadHhYWVVOejg/view

I cannot follow

People who don’t think hindsight is a great tool to use, who don’t think conscience conscious judgments are affected by others or environment, who don’t believe that telling is the most important method to get a message out yet who constantly tell everyone what they need to be to be a safety leader, who don’t believe that stepping into other people shoes to understand them better is of any good, who criticise cynics, and yet criticise everything just like a cycnic, who ridicule processes and mechanistic thinking yet use and parrot develop such tools and systems, and who rides on the sholders of great thinkers who had great philosophies for which they now use to make money from by tricking those naive into buying, I cannot follow that sort of cult.

Professional Spud head

They "tell" everyone there is a problem, they put on the angry face when people don't listen to them, they think everyone else is a spudhead, they dehumanize others (safety people), they territory protect behind the mask of expertise and flow into topics with a quick read of knowledge, they make safety overly complex by putting more ownership of expertise onto safety people (as they have little idea what it takes to be a frontline safety person controled by arse covering stratagies), they continually repeat the nonsense language of safety people owning safety, and on top of this they use their leanred skills to manipulate and control others in many clever, hidden and nudging ways.

Expert of experts

I have seen how experts can expand on their expertise by reading something new to them. Once you have been tittled an expert, any information picked up that they did not know about is only a short expert advertisment away, they never learned this at uni so thinking about their new learning does not fall under the expert lable (as we only assume experts gained their expertise in study at uni). For some reason if the non exert reads the same data, they are still not listened to. Why is it that so called experts are allowed to have a voice and promote their thinking yet others are not.