A seesaw battle. Controlling the accepted level of risk in occupational safety.

Safety Paths LLC

To begin with, every employer decides in some way how much risk will be tolerated in the workplace either by choice or design. It becomes the balance between the profit of the business and the expense of the safety program.

• In many industries, where considerable jobs have employees exposed to the sharp end of safety, certain risk must be taken to meet those needs.

• Truck driving, welding, heavy or continuous lifting, construction, and the use of dangerous machinery or energy and chemicals are just a few examples of the risk associated with providing goods or services to a customer.

OSHA

• Osha regulates some of the risk through standards and compliance. In some way, they set a baseline for risk in most jobs.

• Outside of Osha, companies determine how much of the remaining risk is to be managed. This includes the human element of safety.

How do we view these risk?

• We can use the example of a simple lever while exploring the concept of an accepted level of risk.

A. By definition, a fulcrum is a pivot point for a lever. (Such as an old fashion seesaw.) The lever must be balanced to prevent a tip over to the other end.

B. In safety, this lever is being consistently adjusted with various weights. On one end of the lever are the customer or budget needs and on the other end are the risks associated with the workplace.

The unseen lever is in action at all times as it is affected by:

• Production goals or completion dates• Staffing issues• Complacency in the safety program• Equipment problems• Administrative issues• Changes in the workplace• Lack of culture• Lack of key safety functions• Managers and employees thinking that the job cannot be

done as efficiently with all the safety requirements imposed on workers.

Many of us do not see the balancing act in action. We do not see the swinging back and forth. A few thoughts as too why:

A. We measure the balance of the safety lever based on accidents instead of hazards. We make the mistake that fewer accidents must reflect that hazards in the workplace have been abated or controlled. The truth may be that the hazards are still there and we have just been “lucky”.

B. We have accidents but we also had increased work loads. Things balance out?

(cont)

C. We see safety audits, meetings, and general safety functions as simple administrative work. They do not add immediate results(?)

D. Employees are doing jobs they are not accustomed to because of vacations, absenteeism, or increased work loads. We do not recognize this as a potential for accidents

E. We may not have the current management tools to effectively measure the results of safety functions. (Key issue)

F. As a company, the expectation could be productivity and the workers knows it. Management attempts to focus on safety, but in the end, the importance is toward productivity.

What is your first reaction to this picture?

• To be sure there are unsafe acts going on.

• The person painting here might have a different story. He was getting the job done the best way he knew how with what he had to do it with. He might assume you would be happy. After all, he got the job done.

• The question is: How are we training our employees in terms of expectation of safety? What happens in the training rooms will always take second place to the expectation of the supervisor. Workers will always know if safety is somewhere underneath productivity.

This brings out a question: For what reason do employees think they get paid?

• Most all of them will answer with the producing effect of their efforts. What they produced or provided.

• How many will also say that it must be done safely?

• That is the key issue with the balancing act. It has to be overcome before safety programs will work to our satisfaction.

The result: The production or service function of our businesses many times out way our safety defenses. There is a huge gorilla on one end of the seesaw and it is in the form of meeting revenue or production needs.

This gorilla is not bad. It is what drives our income. Without him, we do not have jobs. However, we do not want the gorilla taking the focus off safety. We want him lean and productive. We want him “tamed” i.e. knowing what is expected and how to behave.

It is a true task to balance this act.

• At times, it seems an impossible task to raise the gorilla up to get safety in balance. The work can be overbearing. The cost may be more than we can afford. There are a lot of managers who feel this way. We accept the risk as being part of the job we do and the risks actually increases.

• So, how do we change this?

In what way do we reduce the gorilla’s weight?1. We improve planning and productive systems. Many times,

this is a large contributing factor in safety problems. More confusion leads to poor safety habits.

2. Supervisors and management works toward positively affecting the productive-safe work of their employees rather than fighting fires or being engulfed in administrative duties*

Cont.

3. We eliminate obstacles in the way of doing the job in a productive manner. Most any kind of motivation without this does not work.

4. We reward employees. Use clearly defined incentives or positive reinforcement that are designed for everyone instead of the few. The incentives also must be driven by hazard reduction.

5. We always attempt to plan and train for the unexpected. In some cases, the unexpected has actually became the expected because of the frequency of the issues.

The most productive companies are usually the safest.

If you want offset the weight of the gorilla ( the revenue side of the business) on the seesaw, throw some bricks on the other end. Raise the gorilla- not the level of risk.

Well, maybe not throw them on the other end, but lay them out in the form of lines of hazard defenses. In essence, build a brick wall. In fact, build several of them. They are the lines of defense against risks.

Some history concerning defense lines.

• The civil war was the first war in which trench warfare was used extensively as a line of defense. In front of the trenches was usually a line of deterrents such as wood or rock. Behind the trenches were more troops strategically placed and guns- very large guns usually.

• The design of the defense line was such as to not allow penetration without extreme loss of life. Even then, the odds were against it.

How does this example resemble safety defenses?

• Trenches and defense walls in war serve the same purpose as safety. They are designed to keep the hazards out (or control them)

• They are designed with good intelligence about the force in front of them. In our case, that would be hazard assessments.

• The defenses must be kept in working order and inspected on a regular basis.

• Armies will penetrate these defenses once weaknesses are found. The same is true for hazards.

We need to associate all safety functions to providing lines of defenses.

• As pointed out earlier, we sometimes view safety functions as administrative work. Some think this work does not provide an immediate positive action or change of behavior that we can measure effectively. (?)*

• Do be effective, our safety functions are part of the inspection and upkeep of the walls. The safety team and all employees need to realize they are making a difference when participating in safety functions. If they can visualize a defense wall instead of paper records, it may be easier to understand the importance of the wall upkeep. It becomes more understandable when we think of a solid or a crumbling wall as a reference to where we are in safety.

The brick walls or lines of defense we are speaking should reflect the elements of a health and safety program. These are:

• Management leadership• Worksite analysis

• Hazard prevention and control• Safety and health training.

1. Management Leadership

• Written Safety policy. (Usually best if done after worksite analysis)

• Commitment• Employee participation • Setting objectives • Management review.

• Provide blueprint for culture

2. Worksite analysis

• Accident investigation• Self inspections or audits• Job hazard analysis

• Comprehensive surveys- usually technical in nature involving safety

professionals or Osha.• Risk assessments. High ranking hazards may be included in safety

objectives.

3. Hazard Prevention and Control

• Hazard controls-engineering controls, administrative controls, protective equipment.

• Preventive maintenance• Managing change• Occupational Health- Medical and first aid• Emergency planning• Contractor safety• Management review

4. Safety and Health Training

• Osha and Safety and health training• Training beyond compliance• Training matrix guidelines for training

program• Transferring training in the workplace• Training records and documentation

Build the walls and raise the gorilla on the seesaw. Raising the gorilla will assist in lowering the level of risk.

• Building the walls requires planning and commitment. Management is not on the sidelines but actively involved.

• Management must be cognitive of the hazards.

• This is an ongoing construction project. It will not show up in the “complete” column- ever.

• Stick with the program but be aware that upgrades and changes will be a necessary part of the project.

• Engage as many employees as possible.

A word of caution on the walls

The defense walls we build will almost never be solid. They will have holes or “missing bricks”. That is the nature of the task of building them. We can never be perfect. We must always be inspecting these walls for missing bricks.

A word of caution on the walls

• That is also why we build more than one wall in the line of defenses. If a hazard gets through one wall, hopefully, it will be stopped at the next wall. Remember, the walls are the four elements of a safety program.

• If a hazard penetrates all of the walls, it becomes an accident.

A word of caution on the walls

• This is the reason we should look at the safety program as substantial walls rather just metrics or forms to be filled out.

• Raising a big gorilla requires more than paper.

Culture- the rock solid foundation for the defense walls

• When we speak of the foundation, it is what ties all of the walls together. They are all built on solid, common ground. It links them together to serve as one unit- the overall safety program.

Forming Culture

• Everyone talks about it but few understand what the word really suggest.

• Culture could be termed as the values and practices that govern our behavior in the workplace at all times. It should not be floating concept or a moving target if working properly. In this sense, safety culture would be an expectation of safe work practices and the truthful administration of it every day.

Forming Culture

Most of us think we are taking the proper steps to

achieve a positive culture in our safety program.

Many of us think we have achieved it because of

declining accident numbers or maybe just because

we think employees feel good about what we are doing.

Forming Culture – a truth test

How do we answer these questions?

Do all employees feel free to report accidents

and hazards? Will reporting always determine

that disciplinary action or public humiliation in

some form is likely?

Forming Culture – a truth test

Are accident review boards chaired by someone who is viewed by employees as a “Prosecutor” ? One whose job is to secure a conviction.

In 1966 one supreme court justice was quoted as saying that the purpose of the court was simply “ to find the truth.” Are our accident review boards trying to find the truth or trying to send someone to the safety jail?

Forming Culture – a truth test

Do employees see the same responses and actions concerning safety from supervisors in all cases? Or, do they change based on business

needs or problems.

At the end of a safety rule, is there a period (.) or a comma and the word “although” ? For example, Do not operate machinery unless trained ,

although, if we are short staffed, we may have to……?

Forming Culture – a little truth testAccident reporting

• Failure in reporting accidents is common.

• Some are not reported due to the machine of the safety program. Drug test, forms to be filled out, doctor visits, accident reviews, directing attention to the employee from others, etc.

• Can be cured only through culture and clear cut lines of accountability. The line we are speaking of is the line between accountability of the employee or systematic issues such as training.

Forming Culture – a little truth testAccountability

• Culture without accountability is can be viewed as a game of smoke and mirrors.

• Training comes before accountability for most behavioral change concepts.

• We expect employees to use good judgment. The choices they make are based on their own experience or the training they receive. Experience may not always be a good thing if it is not based on proper training.

Could the nature of a solid safety program become boring?

• After months or years of excellent safety performance, safety teams can become complacent if the leadership is not on top of the program. Leadership must always be focusing on the performance of the entire safety program- controlling hazards and managing the brick walls we discussed. Low or no injuries does not indicate the war is won. It is not always a question of injuries but uncontrolled hazards.

Could the nature of a solid safety program become boring?

• If) Safety managers possibly use the same material with no

variation in training methods to educate employees on a regular basis,

And) Audits and measured metrics seem to turn up the same old

things, Then) It could be a sign that our safety team and employees are

getting bored and not staying sharp. Keep it fresh and bring in new ideas or it gets boring and more risky.

A short recap• Two of the largest hurdles we are faced with involving employee safe

work practices are in our minds and personal beliefs. The hurdles are:

1. We must get the job done and that is what we get paid for. The thinking that, in the end, this idea will always be more important to safety. 2.Most employees do not believe they will get hurt or have an accident.

• Safety programs are not administrative paperwork. They are closely guarded barriers to hazards and they must be maintained.

• Culture is the key ingredient for a solid safety foundation. Must be defined and acted upon everyday.

Our ultimate goal is to control the risk “seesaw”. Train everyone on the importance of job and safety as one process, not two different ones. Improve productive and training processes to include the unexpected. This produces an accepted way of doing things- working safe. That improves culture while holding our risks at the acceptable level.

That allows us to work in concert with our “paycheck gorilla” without raising the level of risk.