Safety Emergency Management

uh_oh.pdf Download this file

Safety and 'Tripping' by Marines

Hmmm, first step in personal safety - be aware of your environment.

ACC Safety at Work Update

The ACC released an update on the new and old programs in place, including the experience rating, DPI program and support for the World Day for Health and Safety at Work.

“Because ACC sees first-hand the impact that workplace injury has on individuals, their families and businesses, we’re right behind World Day for Health and Safety at Work,” says Dr Keith McLea, ACC’s General Manager Insurance and Prevention Services.”

 

 http://www.acc.co.nz/news/WPC092099

 

 What is also clear is that premiums in general are on track to progressively rise over the decade; now is the time to put preventative safety measures in place.

 

The 3 Reasons Not To Follow Safety Rules

There are 3 times when we are less likely to follow safety rules. These are:

1. When we see other people break the rules and getting away with it. (Monkey see, Monkey do.)

2. When our managers hold employees accountable and then break the rules themselves. (Do as I say, Not as I do.)

3. When we don't understand why we are following certain rules. (Why should I listen to you?)

 

The worst example of number 1 is when an employee arrives from another workplace which has a higher standard of safety. The poor safety culture will stand out like dogs-balls to them, yet they will arrive with a mind set to fit-in. And yes, this may mean dropping their own standards in order to fit in.

The classic example of the second point is when managers are separated from factory workers, but have to occasionally transit through the factory to get some work done, and don't wear the necessary safety equipment or PPE required of workers in the building. If this is the case then 2 things jump out. 1. the poor example set but also 2.a poor safety system. The system should capture managers equally well as visitors to the plant, and should all go through an appropriate level of induction and issuing of safety equipment. What a manager DOES says a lot more than any pretty words.

 

For point three, remember that most people do not want to break rules, but need to be instructed into the benefits and reasons to follow the safety rules. Ways to do this include:

1. Make the safety policies clear and understandable

2. Make OHS part of your employments competencies and set the benchmark expected within the workplace

3. Make performance appraisals include safety measures and performance. What you measure becomes important to the employees!

4. Train people how to recognise hazards and risks and make assessment i.e. deal with the issue at a local level in an informal way. Stop, think, talk, deal with the issue.

5. Train people how to formally raise the safety issue with management

Of course, rules may still be broken but this should be the exception rather than the rule. (sorry, bad pun I know). When a mistake is made which is not intentional this is the opportunity to improve the system. Some guidance, teaching and reminding is important in the first instance. Don't go barking at them like a Militant prison guard, unless of course the mistake is happening frequently. Check your instructions are working - If the person is not learning, and your methods and system are right then maybe the work is the wrong type for some people. When I was learning to fly with the Air Force we called it 'Getting Chopped'. However, we knew the rules going in and the standards expected so while disappointed, no one as to blame. The trick then is to allow people to be able to put up their hand and seek instruction when a safety mistake is made, but do not allow mistakes to go unchecked.

Improving Safety In Your Workplace

I wrote earlier about reward bonuses as a means for improving and motivating leadership in safety. Leadership is often used as the example on how to improve safety – because it is. Without the support of the boss, or senior managers, you are pushing the proverbial uphill. However, the first stage to improve safety is to acknowledge you have a problem: ‘Hi, my name is Joe’s Business and I have a safety problem.’ Or the positive spin is to recognising the potential to improve.

Honestly, however that motivation is derived does not matter –whether a legal shake up, want to get a reduced ACC levy, concern over morale or a head office dictate etc is to my mind almost irrelevant because it’s the DOING that counts. I liken it to my Dad learning how to put on his seatbelt. For years he used to always just drape the shoulder strap over his shoulder, because to a following cop it would like the seat belt was on. To us <10 year old kids this seemed like madness and we couldn’t understand why he didn’t just click in the belt. So we started working on him. There were questions about why he did what he did, why we have to wear belts and he doesn’t, what would happen in a crash. Then we just started reaching over and doing up the belt and eventually he started wearing his seatbelt. I never forgot this growing up and it was my first lesson in people. He didn’t want to click his seatbelt because of some nanny-state law telling him he had to – it was his way of giving the bird. But the coaching method did work; finding out what was important to him, and then making it unacceptable in our eyes not to wear a seatbelt.

The lessons apply equally today for people in a workplace safety situation. If you are the person trying to get your business to acknowledge ‘they have a safety problem’, you do not know which angle will work. A business is made up of people who are all different – so you need to find different means to encourage and teach the people within the company. Maybe they need the blunt approach – the law says this, you do it. Wear this safety equipment or you won’t be employed here. May be for managers the dollar incentives will appeal. Maybe the emotions of looking after your people and getting them home safely will motivate people.

At Safety Hub we have a series of newsletters you can sign up to as well as the website to help determine ways to motivate. Improving safety can only happen by acknowledging you have a problem and then having the urgency to take action.

Health and Safety Act

As an employer, you are responsible for the inactions or actions of your employees that cause harm to anyone. This includes fellow workers, visitors to the workplace or members of the public going about their business. Specifically, section 15 of the Health and Safety Act states: 

Duties of employers to people who are not employees.

·         Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee while at work harms any other person.

A simple statement but with huge reach. A recent case in New Zealand highlights the significance of this section of the Health and Safety Act. A truck company was carrying out its own internal maintenance on a truck, and an employee did not fit the wheel correctly. The wheel detached from the truck and flew into a bus heading in the other direction, eventually killing a man due to the brain injuries sustained. Under investigation it was found that the employee was untrained and not skilled to be able to service the truck. Having performed the servicing, the Judge determined, the company should have scheduled a basic procedure to recheck the nuts after say 150km, and confirm the job had been performed correctly. The company was fined $5000 and ordered to pay $68 000 in reparations.

 

What does this mean to you? We have talked often about the need for proper hazard identification and looking at your equipment. Basic maintenance is not only smart in terms of keeping machinery operating efficiently, but in terms of safety. However, if cost savings are made using internal labour then additional systems need to be in place to ensure workmanship is up to speed. Would you allow an untrained mechanic to work on your family car? Going forward for your business then the key is to have all plant on some kind of ‘warrant –of-fitness’ programme that will ensure checks are made. The warrant of fitness or maintenance schedule can then be pegged back to the type of work required, and then details on what sort of skills are needed.  This will help ensure the person carrying out the work trained accordingly. Of course, it may be cheaper to outsource the work and ensure you employ a reputable maintainer to ensure the intent of Section 15 of the Health and Safety Act is met.

Health and Safety Act and Corporate Manslaughter

In 2007 the UK bought in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which that allows them to prosecute an organisation for killing employers. This was introduced because of difficulties in holding a company accountable for actions of senior managers, in particular their decisions which results in a gross breach of duty of care. The first sentencing occurred in Feb 2011 against an engineering company for allowing a engineer to work in a dangerous and unsupported trench. The fine of 385 000 pounds is significant but could have been more far biting.

‘Revised guidelines were issued which stated that “fines should rarely be below £500,000 and may be in the many millions”. Although below the range suggested by the Council, the fine imposed on CGH is far larger than the average fine for a work related death (usually around £100,000). This may be a sign that more substantial fines can be expected in the future.’

In New Zealand the position is that a company can be held accountable under the Crimes Act 1961in theory, but because of the definition of ‘Homicide’, a company is not a human being so cannot be held accountable under the Act! What about the individuals within a company?

Any Health and Safety breach falls under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.  The Act was amended in 2002 and sections added which could fine up to $500,000 and/or imprison for 2 years. As it stands, a company can be charged under the HSE Act and in addition an individual, say the CEO, can also be charged with manslaughter relating to the same event. The thinking is that double-jeopardy does not apply because a situation could arise where the company is found guilty under HSE Act however the employee within the company could not be prosecuted for his actions. Furthermore, a CEO is more likely to be enthusiastic to improving H&S if both the company and he personally could be held accountable for poor decisions and company safety standards.

In New Zealand we need some kind of means to hold corporations accountable for health and safety standards. Of course, this goes against the grain for the corporations themselves and could be another factor in the decision making cycle for a company on whether to remain or set up operations in New Zealand. Which means someone in politics has to set the benchmark here – how much does safety cost? How much is improving New Zealand’s poor safety performance really worth chasing?

Fall Protection to Improve Safety

Safety at heights

Recently I saw a worker working on the top of a pool’s roof erecting scaffolding for a paint job. He was holding the pole horizontally and reaching out over the lip of the roof and trying to bang on the pole, while holding it like a tight rope walker, to lock it into a clamp. But he was having difficulty as he had to push it hard to get the clamp to lock, but was trying to make sure he didn’t put too much of his weight behind the shoves. That’s right, in order to create a safe working platform for the painters, this professional scaffold gymnast was playing tight rope and rugby on top of a precipice.

I queried his actions but it did get me to wonder about a person’s individual perception of risk, or dangerous work. Just recently I heard of two 3-year twins in the US who were allowed to ride in a roller coaster and I assume the parents were in another seat or waiting at the end of the ride. One of the little boys managed to get out of the harness and fell to his death. I can’t imagine anything worse but why did this happen? I tried to think as a parent would my perception of risk be nullified by regulations on being allowed into the ride i.e. there is normally a height gauge used to determine safe or big enough to ride. And without checking, you’d think the ride itself would pass any relevant safety standards. In this case the harness wasn’t good enough and being a US case, there will be a lengthy court case and I imagine the Company concerned will find it difficult to defend against. Still, that’s no comfort for the parents! But did the parents have a part to play? Personally I could not allow my kids to ride by themselves for a multitude or reasons which include behaving, throwing up or even being scared..and yes, in the back of my mind safety.

Which brings me back to the worker on the roof and perception of what is a safety risk. When you have been doing something i.e. working at heights for a long time, I can see how you would get habituated or immune to the dangerous work others would balk at. Perhaps the worker was like the parents, assuming NO one ever falls from a roller coaster except in the movies. The point is, sometimes your workers don't perceive the danger or risk like an outside pair of eyes does. For whatever reason. And that’s when you need to step in. Whether planned or as an opportunity moment, you have to make a decision to stop any dangerous activities regardless of whether they are only temp workers, or the job is one-off. It is the attitude to dangerous working habits and perceptions we want to stop therefore make a point of stopping it yourself and lead the change with your own urgent and passionate actions. Actions lead to change and better safety outcomes.

Safety with a Paint Brush

Safety with a Paint Brush

I found an article on OSH in an art class - that's right, someone wrote about being safe while painting a picture. Now I have to admit upon reading the title I opened it with a mixture of trepidation - was this going to be another example of people giving OSH a bad reputation? 

I recently heard about a contractor working for a major company, as this 'principle' decided a measure of safety was the number of hazard notices filed per week. One of the company's OSH enforcers took it on himself to point out to the contractor they needed to increase their hazard reporting, and placed a black mark against their performance because they hadn't identified a potential hazard of a photocopier machine that is releasing 'chemicals' from use. Can you imagine how ridiculous some of these reported hazards were, and what such a reporting requirement was doing to the culture of safety in this workplace?

But reading this makes some sense, as it refers to basic emergency preparedness and room preparation for new people in a new environment. Maybe they are being a bit too overzealous however, I like the principal. They did take a sensible approach ie nothing stupid like getting poked in the eye from the paint brush, but how to evacuate in a fire. Simple stuff that often seems so basic, it’s not discussed on prepared for in such environments. The lesson is to take the same approach in your business. Take some safety action, but keep it real.

How Management Can Undermine Safety

I read a really good example on, unfortunately, poor safety management. A truck driver cut his head and reported the incident. The safety manager then decided that the best preventative measure was for all truck drivers to wear safety hats. The decision was passed all the way back down until it reached the hard-nosed truck drivers. Even reading this I'm sure you can imagine the reaction! Especially as the cab doors were not large and if they did wear hard hats, they would be knocked off every time anyway.

There are so many lessons in this example, including how to conduct an investigation (ie ask the workers!), and how to encourage any incident report to include recommendations at the point-of-sale ie better open communication. But the biggest lesson is one of numpty communications - all the good work around safety can be undone by 1 flippant comment or decision, especially from a senior manager. This resulted in:

1. Ridicule of the manager

2. Distrust in the company

3. Ridicule of all those people that passed on the message

4. and a likely drop in reporting of incidents (and opportunity to learn)

Safety Management decisions are far reaching! Please be thoughtful and more thorough in your decision making around safety.

Untitled

Experience Rating 

 

What the ACC were finding was that companies that were getting a discount for having an approved OSH system in place were not necessary any better (injury rate wise) than companies in the same industry. They also found that if two companies in the same industry were getting the discount, one may have a significantly recued injury rate compared to the other, but were not getting any reward for the lower injury rate. So they introduced the Experience Rating as of 01 Apr 2011.

The details are here but in a nutshell, smaller companies will simply get a no-claim bonus if the numbers of injuries are zero/low. Larger companies will have their injury rate compared to others in their risk group. Poor performers will have their levy increased by up to 50%! Good performers will have their levy reduced by up to 50%. Now how would a 50% loading on your current ACC levy cost you today?

 

In summary then smart NZ companies will receive a discount for having an OSH System in place. The smartest companies will have an OSH system that actually works for their business.

Note the Minister of the ACC has confirmed that workplace injuries that resulted from the Christchurch earthquake will not have their injuries included in their Experience rating. Good to see some common sense at work.

How much is investing in health and safety worth?

 

The perennial question, especially from the accountants. What they really want to know is will the investment into safety return anything, or is it a pointless cost. So we need to find some way to measure the cost of the outcomes of an accident, and then we can justify the investment. The costs of an accident can be measured in direct and indirect costs.

Direct Cost

1.      For the injured person, there is almost always pain and suffering endured.

2.      Depending on the company, sick time, compensation time, etc, the worker may experience a loss of income.

3.      If the injury or illness is serious enough, there is a real possibility that the worker may lose their job.

4.      Doctor and hospital or medical bills are sure to be of major concern to both the worker and employee.

Indirect Cost

1.      Suffering endured by the workers family.

2.      The employer will likely pay for missed work days. Work is not performed but yet the employer has paid for it.

3.      Compensation payments and medical expenses.

4.      Lower moral or negative attitudes by other workers.

5.      Loss in productivity.

6.      Machinery repair or replacement costs.

7.      Retraining or replacing workers.

The indirect costs are more difficult to measure, but estimates range from being 0.5-20 times the direct costs.

The other safety costs

The Department of Labour have put together a more detailed table on these costs, including the tangible and intangible costs.

Once you have a working safety system that is being invested into, they key is to continue the investment and maintain a sense of concern about the possibility of a safety accident. Here’s the tricky part though; the aim of safety programs is to prevent nothing occurring – no safety accident. If nothing happens it can be easy for a cost-cutting accountant to then suggest reducing the safety investment! And so the wheel turns.

To fight this threat, continue to report the cost of accidents within your business and your industry. Keep you safety system humming!

Safety and Hazard Management

One approach to thinking about safety management is to talk about the control of energy. This can be chemical energy, biological and most often, kinetic energy. That is, energy caused by movement. This category can be further broken down into twisting, shearing, direct, heat etc and the aim is to identify how to manage potential injuries that can result from transfer of energy to the person.

There is also the categories of planned or visible movement energy, and then the unplanned. When dealing with the obvious safety hazards we need to attempt to first eliminate the movement. However, quite often this is not possible (!) so we move into the next form of control, isolation. We use barriers, and guards  that separate the worker from the equipment that could transfer the energy. 

Other movements then come from the unplanned category - the unexpected. Insecure loads, pallets stacked incorrectly or too high, lights not working that will indicate a backing vehicle, equipment that breaks and transfers loads energy to people. Basically, a lot of unexpected accidents are preventable by having in place systems to ensure equipment are maintained, people are trained in use of equipment, and procedures are written down to instruct staff how to do a task quickly, and safely.

When the unexpected does occur though, then an emergency response needs to be robust enough that it can deal will all likely accidents within your workplace and location. This may require a first aid safety response as a first response.

Quadbike Safety Update

Recently I wrote a blog on Quadbike Safety however, the Department of Labour have released a new guide on Quadbike Safety.

The quadbike safety steps you need to know are summarised here:

·         Before you ride ask yourself whether the quadbike is the right vehicle for the job

·         Ensure riders are trained / experienced enough to do the job

·         Always wear a helmet

·         Recognise dangerous areas by establishing ‘no-go zones’  

·         Don’t carry passengers

·         Don’t let kids under 16 ride adult quadbikes

·         Check the operating condition of the quadbike before you ride

·         Keep quadbikes maintained in a safe condition

·         Keep within the manufacturer’s towing or carrying limits

·         Only use attachments designed for and compatible with the quadbike

·         Don’t do tasks that interfere with safe riding

·         Tell someone where you are going

·         Avoid use while fatigued or under stress

·         Restrict unauthorised access to the quad bike.

In developing your safety system remember while you do not need to specifically follow the guide, if anything goes wrong you need a good reason why you did things outside of these guidelines.

Safety and Working at Heights

A distinction is often made between fall heights greater than three metres and those less than three metres. This is mainly due to Regulation 21 of the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995, usually interpreted as the three metre rule. What that rule says is that if you are working over three metres there must be a system to prevent you falling.

In fact more injuries occur from falls less than three metres high. The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 requires every employer to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees while at work and sections 8 -10 of the Act sets out a hierarchy of duties to be considered in sequence. This is the ‘Eliminate, Isolate, Minimise’ process and it doesn’t matter what height you are at.

Safety Controls for Working at Heights

The following principles should be adhered to irrespective of the fall height:

- Consider whether the job can be done without exposing people to the hazard (eliminate). This can be often best achieved by considering such elimination at the design, construction, planning and tendering stages. Elimination could involve having under-wing access panels for some tasks instead of only over-wing panels. It could also include built-in test equipment accessed from the ground which eliminates the need for a physical check.

- If elimination is not practicable then action should be taken to isolate people from the hazard. Safe working platforms or guardrail systems can be used to isolate people from the hazard.

- If elimination or isolation is not practicable then action should be taken to minimise the likelihood of harm resulting. This means considering the use of personal protective equipment, safety nets, airbags, fall arrest systems, etc. The hazard is still present; you are just lessening its impact. One thing to remember about personal protective equipment (not just for working at height, but also for noise and respiratory protection) is that it never fails safe, it always fails to danger. It really is the last line of defence. If working above three metres then minimisation by using safety nets or airbags is not an option, which is what the three metre rule is really about. If a person is exposed to a fall of greater than three metres a system has to be put in place to prevent a person falling. Airbags and nets only work after the fall has taken place rather than being a means of preventing the fall. So if you are working where a fall of three metres is possible, you should have a platform, a restraint, or be looking to eliminate the requirement to get that high at all.

Remember, safety at heights can also apply in the home!

Ten Reasons to Get Involved in Safety Activity

Ten Reasons to Get Involved in Safety Activity
v Self-preservation - the need for freedom from injury
v Personal gain - the desire for reward
v Loyalty - the desire to cooperate
v Responsibility - the recognition of obligation
v Pride - the desire for praise or self satisfaction
v Conformity - the fear of being thought different
v Rivalry - the desire to compete
v Leadership - the desire to be outstanding
v Logic - the special ability to reason
v Humanity - the desire to serve others

‘Do or do not. There is no try’
 Yoda, Jedi Safety Professional

Investigating an Accident? Read These Simple Interview Techniques unclassified

Investigating an Accident? Read These Simple Interview Techniques

You may have been assigned the role of investigating an accident and working out what actually happended, so the company could learn and prevent a future mistake. Obviously the first steps following an accident are to treat any injuries and make sure the scene is safe, so no other person can be hurt. And depending upon the severtity of the accident, the scene may need to be secured to protect the evidencee. Securing physical evidence is easier though then securing the evidence inside a person(s) mind. Memories will be inadvertantly distorted with emotions and shock following a streesful incident, and will become more altered as people talk with others, recount and reinforce what they believe happended. Others may intentionally withhold information out of fear - fear for their job (the topic of a 'open reporting culture' is a book all in itself). As the investigator then you need some basic interviewing techniques in order to quickly obtain the best account from all witnesses.

Your Manner and Tone is Extremely Important When  Investigating an Accident

First, set the scene. Provide a physical environment free from distractions or source of stress. While it is extremely important to interview a witness as soon as possible, allow the person some time to deal with the situation. Are they in shock because a work colleague has just died; if that colleage was a close friend, even a spouse then obviously the impact will be greater. Balance the need for learning to preven another disaster with the immediate needs of the individual and make your own judegement call. Most accident though will be minor in nature, and allow you to quicly progress into the interview process.

Seven Steps To Work Through When Investigating an Accident

Step 1 - Ask the witness to recall the events in chronologial order. Remember the 'We have 2 ears and 1 mouth so we can listen more than we talk'. In this case, only tal to clarify parts of their story. It is extremely important to let them work through the order in their own time, in their own words. If you already have a preconcieved idea of the casues of the accident, then it is easy to start asking questions of the witness around your thoughts, rather than obtaining their thoughts! Your time will come; just get their thoughts out. (Note: an alternative to this first step, espcialy if it is tramatic as above or yo are travelling to get to the person, and their will be a time dealy is to ask the people to write down their story of events. When you get together, have them go through step 1 aobe without the notes, as we'll use the notes later…)

Step 2 - have the witness sketch the event/area. Not only does this paint the picture for you, it uses a different part of their brain and deos unlock further recollections.

Step 3 - Effectively a variation on step 1. Have the witness now start from 'the beginning' and complete at the incident. And then start from the incident and continue to the end. This does work.

Step 4 - Check to see if anyhing relevant ocured after the recall

Sep 5 - Ask subject to recell events in reverse order

Step 6- Check to see if anyhing relevant ocured prior to the start of the recall

Step 7 - Focused recall, on people anf things. Good time to pull out written statement and recheck

Follow these simple steps when investigating an accident to determine the many causal factors.

Written Safety Communication or Safety Notes?

Safety procedures, codes of practice, safety data sheets (SDS), guidelines and standard operating procedures need to be written in a manner the target audience can understand. For example, a study published in 'Workers Compensation Fund'  Winter-Spring 2004 found that the average safety data sheet is written at a university level, which is well above the comprehension of most workers.

What that means for business owners is that all of your safety communication needs to be delivered in the format the workers will 'get'. Even within a medium sized business, there will be varying degrees of ability in understanding the written word, including how the layout, grammar, sentence structure, word choice, graphics and so on all work together to convey a safety message.

The Safety Message May Not Get Through

Most of our formal literacy skills are developed at and finish at school; some go on to higher level training and others take up the profession of writing. Regardless, we are then influenced by TV sound bites, text language, short and sharp emails or even informal blogs which will degrade these more formal skills. There is nothing wrong with this, except if all your safety communication does not acknowledge this reality and continues delivering a safety message no one understands. And we have not even mentioned workers who are barely proficient with spoken English, let alone written English or cultural barriers around communicating. How does this relate to your safety messages?

Sell Safety With Basic Marketing Practices

Businesses need to start applying their own marketing skills to sell the safety message to their employees. While formal safety documents may be required at the management level and in dealing with contractors, they must be translated as appropriate so every person can understand the safety messages. Better yet, get the safety committee to identify those safety hazards that must be addressed, and 'translate' the message to worker speak.

Sell Safety with pictures, graphics, graphs and shorter text. Give your employees a video camera and ask them to shoot a safety video around a specific safety hazard. This will make the issues real and memorable to your workers. Run a competition for the best video, and reward staff for efforts in promoting and enhancing safety communication at work.

Or getting people to talk about safety (doesn’t that sound easier than ‘promoting and enhancing safety communication at work’?)

Written Safety Communication or Safety Notes - it really depends upon the audience.

Ladder Safety

References to Ladder Safety that may be of value

Hazard Management can sometimes include just looking at your use of basic equipment, and how  safety applies to the use of ladders. This excellent article on ladder safety is worth referring to if you use ladders in your workplace. In New Zealand the DoL issued an construction bulletin of ladder use, and while old (1998) the points are still valid.

Hazard Management techniques can analyse a workplace in a number of ways e.g. process, task, location. If the use of ladders is not obvious in your workplace, reviewing the process may discover that you do need a device to climb, and that a ladder may be required. You will then need to consider the safety points detailed in the safety ladder links on this page.

Safety Conferences have a place in Training

Conferences can be one of the most valuable ways to increase your safety performance. When you have a limited training budget for your staff there are a number of things you can do. But it’s a compromise between time and money. The more money you have, the shorter the time need to spend learning the safety trade. For example, at one extreme you could engage a consultant to review your business and find out what exactly you need to know, and set up an appropriate training program. Or at the other extreme your business can set about employing someone and sending them on courses to learn and become accredited.

You need safety CPD

Regardless, some kind of ongoing safety core professional development (CPD) is required. Conferences and seminars are a great way to send people onto safety shorter 'courses' to maintain a watching brief on best-practices in the safety industry. While the attendee may only learn enough to pique their interest, they can then spend time and energy after the safety conference researching what generally are the cutting edge and leading innovations. Some of the best results are the networks gained. You will find people having similar challenges who will be able to give you a steer, or at least tell you they found worked for them - and what didn't work.

Include safety seminars

Don't discount the value of safety conferences and seminars just because they are not giving the attendee a credit or certificate at the end. Build a balanced safety training program which includes attendance at seminars and safety conferences.

Safety Standards in New Zealand; The NZSC or NZISM?

Safety Standards in New Zealand; The NZSC or NZISM?

In New Zealand there are two main professional groups for safety managers and advisors to be a part of. There are many more for smaller professional bodies, which can be found under the OHSIG umbrella e.g. Occupational Health Nurses. But for general safety work, the New Zealand Safety Council (NZSC) and the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management (NZISM) both aim to set the standard for safety professionals. And yes, they are effectively set up in competition with each other.

Why 2 safety bodies?

A few years ago I started searching online to find a body to be registered to, and was surprised to discover these 2 groups. I decided to write to the heads of both and ask why. Why should I join your group, and why are you guys not working together? What I found was that the NZSC was set up out of frustration of where the NZISM was going, or not going. As a fledging to this industry I had no history or baggage about either group, so my only concern was to join the body that I believed had the most rigorous standards. My thinking was that if they ever amalgamated, I wouldn't have to redo the work. Interestingly, Australia are going through the same growing pains with the establishment of a newly formed SIWA Ltd, set up in competition and founded by some ex-leaders of SIA (Safety Institute of Australia). 

Which safety body is right for you

Recently though the NZISM have aligned themselves with IOSH. I like the international framework membership IOSH provides, and in addition the Department of Labour have committed all their staff to the NZISM/IOSH framework. Which can only help swing momentum back to the NZISM. This development is a threat to the NZSC, which is a shame. I believe the competition has stimulated both groups into finding innovative solutions to be the benchmark for the setting of a safety standard(s) in New Zealand. Personally, I am registered as a professional to both the NZSC and recently the NZISM in order to leverage off the good work from both groups. If you are looking at joining one of these safety bodies, why not give both a whirl?

ACC OSH Audit and Experience Rating System

As of April 2001 the ACC are changing the way they reward New Zealand businesses for having a working OSH system. The approach currently is to assess a business’s OSH system and then reward the company with a discount on their ACC levy, in the order of 10, 15 or 20%. However, what the ACC were finding is that 2 businesses in the same industry may both be receiving the maximum 20% discount, but 1 business may have a low accident rate compared to the other. That is, the results are completely different, which really was the aim of providing a discount - to encourage better outcomes. In theory, an approved OSH system in place would lower the accident and injury rate, but there was little financial incentive (from the ACC) to do more than pass the ACC audit.

OSH and the Experience Rating

So the ACC are halving the discount programs (now a max of 10%) and adding in an experience rating. The idea is to encourage a business to have an OSH system in place (passing the audit), but to further reward or even penalise a business if they have poor results. The actual detail behind the scheme can be found in this link, but in a nutshell if you are a business currently paying <$10k in annual levies, you will be assessed for a non-claims bonus. Just like you are for any other insurance product. If you are a big business paying more than $10k in annual levies, you will be compared to other business in your industry group, and the levy will be reduced OR increased by as much as 50%.

What to do with your OSH system then?

Whatever size your business it is clear then there are direct rewards and incentives for having an OSH system in place. And as the ACC have telegraphed the levies will steadily increase over the decade, it's important to get the OSH system reviewed, working and in place immediately.

Safety, NASA and Risk Management Lessons

NASA recently presented an safety award to a one of their own 30 year + employees, for being ‘ instrumental in reshaping NASA's safety and mission assurance program. He is a founding member of the agency's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance. He managed the major revision of the NASA Safety Manual, establishing the framework for new standards.’ In an earlier blog I have written about the benefits of engaging employees by acknowledging achievements. 

However, it is strange that at the same time NASA are giving an award, they are releasing the results of an internal safety investigation which concluded they got it so wrong over this same period. NASA has now admitted that they seriously underestimated the chances of a major safety accident (they say catastrophic, not major – but for a high risk industry like rocket launches, they are the same thing!). NASA managers thought this chance was 1 in a 100,000 and engineers thought it was closer to 1 in 100. The reality, looking back over the last 30 years, is that it was about a 1 in 10 of a major disaster.

There is no doubt there was major financial, political and social pressures to continue with the NASA program during the 80s. I can see a safety manager being stuck somewhere in the muck of getting the managers to listen to the engineers. In the managers mind, engineers would have been blowing up the significance of safety. The engineers would have wondered how managers can place the risk as a 1000 times less likely than their own calculations.

Perhaps the lesson here when statistics are used to make decisions in your own workplace is to choose the conservative option. NASA are now closing down the Shuttle program. Don’t allow the same thing happen within your business.  

OSH Prevention Better Than Emergency Response

Before OSH, for centuries people intuitively knew that it was better to stop things you don't want happening, than deal with the fallout. 'A stitch in time saves times' I can remember my mother saying. Or the famous ‘Preventions is better than cure' by Benjamin Franklin. I’m sure if we could go further back in time we'd find many such wise words of wisdom that were used in the home long before they applied to the OSH workplace.

So how do we apply OSH in the workplace today? Basically, we do so by having strict laws at a government level, or reward companies for better safety performance. The idea is if a business cannot see the OSH benefits themselves, then the government will use the carrot and the stick approach to ensure OSH is implemented.

Having got a business to this point, a point which has a system in place and an interest (vice a preferred passion!) for doing right by the workers, than something new is required. To improve OSH performance than we have to change the OSH culture within the business and one way to do that is get the employees involved. Here are some ideas on how to do that:

Give an award - People like positive recognition. I read a book called 'Whale Done' which was all about how businesses got motivated when their people were positively recognised. In the story a small whale on an office table was grabbed and given; the whale a the symbol of a ‘Well Done’. Give a person or a team an OSH award of some kind, remembering it’s the sentiment not the actual award which is important. It doesn’t even have to be a public award - give someone a handshake in your office, or quietly at the workplace as personal thanks.

Award an Dinner voucher. Maybe this can be picked from those that had received a ‘Whale Done’ type award over the year. Or month. Some companies give away a monthly $50 movie voucher or even a day off! Go ahead and ask your employees now; what reward or recognition would help them move your OSH safety performance now?

Ladder Safety

In your business, it can be the obvious things like ladder safety that catch you out. In the UK alone an average of 12 people die every year in workplaces, let alone what happens in the home. This example is one of many that occurs.

What you need to do when completing hazard identification is to include the good-old and trusted basic checklists, which include such things as basic housekeeping. Look at it from a new employees point of view walking into your workplace - what do they see. Because that is exactly how potential customers will view your company. Are you professional, with well maintained and clean equipment? Such practices may mean for example reducing oil lying around on concrete floors creating a slip hazard, or corrosive material on equipment damaging the safety properties of the equipment. For a ladder, you are looking to make sure the mechanical workings are still functioning.

Sometimes it just takes an outsider to see the obvious. I had a recent client describe a contractor in the building doing some maintenance work. They lent the builder their rickety ladder and when I pointed out they would be liable for any injury, they immediately recognised the ladder was sub-standard. Do yourself a favour now - go and make sure all your equipment is functioning correctly, starting with ladder safety.

ACC OSH Accident Data for 2009

In the US, OSHA released it's top 10 most cited violations for 2010. They were:

1. Scaffolding, General

2. Fall Protection

3. Hazard Communication

4. Respiratory Protection

5. Ladders

6. Lockout/Tagout

7. Electrical, Wiring Methods

8. Powered Industrial Trucks

9. Electrical, General

10. Machine Guarding

These violations make up nearly half of all violations.

In Oct 2010 the 2009 work-related OSH claims were released by the ACC.

In 2009 (all figures are provisional unless stated otherwise):

· Sprains and strains were the most common type of work-related injury claim.

· 94,400 claims were made for sprain and strain injuries (44 percent of all claims).

· 213,000 claims were made for work-related injuries.

· 71 percent of work-related injury claims were for males (an incidence rate of 142 claims per 1,000 FTEs), greater than that for females (73 claims per 1,000 FTEs).

· Workers aged 45–54 made more claims for work-related injuries than any other age group, with 50,100 claims (24 percent of all claims).

· Trades workers, plant and machine operators and assemblers, and agriculture and fishery workers made 48 percent of work-related injury claims.

If we could tie in the US with the NZ data, I am sure we would find NZ had a similar number of OSH violations to the US, and the US a similar injury category breakdown. New Zealand can learn a lot from leveraging off the OSH research of the larger countries.

Trench Safety

Figure 1 Trench Safety

I've heard a safety professional describe a trench as a grave without the ends. They were referring to the fact that unless the trench is shaped and shored (using wood etc to support the face of the trench walls) correctly then it can collapse on those working at the bottom of the trench. In the US alone, this accounts for 5000 injuries and 100 fatalities per year. Similarly, in the UK trench safety injuries are ongoing.

In New Zealand the Department of Labour has provided an excellent code on best practices for excavation and trenching. Please read it and apply it to your business. The following video shows an inspector stopping work until a trench can be made safe; watch and apply trench safety techniques to your business.

Wearing Safety Equipment (PPE)

New Zealand Safety law requires us to identify and then control hazards, which may mean wearing of personal protective equipment. Having determined the only control option available is use of PPE, then it is critical employers ensure PPE is used and worn by the individuals.

Once you have determined the types of safety equipment or PPE required, then it is up to the company to educate the person why they need to use the safety equipment. This is important to get their ‘buy in’. And then train them on how to use and fit/maintain the safety equipment. According to New Zealand’s Safety law (HSE Act), you can't just give money in a pay packet so that a person can buy their own safety equipment. You either have to supply the PPE, or if the person insists they want to use their own (might it’s more hi-tech with MP3 embedded in the ear defenders, comfortable, tailored, ‘cool’ etc), you still must ensure the PPE is up to spec and fit for purpose – and remains so.

The ideal is for the workplace culture of using safety equipment to transfer to the home. After all, if a person is injured at home it is still going to impact your business – even if that means their skills are no longer available while recovering. I heard of one Australian story which made the papers. It was the 2nd time in 2 weeks someone was admitted to a hospital with cuts to the arms. When asked how, he said he saw a neighbour cutting the hedge with the lawnmower and thought that was a good idea - and yes, they both ended up in hospital. Wearing safety equipment like boots and ear defenders may be a good idea for lawn mowing – but no safety equipment can protect the user from their own stupidity! 

What First Aid Do You Need To Provide in New Zealand Workplaces?

There is nothing specific in the Health and Safety Act detailing first aid requirements for New Zealand workplaces. But then that's the way the Act is written generally anyway, because it talks about meeting the intent of a safe workplace. 

However, there are regulations that provide more directed requirements of the first aid equipment that should be provided. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 employers are required to take all practicable steps to ensure:

·         first aid facilities are provided at every place of work under the control of the employer

·         the facilities are suitable for the purpose for which they are used

·         the facilities are provided in sufficient numbers

·         the facilities are maintained in good order and condition

·         all employees have access to these facilities in a way that is convenient to them.

The relevant regulations are:

·         regulation 4(2)(d), to be read in conjunction with regulation 7.

So, you do need to provide some kind of first aid facilities and/or equipment, which need to be appropriate to your workplace. For example, first aid in an office environment is completely different to that on an Oil rig. So unfortunately I can't answer the question directly, other than provide this link for you to work through and determine the first aid requirements for your workplace. First aid should be included under emergency management of an integrated and complete OSH system.

Why Zero Harm is a Terrible Goal

Zero Harm is a fantastic philosophy, but a terrible goal. Let me explain. Those supporting the goal of zero harm will argue if you set a target of anything less, then in effect you are aiming to hurt someone every year. If it's not zero, then it must be a number greater than zero - how many are you allowing to be hurt in your business? While I agree with the concept, it's the practicalities of this goal that create even more needless harm.

One of the yardsticks to measuring harm (however a company defines it) is an outdated concept of Lost time Injuries. This lag (or after the event has occurred) measure is often pegged to bonus payments for employees and managers. Get this rate down, your bonus go up. The easiest way to get the rate down then is not to report an injury. In other words, carry the injury and take one for the team. A recent report into UK rail by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) on UK concluded:

"From the evidence gathered in the review, we consider this real and perceived pressure and fear have arisen as unintended consequences of the Network Rail implementation of the overall strategy for safety (which was consciously designed to improve safety), based on the use of quantitative safety targets, safety performance measures, league tables and contractual requirements linked to the number of reported Riddor lost-time injuries; other management actions, such as the frequent company reorganisations, and the application of a managing for attendance policy."

In another example Volvo have a clearly defined goal of zero harm. Note how the measure of this goal is based around LTI. They are doing so many great things which would have reduced LTI, but given the whole approach of the company to reduce LTI, it really is no surprise the LTI rate has reduced to nothing for 8 months. And who would want to be the one to break the record? Shhhh...it's not that bad mate, no need to report that injury.

But the point of reporting even minor injuries is to allow your business to find out where the next disaster may come from. Minor injuries may arise from an accident that, if the luck had swung the other way, could have been a catastrophe. Have a look at any major accident and you will find a past riddled with under-reporting. I bet (while not scientific) LTI or Lost Time Injuries were also a significant reporting measure within those companies. So having a goal of Zero Harm inadvertently will create a culture of under-reporting in your business. The result is you will move away from becoming a learning culture, and the goal of Zero Harm will increase the number of needless accidents and injuries. However, if you are serious about safety performance then only a full-frontal campaign, an urgency implied by the Zero Harm target will suffice. So what should you do?

In New Zealand, a forum of business leaders have formed under the Zero Harm Workplaces banner, and I think they have taken the right approach. Clearly Zero Harm is the rallying banner, but the Forum's pledge, action plan and picture of a world-class safety leader do not talk about having a Zero Harm goal. It is the mission, or the vision for the forum. Personally I can't stand endless debates around the nuances with words however, this is really important to get it right.

What you need to do then is decide that Zero Harm is the mission of your business, and then set about defining goals (SMART) that will achieve the mission. Critically, you then need to measure how well you are performing. If the goals are well thought through then you can start by developing measures to ensure the goals will be met. What you measure will drive behaviours - choose them carefully. And be careful how the CEO communicates the OSH Zero Harm message within your business.

 

CEO Management Commitment to OSH

[[posterous-content:pid___0]]Without doubt the single most important aspect to health and safety (OSH) in your workplace is management commitment. Or put another way, your business could have the most modern H&s system, employees who are well trained in H&S and be well resourced for H&S etc but all of this work can amount to nothing if the CEO is anti or even apathetic about workplace OSH. CEO are clever though! They are not going to walk around telling everyone how H&S is a waste of time and money, no, they are smarter than that. They will simply pay lip service to H&S, and then not take any action at all. To their mind, resourcing a H&S section is 'taking action' - they in effect contract out of owning H&S, so they can 'focus on more important things'. The effect of this lack of visible action and leadership is more damaging than any other H&S investment combined. Imagine the potential then and the step change in performance if you did have all the systems and resources, and your CEO started to verbalise and take action, to lead, H&S in your business.

In Malaysia, the NIOSH have started a new 'CEO Award for OSH' and awarded it for the first time in 2010. What a fantastic idea. In New Zealand we have The New Zealand Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2011 and which has various categories for organisations and two for individuals - but none specifically for a CEO. The actual individual categories are for:

CATEGORY 9:  PRACTITIONER

Safeguard health & safety practitioner of the year.

The person whose enthusiasm, knowledge and drive has made a substantial contribution to workplace health and safety. “Practitioner” means a person with formal responsibility for health and safety within an organisation. (Elected health and safety representatives should be nominated for the Employee category.)

CATEGORY 10: EMPLOYEE

Ross Wilson - NZCTU most influential employee.

An employee who has acted as a champion of health and safety and who has had a significant positive influence on the health and safety culture of his or her organisation.

It could be argued that a CEO could qualify for either of these individual categories as a practitioner or employee, but clearly these individual awards are not intended for Senior Managers. They are to acknowledge those on the coalface of OSH. It could also be argued that a CEO would be happy for his company to win an organisation category. However, given CEO are the person in any business or organisation who singularly have the most influence on OSH, then we should have a separate award to acknowledge excellence. When CEO want to know what behaviours to model off, they will now know where to start.

 

OSH Safety and Employees Use Of Cell Phones While Driving

For over a year now a OSH safety enhancing law on the use of cell phones while driving has been in place, but personally I have seen little change. I was reminded of this only last week driving behind a car doing 40 km/hr in a 50 km/hr area. It wasn't just the fact he was crawling, but the way he was drifting across the road that got me concerned. I immediately thought he must be drunk. Moving out to look at him through his driver's side mirror, I could see him glued to a phone - and then I saw a map being flung about. And then, a few days later, I witnessed a woman texting on her phone while driving on the motorway. She was more aware on her surrounds though, as she was concealing the texting by holding the phone on her lap - she just didn't count on a higher seated van driving past. This got me thinking; is the law change actually driving a more unsafe behaviour? 

Texting while driving has got to be a no-brainer. However, I know myself when a cell phone beeps to signal a 'critical' text message has arrived, I've had to condition myself not to look. We are so conditioned to race to and answer the phone, its little wonder why people read their text while driving - and its a small step to then reply. In the US, the phone giant AT&T were so concerned with this behaviour that they have released an excellent 10 minute video on what can happen.

New Zealand has made a taken a more general approach to its educational campaign, and focused on the use of cell phones while driving, whether texting or talking. The latest advert focus' on the person doing the calling - if you know they are driving then hang up.

It could be argued the law has just driven (excuse the pun) texting underground and forced people to now drive and text with their phone in their lap, as opposed to holding the phone up in the drivers line of sight. I certainly know some people would argue this point - and miss the bigger picture that its dangerous to text regardless of the phone position! My personal experience has been that laws are not always that effective in changing behaviours. I remember my Dad who used to drape the shoulder part of the seat belt across his shoulder, so that it would look like he had his belt on and less likely to be stopped by a cop. This was when New Zealand were running an aggressive campaign to wear seat belts. It was only when us kids kept telling his to just click it in (before the 'make it click' campaign years later) that his behaviour changed. That is, while the Government have taken a legal stance on cell phone use while driving, change will only occur when society buy into and no longer condone this behaviour.

As a business owner or manager then, if you have your employees on the road then you need some kind of policy around use of cell phones while driving. It is a two way street, and not just a case of an employee breaking the law. How does the Head Office safely communicate with the worker on the road ie how do you ensure you are not putting the employee at risk, and breaking the law, by calling and talking to them? Make a simple, clear statement around this particular hazard for both the driving employees, but also the workers in the office. Not only will you ensure compliance with the 'cellphone' law, but you will positively enhance safety behavious and a culture around safety.

PS When I see anyone on the phone while driving, I give them a toot and a 'what are you doing' wave of the hands - most at least have the understanding to look sheepish, which is a start.

PPS And I choose to ignore the cell phone while driving. What do you do?