hubs about Software Administration to Ed Skompski, VP of TapRooT® Software Development, and Dan Verlinde, Software Project Manager, will teach an intensive review of the TapRooT® Version 5 Web Software system administration. Topics include software i…

http://www.kctv5.com/news/16019771/detail.html#

Thank you for the Newsletter. I would though, take issue with some of your assertions and the emphasis that you seem to be fixed to in respect of Hazards.

I believe firmly that the European approach is by far the best - not because I work within it but because it addresses much more than hazard identification. You say we spot hazards and implement techniques to remove or ameliorate the hazard. Not so. We identify a potential (the hazard) to cause HARM (the Risk) - which is what we ameliorate the HARM occasioning a Person, not necessarily the potential.

If we see a scaffold for example. it may only become a hazard if man interacts with it. It is noticeable that on rest days when no work is undertaken and the site is closed there are zero reported accidents even though the site is full of identified Hazards. The scaffold is fine. If men are put to work on that structure there are risks to their safety in doing so. They may be from falling and sustaining injury or death, having items fall on them causing injury or death, the structure was not constructed properly and it may collapse. That in itself is a hazard but if there was nobody on it at the time - there was no Risk of HARM to a person.

We in Europe carry out assessments of the Risk occasioning HARM to an individual, and seek to mitigate that risk whilst acknowledging the potential of the Hazard. If a trench were to collapse over a weekend - the open trench is a hazard sure, but so what - we dig it out again, but we undertake measures to prevent the collapse if men are to enter it. If that cannot be done then men will not enter until measures are in place to prevent collapse that may kill or injure- that simple.

We carry out Risk management rather than hazard spotting. Working with US companies Bechtel for example - I found their approach very simplistic and a large reliance on the workforce to figure ways of staying safe as the job went on with an emphasis on keeping the job going ie the commercial interest was seemingly put first.

I do also understand that there is much more to Risk analysis than what I have alluded to here. It was just the emphasis on Hazards in your article that I have an issue with. I send out safety advisers, engineers, Foremen et al to do site inspections of the workplaces. They can all point to Hazards. What they can’t do is look through the hazard and see the potentials for harm and address that! One engineer thought that Petrol driven Disc Cutters for cutting steel and concrete were a hazard as they might cut a person. His answer? Much like your article he removed the hazard band them from site. I asked him to give a solution to the cutting of 40mm Rebar - he had none to offer other than a hack saw. That is patently unworkable and not a good solution. If we banned chainsaws because they were deemed to be Hazardous or motor vehicles or airplanes?

Nothing wrong with Disc cutters so long as the RISK of HARM occasioning the user or third parties is addressed then the Hazardous item should be able to be utilised. We do this with training in the main i.e. in the case of cars with a drivers licence or the disc cutter operative attains a Certificate of Operational Competency.

So, rant over! Please see if your system lets you look at the HARM that may arise from interface with a Potential source rather than merely addressing the potential.

In Europe we commonly refer to your term “pre-job hazard assessments” as a “risk assessment”. This would typically be written by the Supervisor and someone from the workforce carrying out the job. This involvement of the people doing the job is an essential part of a risk assessment.

A “safety case” on the other hand usually refers to a very comprehensive document covering a whole plant or installation , and “makes the case for safe operation”. This is very much a high level “hazard assessment” and indeed companies will often use external consultants in its preparation as you indicated.

My suggestion would be to replace the words “safety case” with the words “risk assessment ” and your observations are then very valid e.g. ” was applied proactively as part of the pre-job assessment by the employees (workers and supervisors) who would be trained to conduct the hazard assessment, develop the hazard reduction strategies, and write the risk assessment ( omit safety case.)

The National Shiftwork Information Center blog has a number of posts on these subjects:

For managers, take a look at Management tips for improving shiftwork schedules (http://shiftworkinformation.blogspot.com/search/label/management). For nursues, take a look at http://shiftworkinformation.blogspot.com/2008/01/shiftworker-lifestyle-training-fatigue.html.

Ed Coburn
Executive Director
National Shiftwork Information Center
www.ShiftworkInformation.blogspot.com

WCBs in Canada and the US represent employers (the only ones paying into the fund). Therefore WCBs will do whatever they can to lower fees for corporations. One way is by denying compensation payments to disabled workers. But this would be socially unacceptable unless the public can also be manipulated into believing that the worker is somehow negligent or at fault for causing the accident. In this social marketing campaign, WCBs are subtly adopting the language of the anti-drunk-driver campaign - ” zero tolerance” “negligence”, etc. to manipulate public attitudes towards injured workers. They also use the term “accidents” rather than “injuries” to take the focus away from the person and onto the event. These ads, and other orchestrated ’social engineering’ techniques lay the foundation for WCBs to justify a reduction in injury compensation payments to disabled workers by manipulating public attitudes toward disabled workers.

Those injured workers in the videos would realistically spend the rest of their lives in poverty fighting the WCB for compensation.

The way to reduce injuries is to make companies accountable for workplace safety violations through realistic fees, not protect unsafe companies from these higher fees by denying disabled workers’ claims.

In Ontario, Canada, it has just been revealed publicly that the WSIB has been giving millions of dollars of rebates to companies that have caused workplace fatalities. Injured workers groups have been complaining about this for years but were not listened to because of the socially engineered stigmatization of injured workers as lazy malingerers and complainers.

If you think the WSIB’s ads are scary, check out the Canadian Injured Workers Society at http://www.ciws.ca for a real eye-opener!