50
RISK MANAGEMENT
ACT
NOVEMBER 2013
Bill Smith
asks, is ‘safety and training’
a cloak and dagger philosophy?
AUTHOR:
Bill Smith
is vice
president of risk
management and
claims for NBIS.
F
or some companies, “safety and
training” is a key component in
their everyday business. But for
most companies, “safety and training” is
just a cloak and dagger philosophy.
Let me explain before you get bothered
by my previous statement. I have been in
the construction business all of my life.
I have had the opportunity to see many
perspectives on safety and training from
the field as an operator, from the labor
side as a director of training and safety
for the IUOE, from the management side
as a corporate safety manager for Maxim
Crane Works, from the government side
with the Department of Labor Directorate
of Construction, and now from the
insurance side as vice president for NBIS.
I’m not saying that everyone takes safety
for granted, but many companies fold
under pressure when it comes to doing the
job and getting paid versus questioning
the pressure of the job and doing it
right, even if it means walking away. For
decades, safety has been something that
everyone supports but few are actually
willing to put their “money where their
mouth is,” especially when times get
tough. You always see the signs at the
gate, in the shop, on the walls, or even in
the business literature, “Safety First!” or
“Safety is our Number One Priority.”
Safety perception
However, there is a gap between reality
and perception. The old saying that
you have to “walk the walk if you are
going to talk the talk” holds true in the
construction business as well. Many times,
the operation side of our business places
a challenge against the safety side, and
employees are asked to cut corners. I often
hear employees say when calling into the
shop to challenge a jobsite situation that
they have heard from management: “Can’t
you just get the job done? We need you on
another job tomorrow,” or “You’re always
complaining, can’t you work like everyone
else does?” This only leads to contempt,
which eventually leads to an accident.
Not to mention, the ‘Safety First’ slogan
now becomes just that, a slogan. A slogan
that everyone in the company knows is
just “smoke and mirrors” and not reality.
It has been proven that projects can be
completed with zero accidents but it takes
a combination of effort, attention, proper
actions and a bit of good luck to achieve.
The safety culture
History has shown that safety and training
lead to a reduction of incidents, but risks
are everywhere and it’s impossible to
totally escape risk. For example, a crane
turns over where the ground gave way.
Even though the operator had proper
matting under his outriggers, he was
not made aware of the void that existed
below the surface due to an old spring and
ground erosion.
The National Safety Council (NSC) puts
it best in their definition of safety: the
control of recognized hazards to attain an
acceptable level of risk. Safety becomes
a result, an outcome of actions, and is
what you get if things are done properly
and go as planned. That’s why it is hard
for a cmopany to measure efforts and
effectiveness and to keep the focus on
continued investment into the safety and
training of its employees. As long as things
are going well, everything must be right,
and when the money starts to get tight,
one of the first things to get cut is the cost
of training and safety meetings.
If safety is considered as being a “thing”
or an “activity,” the company is at risk
and hasn’t grasped the concept that
safety must be an integral part of the
company culture and not a commodity
that can be dissolved or disbanded. In
most companies, the responsibility of
safety and training falls on someone that
also wears many other hats. In this case,
the safety and training hat may be very
small and only worn once in a while
throughout the year, or in the event of an
accident. In many other companies, the
responsibility of safety and training will
be assigned to an individual or a team by
creating an entity separate from their own
department.
The problem in both scenarios is that in
the first scenario, safety is usually given
enough attention and in the second,
safety is seen as someone else’s job. This
separation creates a barrier and causes
a dissention between the company’s
managers. There needs to be a balance and
understanding in both scenarios in that all
individuals should be looking out for the
benefits of the company, its employees, its
profits and liabilities.
There are several reasons to drive safety
and training and many resources in
which a company can go to get help with
delivering both. The primary reason is
naturally to protect their own employees.
No owner wants employees to be injured
or involved in a fatal accident on the job.
Insurance costs are also a serious factor in
implementing safety.
OSHA regulations push to drive safety.
The OSHA crane regulations that went
into effect in November 2010 changed the
way the crane industry and its customers
use and work around cranes. OSHA
strives to publish rules for any situation
that could be linked to the prevention of
accidents. Through the catch-all clause,
known as the “General Duty,” OSHA
essentially states that if a hazardous
situation arises that is not covered by a
previously stated rule, an individual has
the obligation to fix the problem as though
a rule existed. There are also industry
standards, such as the ASME B30 for
Mobile Cranes and the A10 Standards for
Safety in Construction, that aim to help
“If it were my own
son working for me,
would I want him
operating that way?”
Reality, perception gap
“
s
w
o
p
While insurance
costs are a
serious factor in
implem nting safety,
n employer wants
to deal ith an
employee injury.
