|
BS ALERT: BEHAVIOURAL SAFETY SCHEMES
WARNING
Behavioural Based Safety -
A Worker Perspective
Steve Mullins, OHS Officer, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Behavioural
Based Safety In Heavy Industries Conference, Australia, 20-21 November
2007
Related resource: Big Brother Safety Kit, ACTU [pdf]
Bad behaviour
Workers, science and official safety bodies all agree - behavioural safety
schemes are a worker blaming scam. So, why are some companies so keen
to use the discredited approach? Because the issue for them is not safety,
but power.
Briefing on the hazards
of behavioural safety schemes, Nancy
Lessin and Rory O'Neill, October 2002
It's the hazards, stupid
As the official Health and Safety Executive pushes the discredited
science of “behavioural safety,” Hazards issues a BS alert – however
many hazards you face at work, when things go wrong you can now safely
assume behavioural safety schemes will find “it’s all your fault.”
It's the hazards, stupid, Hazards 79, July-September 2002, Pages 4-5
[pdf format]
USA: Hazards of Behavior-Based
Safety
International Brotherhood of Teamster (IBT) guide [pdf]
USA: Blame the Worker H&S
Programs
United
Steelworkers
USA: Employers play a deadly
game
Wishing workplace injuries away is becoming the cut price alternative
to genuine safety practice. Canadian hospital workers get entered in a
prize raffle if they keep on turning in, in sickness or in health. [more]
BRITAIN: GPMU opposes bogus
safety incentive schemes
Print union GPMU says it is concerned about the growth of "safety incentive
programmes" offering bonuses or prizes when accident figures fall, because
they could encourage fewer reports rather than fewer accidents... [more]
Behavioural safety schemes:
A union viewpoint
Nancy Lessin is the health and safety coordinator for the Massachusetts
AFL-CIO and is an international union authority on behavioural safety
schemes. In a detailed briefing for Hazards readers she explains
what's wrong with the schemes and why unions must be wary.
Hazards briefing, August 2002 
¿Por qué?
¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? No
hay nadie que pueda identificar mejor los riesgos en el puesto de trabajo,
o aportar ideas para eliminar o reducir dichos riesgos que quienes trabajan
en esos puestos. Si un trabajo se realiza en condiciones de riesgo, una
buena regla del pulgar es pregutnar "por qué" cinco veces.
Por Experiencia
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? There
is no one better to identify the hazards on a job, or come up with ideas
to eliminate or reduce those hazards, than the worker doing that job.
If a job is being done "unsafely," a good rule of thumb is to "ask 'why?'
five times." Hazards 79
BRITAIN
Better behaviour on HSE research
Britain’s top safety body has revised its research strategy after criticism
from TUC, dropping behavioural safety research and replacing it with studies
of the the impact of workers' initiatives on safety. The TUC warned an
earlier draft of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive (HSC/E)
Strategic Research Outlook (SRO) for 2003 paid too much attention to "behavioural
safety" approaches, and called for more attention to the positive role
workers’ own initiatives can make.
Risks
109, 7 June 2003
BRITAIN
TUC wants research to make bosses behave better
The TUC wants has told the UK's safety enforcement body HSC it wants "to
see less research into 'behavioural safety' approaches, and more into
the positive role which workers' own initiatives can make - especially
partnership and consultation with safety representatives."
What
workers need from health and safety research - better behaviour or more
consultation? The TUC's submission to the HSC/E draft strategic research
outlook 2002/3 • Risks
87, 4 January 2003
Behavioural safety is a flop
- official
An officially-backed evaluation of a print industry safety project conducted
between April 1998 and March 2001 found it cut deaths and serious injuries
by over a quarter and led to a marked improvement in health and safety
in the UK's paper mills. The Health and Safety Executive backed study
also found that while the project overall was a success, behavioural safety
initiatives had been a near total flop and had been ditched by almost
all the companies trying them. 24 July 2002 More
Risk assessment in paper mills,
GPMU guide to best practice, 18 June 2002
Dangerous behaviour
Behaviour based safety programmes don't work. Hazards
64, October-December 1998, page 16: [html]
Blame the worker
Instead of examining how core work processes are affecting health and
safety, many employers are directing attention to workers as the problem,
rather than work restructuring and hazardous job conditions. Enter behaviour
based safety. US union safety advisers Nancy Lessin and Jim Frederick
argue that behaviour based safety programmes focus attention on worker
carelessness and conscious or unconscious unsafe behaviours, an underlying
shift of responsibility that places the onus for a safe workplace on workers
themselves.
Blame the worker: The
rise of behavioural-based safety programmes, James Frederick and Nancy
Lessin, Multinational Monitor, November 2000 - Vol. 21 - No. 11
NYCOSH links
The union-backed US New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
links to sites on behavioural safety, including a great deal of excellent
information useful to unions.
NYCOSH
BS page
The origin and fallacies of
behaviour based safety -- A TWU perspective
Health and safety factsheet from the US Transportation Workers' Union.
TWU
factsheet
Fixing the workplace, not
the worker
A workers' guide to accident prevention from the US Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers' International Union (now part of the union PACE).
OCAW
guide
UFCW behavioural safety guide
US food workers' union UFCW says behavioural safety programmes can be
a hazard to trade unions. It says they shift the focus away from workplace
hazards, can weaken hard won protections and can discourage members from
taking a more active role in the union... and none of this is an accident.
The
hazards of behavior based safety programs, UFCW
Union guide to "Incentive
programs"
American Federation of Government Employees.
|
Bosses having badly
By Cathy Walker, national health and safety director of CAW, the
Canadian autoworkers' union
WHIN, July-December
1998: [pdf]
CAW behaviour based
safety guide
Behaviour based safety programmes seek to identify unsafe behaviour
and punish those who practice it. But isn't the idea of behaviour
based safety just a less fatalistic version of "accident proneness",
that wonderful theory that says that some people just can't stop
hurting themselves? CAW says it isn't a worker's behaviour that
determines their safety; it is the nature of their work.
Behaviour based safety programs, Cathy Walker CAW [pdf]
|
BRITAIN
GPMU opposes bogus safety incentive schemes
Print union GPMU says it is concerned about the growth
of "safety incentive programmes" offering bonuses or prizes when accident
figures fall, because they could encourage fewer reports rather than fewer
accidents.
A GPMU circular to union reps says they "should make
clear to their employers the GPMU opposition to safety incentive schemes
based on reporting fewer accidents." The circular says: "GPMU policy is
to oppose such schemes where they pay bonuses, or are included in payment
systems, based on the recording of fewer accidents. The GPMU is sceptical
about all safety related payment schemes, but where they do exist, they
must only be based on measuring positive contributions to safety."
GPMU says it wants to hear about any workplaces covered
by safety incentive schemes. In the USA, where these schemes have been
heavily promoted, US national union federation AFL-CIO opposes their introduction.
Several national white collar and blue collar unions in the USA and Canada
have said union reps should avoid the safety incentive schemes.
GPMU
circular • Risks
120, 23 August 2003
LATEST NEWS
Global: Paper deaths prompt transatlantic campaign
An increase in workplace fatalities and serious injuries in the paper industry may have been brought on by employers trying to increase profit margins at the expense of health and safety, unions in North America and the UK have warned. In January, Workers Uniting will offer a freephone number for members to report unsafe work practices, which will be then be reported to the health and safety authorities in both the US and the UK.
Unite news release • USW news release • Risks 434
Hazards news,
28 November 2009
USA: Workers dare not report injuries
More than two-thirds of injured or sick workers in the US fear employer discipline or even losing their jobs if their injuries are reported, a study from the official Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found. The GAO survey of more than 1,000 occupational health practitioners found a third of these health professionals reported being pressured by employers to provide insufficient treatments to workers to hide or downplay work-related injuries or illnesses.
Workplace safety and health: Enhancing OSHA's records audit process could improve the accuracy of worker injury and illness data, GAO report, published online 16 November 2009 [pdf] • New York Times • AFL-CIO Now blog • Risks 433
Hazards news,
21 November 2009
USA:
How to make injury reports disappear
When one of the USA’s largest construction
sites boasted injury rates a fraction that on comparable jobs, it looked
too good to be true - and it was. There had been a systematic falsification
of injuries and illness numbers by KFM - Kiewit Pacific/FCI Constructors/Manson
Construction - a joint venture to rebuild the eastern span of the San
Francisco Bay Bridge.
Risks 275, 23 September 2006 • Hazards
behavioural safety webpages
USA:
“Safe” construction giant done for record fraud
The contractor building the new California Bay
Bridge eastern span, KFM (Kiewit/FCI/Manson), which once boasted the job
was five times safer than the average heavy construction project, has
been cited by state safety authority CalOSHA for an accidents cover up.
Risks 260, 10 June 2006.
USA:
Union denounces DuPont’s bad behaviour
A North American union has denounced
DuPont corporation’s “abominable” health and safety
record and has criticised its behavioural safety programmes. A report
from the Steelworkers’ Union (USW) launched at the World Congress
on Safety and Health at Work in Florida “illustrates that DuPont’s
many violations and accidents are not just isolated incidents of worker
failure, but establish a clear pattern of denial of corporate responsibility,”
said the union.
Risks 226, 1 October 2005
USA:
Major site’s safety record too good to be true
The “immaculate” safety record
of a massive San Francisco construction project has been challenged after
evidence of an accidents and occupational disease cover-up came to light.
Reports suggest the excellent health and safety record on the new Bay
Bridge construction project has more to do with bullying, bribes and other
“behavioural safety” initiatives than good practice.
Risks 202, 16 April 2005
USA:
Company admits falsifying safety data
Southern California Edison Co. used faulty
workplace safety data - and in some cases may have suppressed reports
of workplace injuries - over the last seven years to win performance-related
bonuses from the state, the company has admitted. It admits behavioural
safety schemes - including financial compensation and recognition lunches
- "may have discouraged the reporting of some incidents" and
may have produced "pressure to not report injuries."
Risks 180, 30 October 2004
Canada:
Rail firm buries
work accident cases
Canadian union CAW says national rail firm CN
is using "punitive harassment tactics in response to accidents and
injuries." Workers who report incidents are "surrounded"
by managers and "watched" afterwards, the union says.
Risks 164, 11 July 2004
|
