Top news

USA How to make injury reports disappear
USA “Safe” construction giant done for record fraud
USA Union denounces DuPont’s bad behaviour
USA Major site's safety record too good to be true
USA Company admits falsifying safety data
Canada Rail firm buries work accident cases

MORE NEWS

¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? sumario

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.

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

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