Do You Need Some Help With Your Baggage?

By Phil La Duke

Do you remember your first workplace injury? I don’t, I started working at 13 as the cleanup boy at a privately owned Dairy Queen.  I worked after the store had closed and was completely unsupervised.  The work wasn’t particularly dangerous but I had to run close to scalding water mixed with disinfectant through the machines and then run three buckets of clean water through the machines.  I had to sweep and mop (and dry—a lost art I can assure you) the floors and move boxes of stock.  I’m sure I fell on slippery floors, burned myself on hot water, and strained my muscles moving boxes too heavy for my 13-year old body.  I don’t remember any specific injuries because none were serious enough to require medical treatment.

I remember being injured numerous times in my second job, a dishwasher and then a short order cook (in those days you weren’t considered a “chef” unless you: 1) completed culinary arts studies; and 2) apprenticed under a master chef; and 3) received your credentials from a master chef.)  I was burned repeatedly by grease splattering against the bare flesh of my exposed arms, or by incidental contact with a hot grill or char broiler, but I never told anyone because my peers would have made fun of me  and the restaurant owner wouldn’t have cared.

One day I cut myself as I, following the accepted norm (like many workplaces there were no procedures just tribal norms) I cleaned a knife by wrapping a towel around the blade and pulling the towel firmly across the edge of the blade from hilt to tip.  Unbeknownst to me, the towel only APPEARED to be covering the blade and I ended up with a deep cut across four fingers.  A co-worker got me clean towels and I applied direct pressure.  The owner looked at what had happened and said, “I don’t think you need stitches, but you can’t cook like that; go home.”  I went home where my mother cleaned the wounds and applied butterfly stiches (it’s worth noting that I lived in a rural area and a trip to the hospital for stitches really had to prove itself necessary.) The butterflies worked well enough and even though I was in excruciating pain I was back on the job a couple of days later.

Several jobs and several injuries later, I entered the adult work world working an assembly line at an automobile plant.  But by this point, I had 12 years of on-the-job safety training.  That training consisted of being laughed at or mocked by coworkers, dismissed as “not tough enough” by managers and business owners; in short I learned that safety doesn’t matter.

My point is that even though we tend to think of new employees as blank slates, by the time we get people into our new employee safety orientations they have had a decade or more of experience (the best teacher after all) with safety, and before we can change how our workers think about safety we have to have them unlearn the powerful lessons that they have learned and had reinforced by the death houses that are many small businesses.  If the first thing workers learn about safety is that it’s all bull excrement we have to deal with that perception before we can have a serious and effective discussion about safety in our work places.  These workers will definitely test the norms of the organization and if their leaders (who by the way are often NOT supervisors or managers, but a charismatic veteran) reinforce the perception of safety formed by working for years in workplaces that are antagonistic of safety, then this perception will become even stronger.

So we can’t treat new employees as blank slates, we can’t count on common sense (which is simply the shared knowledge and perceptions of a situation), and we can’t count on workers taking safety seriously because many others have already taught them that safety is a big joke.

How do we break this cycle? By driving the company’s values around safety deep into the culture. New workers need to hear a consistent message from the senior leader to their peers on the shop floor.  Changing their perceptions about safety won’t be easy—they will look for confirmation of their world view in every subtle message our nuanced action—but we have to universally reinforce our company values and norms around safety or the preconceived notions of safety will eventually erode the value the company places on safety.

Advertisements

Is the Hierarchy of Controls a Useful Tool Or Safety Trivia?

pyramid

By Phil La Duke

In most cases when an author asks a question it’s rhetorical.  He or she isn’t really looking for an answer; rather, the author just wants to make a point.  That’s not the case with this particular article.  I have developed—both for internal use and for sale—scores of safety orientations, and contrary to the prevailing belief among safety “professionals” that it’s okay to steal such materials (mawkishly regurgitating the same material over and over again while presenting it as a new unique product) I start each one fresh and each time I do I ask myself “why do the learners need to know this?” and “what will they do with this knowledge once they have mastered it?”  Which leads me to the question about the Hierarchy of Controls, and frankly, I’m not sure it passes the sniff test of these two questions. Virtually every safety orientation includes the Hierarchy of Controls and I have to ask,why?

For those of you outside the safety trade or who are in the safety trade and have been living under a rock your entire career, the Hierarchy of Controls is a tool for protecting workers…except it doesn’t really.  It’s not a tool in the traditional sense, instead it is a conceptual approach to protecting workers that holds that some measures are more effective (and therefore more desirable) than other measures to protect workers.  Best of all it works…except when it doesn’t.

So let’s see if I can answer the two questions.  “Why do the learners need to know this?” and “what will the learners DO with this knowledge?”  When we’re conducting safety training if we ask for four hours we get two and generally have to split it with benefits, an explanation of the employee handbook and Lord knows what else.  I have seen the safety orientation whittled down to little more than a 15 minute pep talk, so in that context I have to wonder at the value of teaching the concept of the Hierarchy of Controls to front-line workers. I’ve gotten off on a bit of a tangent here, but back to our question “why do workers need to know this?” (I mean it is an absolute requirement in most of the safety orientations I have seen and commissioned to develop.) Proponents will insist that this is a valuable concept that teaches workers that the company puts in guards, rules, and PPE to protect them, but so what? When I worked the line, I assumed that the company designed safety measures into my job was a given. In my defense I was young and not yet jaded by the horrors I would witness over the subsequent 30 odd years.  Before anyone taps out an angry defense of the invaluable nature of the Hierarchy of Controls I’d just like to point out that I’ve not seen any study showing a correlation between understanding the Hierarchy of Controls and proper use of PPE, adherence to the safety rules, or even not by-passing safety devices. In my experience nobody has ever by-passed a safety interlock or failed to control hazardous energy because he or she had never heard of the Hierarchy of Controls.  One way I test the “does the learner need this” question is to ask “what bad thing will happen if the worker doesn’t know this” sadly, I am yet to come up with a single bad thing that will happen because the worker didn’t know about the Hierarchy of Controls.

Another issue with the Hierarchy of Controls has little to do with the Hierarchy of Controls itself and more to do with how it is taught.  We tend to teach it as “the best way to protect workers is to eliminate the hazard altogether, but sometimes that’s not possible so we move down the pyramid to the next level of protection: substitution. When substitution isn’t an option we use engineering controls like safety interlocks and guard…” and so on until we say something like “PPE is the last, and least effective way to protect you.  Now there’s a ringing endorsement for wearing cumbersome and uncomfortable gear—because it’s better than nothing.  Not only does teaching the Hierarchy of Controls not benefit workers in a practical way, it may create the impression that the company is doing the bare minimum to protect workers.  In practice, however, this is not how the Hierarchy of Controls is used.  We do try to eliminate or substitute the hazard for something benign or at least less hazardous, but then we use a combination of guarding, rules and signage, training, and PPE to form protective layers around the worker.  Explaining WHY we do this is so much more important than the philosophical concept that led us to those decisions.  This of course, is not the fault of the Hierarchy of Controls rather it is the fault of the instruction and explanation of the Hierarchy of Controls.  So why do people need to know about the Hierarchy of Controls? Because it teaches a necessary thought process that people need to make informed decisions about their safety.  “What bad thing might happen without this knowledge?” People could attempt to try work without the proper protection.

So putting in information that a) no protective measure is 100% failsafe and b) all protective measures rely at least to some extent on the active participation of the worker, and c) when these measures fail people often die or suffer crippling injuries; but can’t we just say that to front-line workers without filling the lesson with jargon.  One of the most difficult assignments in developing a training course is getting stuck with a subject matter expert, who ardently believes that people must be taught everything—to the minutest detail—about a subject.  It becomes one long fight with the expert over whether or not the person needs to understand the complexities of gravity to avoid slip, trip, and fall injuries.  I think to some extent we are all guilty of this type of behavior when it comes to the Hierarchy of Controls.  We know it. We like it, and we find it interesting therefore it most go into the training.  But in a real way it’s like teaching the principal of gravity to a swallow.  The swallow doesn’t care WHY it doesn’t fall out of the sky when it flies, it only cares that it doesn’t, that is to say, if swallows care about anything I’ve never been that emotionally close to a swallow to really say definitively.

On the other hand I like the Hierarchy of Controls; it makes safety seem scientific even if it isn’t. (And I’m sorry but it isn’t, half the safety community still believes that the best way to protect workers is to draw pentagrams on the floor.) The Hierarchy of Controls is easy to explain, it makes a super pyramid graphic (and who in safety doesn’t’ LOVE pyramids?), and above all it demonstrates that when it comes to safety we’re at least TRYING to approach things systematically.  The problem is this: who in that audience cares about our stupid pyramid, and frankly, it could create the impression that since PPE and Administrative controls are the least effective then there is little point to adhering to those policies.  So I guess at the end of the day I am left feeling as if we are better off using our limited time with that audience focusing on something other than the Hierarchy of Controls.

 

Everything Is Going Great In Safety!!

kittens-cat-cat-puppy-rush-45170by Phil La Duke

Over the past weeks, I’ve gotten a lot of flack from some wonderfully helpful salt of the earth readers who, citing my less than positive tone of my introduction stopped reading.  So this week I am making every effort to avoid offending these precious snowflakes so that they can feel at home reading my blog.

Let me begin by saying that all is well in the world of safety.  As far as I can tell we’ve climbed the mountain, to quote Walt Whitman “the ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won”. Not only have we eliminated workplace fatalities, no one anywhere in the world is so much as at RISK of being injured.  Congratulations all around.  Really you’ve all done a top-shelf job.

Okay, I’ll stop.  I just had to get one last jab in at the people who, unable to construct a cognizant argument against my points, just to hide behind faux self-righteous indignation rather than think.  Some have suggested that I might reach a wider audience by printing watered-down pablum instead using a harsh tone; tough.  This is how I write and I will continue to write this way as long people risk their employees lives in the workplace. Platitudes and niceties don’t bring change, and as long as the workplace continues to change so too must safety.

All that is an aside. Today in the U.S. is Labor Day, a National holiday in which we recognize and honor organized labor.  Today there are plenty in the safety community quick to forget the role of organized labor played in pushing for workplace safety.  From the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire to the enactment of OSHA legislation and many points in between Organized Labor has pushed, and literally fought with fist and ax handles for the rights of workers—not the least of which, being the right to come home unharmed after a hard day’s work.

Labor has been under siege for decades but safety professionals would be well-served to remember that as goes Labor so goes Safety, and whether you are an entry-level safety coordinator or a senior manager in safety to either a small extent or a large you owe that job for protections fought and one by the Unions around the world.

 

Some reading this will balk at this and say that they owe nothing to “those no good so-and-sos” in the Union.  But just as Unions fought for safer work environments, companies without Unions often emulated the practices of Union shops to keep Unions out of their shops.  Organized Labor in the U.S. fought for legislation governing the safety of the workplace as did their counterparts in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and other countries.  The idea that workers had a RIGHT to come home alive and uninjured grew out of the ideals of organized labor, few large companies viewed workers as anything more than disposable tools that, when broken, could be thrown out and cheaply replaced.  Unions created the idea that workers were people and had the right to work safely.

Hopefully it won’t take another The Jungle to wake people up to the sorry state of working conditions both in the U.S. and abroad, but until then enjoy your holidays and weekends and remember every step you take that is pain free, every time you stand at a barbecue with a beer in your hand without excruciating back pain, or simply have a conversation with someone who might otherwise not be there were it not for worker safety, and raise a glass in respect to the many who fought and died for your right to a safe workplace; we stand on the shoulders of giants.

In the World of Safety, Political Correctness Endangers Lives

labels

By Phil La Duke

Please note: If you are reading this with the sole intent of becoming offended, or if you read this to natter in my boss’s ear about what utterly shocking thing I said THIS time, please stop reading and go to Hell.  It’s exhausting dealing with you people and you care more about being offended than having your beliefs challenged.  And I as I am expressing my OWN opinion and only my OWN opinion unless I have personal slandered you in some way, what I have to say is really none of your business.

When I was a kid I worked with a man who was mentally retarded. He wasn’t “special”.  He wasn’t “mentally challenged”. He wasn’t “alternatively gifted”.  He wasn’t “a little slow”. He was retarded.  The word was never meant to in any way denigrate, degrade, or insult him.  It was a medical term in wide-use at the time. We didn’t call him “retarded” we called him “Larry” and we treated him just like anyone else, while at the same time understanding that Larry had limitations and would, from time to time, need help.  We just accepted it.  In fact, the word “retarded” rarely came up except maybe when someone asked about why he behaved the way he did.

Then one day along came political correctness. I am a lot of things.  I am a lot of ugly things; but I am not politically correct.  I have always tried to see people as people and I have found that people who have some sort of handicap generally don’t want to be seen as well…whatever cutesy label you want to put on them.  I have always suspected that the ultra-politically correct secretly harbor a bigotry that they mask through carefully designed meticulously measured language designed to hide the fact that when they see a person in a wheel-chair they don’t see a person they see a cripple.

I once worked with a woman who forbade us from using the term “flip chart” because apparently “flip” can be used as a derogatory term for a Filipino. Frankly, I had never heard the term and it made me wonder about the woman who brought my attention to it.  I have never known a bigot that didn’t know every ugly pejorative for the people he or she despised.  I worked at another company where we were forbidden from using the terms bullet point (it denotes violence even though the word predates the projectile by several hundred years), negative (we had positives and deltas), and a host of other words.  It was counterproductive and stupid.  I never thought about shooting someone because someone said “bullet point” and  damn it all, some things ARE negative.  Some things are problems and NOT opportunities.

I recently saw a comedian who was a self-described “midget”.  He told the story of an indignant woman who came up to him and berated him for using the term “midget”.  At first he was genuinely concerned that she might have a loved one or friend who was in the same condition as he; but she didn’t.  She was merely a busybody. So after tell her to do a very nasty thing he told her. “You don’t get to be offended on someone else’s behalf”. He went on to say that when you get offended on someone else’s behalf it’s like saying “you’re too stupid to know that you are being insulted, but don’t worry I’ll take care of it.”

A blind man can decide what he wants people to call him (probably his name) but he can’t decide what all the blind people in the world want to be called, and the sighted community needs to get out of the labeling business.

It all comes down to intent. Words only have the power we give them, but when it comes to safety sometimes we have to call things like we see them. Sometimes the most effective way to get through to someone is to say “doing that is dangerous and stupid” not “doing things that way isn’t optimal and perhaps not the wisest choice”.  Academics love political correctness, but the people I’ve met in mines, on shop floors, in distribution centers and on oil & gas rigs tend to see the politically correct safety person as fools who can’t relate to doing an honest day’s work.  And this divide erodes all credibility and trust in the person.  When you are taking life-saving advice from someone you really need to see them as credible and smart.  What they say has to make sense and it can’t be covered in a frosting of BS. We need to feel that their true intentions are to help us to stay safer in an intrinsically unsafe world.

Safety professionals need to stop hiding their contempt and patronizing attitude toward workers and tell it like it really is.

 

The Rise of the Safety Jihadist

Safety Jihadist

 

By Phil La Duke

I have written a lot about the danger of safety professionals so convinced in the rightness of their cause that they find any disagreement a threat. Their feelings for their profession have surpassed passion and have drifted solidly into fanaticism. They are safety jihadists, and like all jihadists they are dangerous; they cannot be reasoned with nor can they be swayed from their zealotry. The life a life of singularity of purpose and anyone who dares disagree with them are at risk. One of my readers commented that I rail against these safety extremists and yet here I am week after week the insulation that I too was a fanatic hanging in the air like the victim of a lynching pecked clean by crows, but I am no fanatic.

That having been said, I feel strongly that change is necessary, that safety as a function has a lot of room for improvement. I’ve never claimed to have all the answers; in fact, I pose a lot more question than I answer.

EDIT: I think I should provide some context here throughout my 11 years of writing this blog I have been threatened with violence, received several death threats, had people tell me that they hope that my family is killed in industrial accidents, and last month someone called me and told me they were going to bring a bomb to my house.  In one case a man threatened to kill me because I asked what kind of sociopath introduces the idea that a parent might die at work to a 6 year old (through children’s safety poster contests)?  I think it’s a valid question, he thought it was justifiable homicide.  Not everyone who is passionate, heck even zealous about there work is a jihadist. Not everyone who is a nutcase fanatic about safety is a jihadist.  But when one crosses the line and advocates violence against someone for speaking out against misguided safety practices or merely suggest that we question what we do, that person is a jihadist.  And before grousing about my use of the word, perhaps learn a bit more about it from this nifty link I found. Jihad: a misundertstood concept from Islam.  It probably isn’t proper for me to mix religious terminology with secular and if anyone reading this is offended or upset on that basis I am truly sorry, but given the misappropriation of the term by the general public I think it applies her.  Now back to our regularly scheduled blog already in progress.

There’s a lot of talk today about culture. We rightly say that safety cannot improve unless we change the culture and yet we so seldom change ourselves. I have been heavily criticized of late for being too negative, too controversial, and too provocative. That the things I say might upset a client or chase away potential business. Of course, the slimly little snitches don’t say it to my face, but that’s to be expected cowardice is the defining characteristic of a lot of people.

This isn’t going to be one of those “woe is me” missives; in fact, almost the exact opposite. Don Rickles entire act used to consist of insulting members of the audience at the end he would always finish with something that would prove to the audience that he was really a nice guy after all. I despised that. If you’re going to adopt a certain style you can’t cave it because someone got offended; the ending always ruined the show for me. It’s a lot like that with what I do. I provoke, I prod, and I poke people until people start to think about and question their deepest held beliefs about safety. I call them out. Do I think they are bad people? Most are not. Do I think I can persuade people to believe what I am saying? That’s not really my goal. In the song Imagine John Lennon doesn’t say there is no God, he merely asks people to imagine what the world would be like if there was no God. My goal is for people to look at safety a different way; safety practitioners most particularly. I don’t praise them for working hard because I can get a monkey to work hard and fail. In matters of life and death, we need success, not effort. I’m not here to build the fragile self-esteem of the delicate flowers in the field of safety.

A colleague of mine does a powerful Safety Transformation intervention and invariably people, confronted with their own shameful inadequacies want him to acknowledge all the good things they are doing. He won’t. As he puts it, “when you go to a doctor because you’re having a terrible pain in your abdomen, you want the doctor to concentrate on that ailment. You don’t want him to tell you what a great haircut you have.”

Questioning any part of your world view is scary, and many of us would rather read either heart warming stories that reaffirm our world view or about some horrible tragedy that we know we would never let happen on our watch, which also confirms our world view.

I am here to focus a lens on some areas of safety that we really need to work to improve and I can’t do that by worrying about whether or not someone’s nose get’s pushed out of joint.

The most common compliment I get is “I read your work, and while I don’t always agree with it, it always makes me think.” Don’t always agree with me—I don’t have a monopoly on the truth but recognize that neither does anyone else. And that’s what separates me from the safety jihadist; I don’t want you to always agree with me. Always agreeing with me leads to zealotry and fanaticism and the last thing we need more safety jihadists.

Extra: I will be hosting an Ask Me Anything event tomorrow

Sign up now and literally ask me anything

https://authorsama.com/success-what-it-takes-and-what-it-costs-go-ahead-and-ask-me-448546/

Snitches End Up In Ditches

From the 4-year old tattle tale to the office colleague that runs to the boss with a petty grievance against you, people dislike informers.  Unfortunately for those of us in the safety industry many people see us as the rat squad, or even more dangerously, see anyone who has the courage to exercise stop work authority as a rat.

As much as we are loath to admit it safety slows work and can often be a nuisance to the people who believe that getting the work done is more important than following the procedure to ensure the work is being done as safely as is practicable.  Even the wording of UK law that holds employers responsible for performing work in the safest way practicable can be troubling.  What’s the difference between practicable (we in the States might say “feasible”) and possible? A lot. And who decides where lies the line between an unfair burden on the company and reasonable precaution? Typically the employer and the person who blows the whistle on an over zealous employer may find him or herself ostracized by coworkers for being a rat.

Safety Will Put Us Out of Business

No I know that many reading this will frown a patronizing frown and think, “this guy has got it all wrong, MY people would never react this way”  and maybe they’re right.  But I have been in the safety business in one form or another for over 25 years for the last 15 I have worked on consulting projects for the bulk of my time.  Consulting is a cut-throat, back-stabbing, dog-eat-dog world, but the nice thing about being a consultant is that people will tell me things that they would never tell someone in their company.  Years ago, I was working with a small manufacturer with a horrible safety record and worse culture.  (I was brought in by their biggest customer who was concerned about what they saw as a disaster waiting to happen).  One of the leaders told me that “if we did things the way you think they should be done (safely) we would be out of business in a week.”  The workforce were largely minimum wage and spoke little English and if they knew something was unsafe they knew better than to report it. there were no lock out procedures, placards, or discipline and I personally had to intervene three times because someone was working in a robot cell while it was fully energized.  The sole focus was speed (the parts they produced didn’t have a whole lot of possibility of a meaningful defect.)  Ultimately they decided to strong arm the customer by refusing to make parts until they were granted a 25% price increase.  A week later they were out of business, killed not by safety, but by greed.

Still, the idea that in some industries it is impossible to work safely persists. In some industries an injury is a badge of honor; it means you are no longer a rookie.  In those environments safety is the enemy and to bring up a safety concern is to be a snitch, the lowest of the low, a coward who can only muster the gumption to tattle in secret; below scum.

Fighting Back

So how does one combat that twisted mentality? For starters you need to ferret out the real informers and let them know in no uncertain terms that if they have a problem they need to address it assertively with the individual and not run to the boss with petty crap. Crucial Conversations and Crucial Confrontations are really great books that describe skills that all professionals (not just safety professionals) should master.  I will warn you, having conversations of this nature isn’t fun, but they are a heck of a lot more productive than snitching.

Years ago I was commissioned by a large company to produce a video that showed a cross section of workers answering one question: “How do you intervene when you see someone doing something safe?”  the answers ranged from “I tell the person that I care about them and don’t want to see them hurt” to “hey (expletive) can I have your tools when you’re dead” (I didn’t get to use that one, but it was effective).

We ARE Snitches, But We Don’t Have To Be

Many of us are snitches.  We lack the authority to discipline workers for not following the safety rules and the best we can do (along those lines) is tattle to someone who can enforce the rules. But we don’t need to be snitches, instead of trying to force people to follow a safety rule we need to influence them to see following the safety rules (or in the case of the company that forces people to tie off at the height of 4 feet when the harnesses have a 10 foot lanyard to speak up when the rule doesn’t make sense or even further imperils the worker) we need to listen, learn, and advise the workers.  They may have a very good reason for not following a rule and if were not careful, we might just learn something.