Looking at open homes yesterday we were asked at three places to read health and safety information, sign it and hold the stair handrails.

I couldn't really find fault with the intention (arse covering). But what next? "Please don't put your fingers in the electrical sockets"? Hazard information should be reserved for unusual hazards like slippery paths, swimming pools, stairs without handrails, watch your kids. I mean, hire car companies don't caution us to hold the steering wheel do they?

I think Chris Hyndman makes a good point by putting the reverse stress management perspective on this. I've no doubt at all that some people want to stay in touch with what's going on at work. Having demands put on you is intrusive but keeping abreast of things is, for some people, better than wondering or getting nasty surprises later on. In my case, being self-employed and having a consulting service and a software service, I welcome hearing enquiries, issues and opportunities any time. The sooner the better. LESS stress, not more.

So stress is largely a perception thing. And it's not necessarily caused by too much pressure. It can be feeling "not in control", unable to be part of things, even being left out and not having enough of a role to play.

As others have already stated, the key here is maybe not so much whether the phone is used outside work hours, but whether there is an expectation, judgement or consequences for non-participation. Exceptions are OK when urgent issues or information is being sought and no one else can do it. We all love being the hero...

I agree with Peter Bateman - any manager who routinely contacts people outside hours with expectations is showing poor management skills. If I call a third party after hours who, for example, does my software development, I do what most decent people do - apologise for the intrusion and ask politely for consent to talk about work.

Any worker, employee or third party deserves an acknowledgement that even listening to you is granting an exceptional favour that they can decline with absolutely no reason given if they so choose.

I suggest that routine reviews should be the main source of objectives. If we can't find actually useful enhancements of our systems and processes, don't bother. Most of this thread sounds like we are choosing the flavour of our next ice cream just for fun.

Given that an in-depth review of performance, contexts, stakeholders, compliance, failures, developments, indicators etc etc must always reveal opportunities and gaps, why look any further? If we can't look at an objective and see it leading to an actually better safety world, and that it's relevant to our own work site, what box-ticking game are we playing?

If anyone's interested, I did more research on this and published a post to various media. It goes into more detail about the Working Safer Vision and also some available World Health Organisation data on road deaths per 100,000 population.

For road deaths, out of 188 countries, NZ is 29th, but after you're out of the top 30-40, most countries are those still developing roads and safety laws, so 29th isn't anything to be proud of. Most western European countries have far lower rates than us. But you might be surprised to know who is worse than NZ. The USA, for example, has a lot higher rate than us. We are on a par with Italy. But if you've ever driven in Italy, you won't be using that as boasting rights.

Here is a link to my analysis: http://public.safetybase.co.nz/accident-statistics-adjusted-data/

That was a reply to Andrew. Sorry, still working this app out.

I was talking about work related fatalities and serious non-fatal injuries. ACC figures may include long term health issues, which are specifically acknowledged in the Working Safer paper as hugely more than immediate deaths. But not in included in the goals. They acknowledge that. Can you check that out?

Those last two comments by Andrew and Rob probably sum it up. Neither party should make petty generalisations about the other.

My sympathies lie to some extent with Worksafe. At least they go out on most days pointing at real things to say they are unsafe. Their strong suit just isn’t going to be about safety systems. That’s too long term. They are on the front line.

But the landscape is full of “consultants” waving bits of paper as solutions. Unless they can back the paper up with some glue to hold it all together, they need to be called out for the charlatans they are.

Simon

Great speech. I can also commend it, having just read it.

In his closing comments, Prof Hopkins appears genuinely relieved to have personally abandoned the word culture as it may apply to safety.

For our long-suffering Forum safety advisors of all types, I think we should also be encouraged by this quote:

"Now, to which I say, wow, if I were a safety practitioner, I would breathe a sigh of relief. I can ditch this concept of safety culture, and get on with what's important, it's the practices in this organisation. I don't need to worry about whether I call this culture, or safety culture. I don't need any other language to deal with this, I can get straight on to the issue of getting, focusing on the organisational practices and getting them right."

Leadership and consistency are all we need, although I think he might have been more explicit about the role of open and authentic employee engagement.

I appreciated the last two candid comments. I too shrank back from the cost, but also the bother of having to get higher than "member" status with either of our esteemed safety clubs. I'm not against the need for some sort of professional status, but I looked at Safe Plus and just could not see how it would ever become mainstream. Seems I got that right. Thanks Sarah and Laraine.

With reference to Laraine's comments above about ACC getting involved - I suspect they are far too busy coming up with their own two new schemes for 2019, which in my opinion, look far more collaborative and useful. ACC have been at this stuff for nearly two decades now and they are getting better and better at it. One scheme will be the default for ALL employers. Get that! Not voluntary, like WSMP. That default scheme also has forms of incentive included. The other scheme is a rebuild of AEP.

I analysed these two developments in the following blogs, if anyone is interested: http://public.safetybase.co.nz/48962-2-2-2/ and http://public.safetybase.co.nz/48962-2-2-2-2/

Peter, dare I suggest we don't need a "short, pithy and printable" response to Mike Yardley? Sorry, but journos these days have largely forgotten that dispassionate and balanced reporting of facts is part of their profession. They are part-time entertainers now.

In other words, he knew he was being a prat. The last thing he wants is a dose of common sense to spoil his party.

I've visited this thread a few times and although I detest the use of intimidation and dominance on any person, workplace or not, I've hesitated to comment. Mainly because the sexual harassment side of it is so highly charged these days. Almost any male or non-specialist opinion may be viewed very critically, whether or not it's deserved.

But I'm not sure these types of behaviour really fit into health and safety. Sure, you can have policies, but if, for example physical violence occurs in the workplace, we don't rush over to the hazard register to take notes. Of course it's a hazard, but these things are against the law. I mean, if we employ drivers, we don't put "Drive on the left and stop at red lights" on the hazard register, do we? And the prospect of the average OHS person dealing with these issues makes me shudder. Even HR folks are challenged.

I can't help thinking intimidation should be referred to very specialised people, same as we refer incipient occupational diseases. The role of people "on the ground" probably ought to be prevention and early reporting. And surely some cases of intimidation are criminal offences? What do we do with those? The Labour Party recently kept it "in-house" at the summer camp thing and suffered the consequences. Not sure if this is an OHS vs. HR thing when it's best to refer it "upstairs", wherever that may be.

Good on ya Jan. A fellow member of the Misplaced Apostrophe Police. There's a work van parked up my street with an offer of >Free Quote's< and I swear I'm going to take a paint can to it one dark night...

I knew a cop some years ago who told me this mode of transport, including pedal bikes, is illegal on footpaths. Show me one developed country in the world that tolerates it. NZ needs to clarify this and stick to it. The future is here and electric things are going to be part of it

By the way, I’ve no issue with getting signatures on individual training records, particularly where it’s a key skill. In which case, the trainer needs to sign off on their assessment too, if they have the balls.

But not toolbox meetings, where it’s supposedly a sharing of information.

I’m not totally against this practice. But I’m unconvinced that it’s honest engagement with workers. If you’re an employer with integrity and respect for your people, and you truly value their input, you don’t push a piece of paper under their noses unless you want to cover your own backside. (In which case, you’re probably talking AT them, not with them). They’re not stupid.

I think employers have a choice here: Decide if you would take the risk of treating your workers like responsible people and fail a few times with some of them, or treat them ALL like cattle. The argument for treating people like cattle is always “they behave like cattle”, which is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

For me, the net gain of treating people as if they are responsible far outweighs the costs in the long term.

I agree with Craig Marriott above. I’m aware this practice exists, but I think it gets close to trying to contract out of duties, which we can’t do under the Act. The fact that a worker was present at a meeting, and was “expected” to sign the form is a bit coercive. It does not provide any evidence they understood, or that they were even fully present for the full meeting, or that they were aware what they were signing for.

It’s a very archaic practice in my opinion. If we are engaging effectively with workers, why get them to line up and put their name on a meeting record? It’s just so in the past and very authoritarian. If we are collaborating with workers, we want them to be engaged and owning risks, not tied at the wrist.

Thanks for all the contributions on this topic. I think it’s run it’s course and patterns have emerged. May I offer a broad summary:

1. There is a general consensus that a “culture” can be observed by the level of orderliness, consistency, engagement and integrity in an organisation.

2. To some observers, this is important, and is celebrated when it applies to safety behaviours and is called “safety culture”. Others regard organisational performance as the overarching factor, which leads them to conclude that safety is a “product”, or somewhat indirect result, and that safety as a culture is too tight a definition. This is where I sit.

3. The researchers acknowledge safety culture is an important idea, and describe what it seems to be, but cannot find evidence that it matters in terms of improving safety.

4. It seems unlikely that any safety culture can exist in isolation from a wider comittment to quality. Which means it will show everywhere if it’s real.

Those are, I think, observations we all agree on.

Personally, I think words like “passion” and “culture” add nothing to health and safety, and may even harm the reputation. I acknowledge they are important for promoting safety, as long as we use the pulpit sparingly, and integrate equally with other organisational objectives, rather than edifying our own special interest.

Just as an aside, my original post in here was a brief summary of my website post. I appreciate Drew Rae (above) clearly having read the post, and adding further helpful interpretation.

It's easy to react emotionally against something we hold dearly, based on personal experience, however, my website post http://public.safetybase.co.nz/safety-culture-steam-teacup/ was a serious attempt to summarise what I could from Frank Guldenmund's paper. There is a link in the post to Guldenmund's actual paper, but the intention was to provide a digest of it. Believe me, it's hard going...

Nicely put, Sheri. We don't see a safe and tidy workplace that isn't accompanied by all the other indicators of efficiency. And vice versa. Passion can be left at the door. As you say, safety is not the aim. It's the result. Reminds me of those four levels of competence:

1. Unconscious incompetent. (You're awful and you don't know it).

2. Conscious incompetent. (You're awful but you at least know it).

3. Conscious competent. (You're pretty good, but you have to try all the time).

4. Unconscious competent. (You're darn good and you don't even have to think about it). (Or shout about it, I would add).

For me, item 4 is analogous to a good organisational culture.

I don't think peer-reviewed science can be dismissed too lightly. Good to see some assertive comments, though. I should clarify:

• The research doesn't totally dismiss the importance of believing in "safety culture", but the evidence doesn't suggest it's a necessity for a safer workplace, nor necessarily desirable. An orderly, organised workplace is evidence of good leadership. The scientists just aren't convinced culture is meaningful.
• I agree it's what we do daily that shows commitment. But we can't "manufacture" safety culture per se. Which is the intention of my cup of tea analogy. We often hear organisations thinking they can "dial in" safety culture. But it arises from hard work, integrity and leadership. On that much, I think we all agree.
• I also agree the only thing that really matters is "doing things right". Which, in turn, also means we don't have to be passionate about it, and don't need to be too zealous. After all, it's part of doing business.
• And OK, I admit, I personally think health and safety turns people off partly because they do get preached at. The hardest part of the safety job is adopting the best style of communication to the situation.