Comments

  • Is 'human error' ever acceptable as a cause?
    Testing notifications out of the Forum, please disregard. Simon
  • Is 'human error' ever acceptable as a cause?
    My personal opinion about the topic is that any human error has a cause. Unless the person sets out to injure themselves, the reasons can be almost infinite. From lack of knowledge, to work pressure, lack of tools or equipment, stress, distraction and simply not enough physical safeguards. Humans don't normally behave in a random way unless the brain has a fault that triggers illogical or involuntary behaviour.

    And most accidents have a sequence, or combination of failures.

    Therefore, in almost all cases, there is a cause involved but we generally don't have enough investigative skills to find the intangible ones like fatigue, stress, work pressure. On the other hand, my observation over years of viewing the average investigation, is we don't have the skills to even find obvious physical causes either. Accident investigation is something of a hidden art, available to very few people.

    We need to remember that the article was written by a journalist (no criticism intended Peter). The terms "human error" and in particular, "complacency" are appallingly archaic . Sounds the same as "Told him/her to be more careful in future". However, the paragraph that lists root causes sounds like a good investigation. There were also additional causes of lack of understanding and instruction, fatigue, dietary options (energy drinks) and the injured worker's arrogant attitude."

    Leaving aside the vacuous statement about arrogant attitude, (they knew he had an attitude and let him continue to use a lathe, then when the poo hit the fan, they pulled it out of the drawer. I'd have kept quiet. That's having your cake and eating it too). None of the causes were, in fact, human ERROR. They appeared to be evidence of lack of knowledge, or human FACTORS, like stress and fatigue.
  • SafePlus Accreditation
    I'd be interested to hear from anyone as to how many SafePlus assessments are going on (using actual Assessors, as opposed to de facto or self assessments). I'd also like to hear how the experience went for them. I'm not hearing anything so I suspect not much is happening. But I could be wrong.
  • Contractor Pre qualification /approval systems
    Speaking as someone who supplies external advice, assessments of compliance and audits to employers, I am convinced that the pre-qualification "industry" is as shallow as an oil slick. It would not even exist if not for desperate and misguided employers who go along with it in the hope that it gets the OHS monkey off their backs. It doesn't.

    When a contractor turns up at a work site and gets injured, all the paper in the world will be thrown out the window if the people with duties to that person haven't exercised them.Those duties, (and the only ones that stop blood being spilled), include agreed safe work plans, regular monitoring, supervision, spot checks, collaboration and application of rules. People talking to people. Getting off arses. So what's the value of pre-qualification to any party when push comes to shove? I'm willing to listen, but the only tangible benefit I can see for all this bureaucracy is in the pockets of the agencies that provide the so-called "service".
  • Introduce yourself here!
    Simon Lawrence, previous Forum member. Self employed OHS consultant. Involved in the "systems" side of OHS - safety management systems, audits, coaching, development and training. I have to admit getting what Peter describes here as a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket once or twice previously. But I'm a good boy really.

    Very much looking forward to engaging with discussions on here. On first impressions, it has a nice, simple format for topics. Yet to see how notifications work but already a huge step forward from the previous email based system.

    Well done Peter, it's good to see the Forum back.