Posted By Merv Newman Negative reinforcement such as warnings and disciplinary action are totally inefficient. They have only a short term effect and require that supervisors are always on the look out for infractions and are prepared to apply punishements consistently. Take a look at behavioural safety where we recommend that you recognise, reinforce and reward safe behaviours. It is much easier to do and more "user friendly". Unfortunatly it requires management and supervision to change their approach. e.g. when was the last time your boss thanked you for just doing your job ? Merv Newman

Posted By Laurie Our policy makes it quite clear that persistent breach of health and safety requirements will be regarded as a disciplinary matter. Once this has been invoked, whether it be for the said H&S, harassment, discrimination, bullying et al. there is a set procedure, through the HR Department, involving both employer and employee representatives, for assessing the gravity of the offence, and the sanctions to be imposed. Laurie

Posted By Alec Wood We all appreciate the viewpoint of "negative reinforcement" being inefficient in the longer term, and the idea that the carrot is more efficient than the stick. But we do have to face the issues of the real world too where we will always come across those thankfully rare individuals who consistently believe that they know better. I guess that it is these individuals to whom the questioner refers. I have often found that it can be difficult to get the HR department to appreciate the gravity of the offence, so it can be helpful to write a restriction policy into your standard working procedures instead. For example, if a warehouse operator arrives to work without his safety boots he cannot work in the warehouse where the wearing of such is mandatory. Managers will find him another task or send him home to get his boots, in his own time. If your safety procedure is to be taken seriously, then you must be prepared to punish those who consistently and routinely defy the safe systems of work you have put in place. This has top applied at all levels. The case mentioned by John above is an example of poor practise and attempted enforcement only at the shop floor level. Surely the lack of action taken against the person who ordered the bypassing of an interlock is indefensible. Alec Wood Viewtek Display Services

Posted By Martin Taylor thanks to Alec for writing my resposne for me - and thanks to other respondants for making me look at my own thinking more closely. We are looking to implement behavioural safety over the next 12 - 18 months and it is absolutely correct that this is the primary tool - both at shop floor and supervisor level and pure discipline will be the death nell of this approach. However as Alec states I am concerned that there will always be a small core of people who BS will not work for and these people need to be dealt with an ultimately removed from the business through a escalating disciplinary procedure. Given this - and I am sure that there are many businesses out there who have dealt with this matter - what does such a policy look at and how does it work? thanks all for you input so far - look forwards to lots more discussion Martin