Posted By Kieran J Duignan Bob In principle, I'm v. sympathetic to values underlying your comment and would wish the scale of financial penalities in civil H & S cases to reach to the Australian levels which are many times higher than in the UK, and penalise not only organisations but individuals for negligence. However, Australian, largely shaped by immigrant populations, has a modern history that expresses its much more egalitarian society. The geographical and industrial structures of Australian societies also support aggressive responses to unsafe behaviour, at all levels of organisations. Working within the scope of the probable in UK and Irish societies, I now strongly believe that the way of radical improvement lies much more along the path of social behaviourist approaches to positively rewarding good and better practices and promoting safe, healthy workplaces as a source of competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining talented staff. Admittedly, this would require (good) safety professionals to dwell more on their negotiating, analytical and rhetorical skills rather than on lobbying mainly for legal compliance; arguably such a change would in turn would in time gain them the recognition they're due.

Posted By Merv Newman Kieran, at the risk of turning this into a mutual admiration club, I must agree with you again. However, what would count as "positive" value for a production manager who has to meet his numbers ? So we rely on our skills of persuasion, rhetoric etc to convince them that safety (no or fewer injured people), is just as important as getting the widgets out of the door (lowest possible cost, highest required quality (and the environment is someone else's problem)) Shields of honour, silver swords and so on are OK to reward those already convinced and already good, but how much publicity do they get and how much knock-on effect do they have ? For many years we have been trying to convince managers that "a safe workplace is an efficient workplace" and "safety saves money". They are not convinced. We are working with statistics "but that doesn't apply to us here" we are working with injury cost estimates "rubbish. You are just exaggerating" Can we offer a provable, guaranteed effect to the bottom line ? I like the French system. (well I would wouldn't I ?) Companies are assessed for some social security contributions based on their accident record. Everyone, even those with zero accidents, pays about 1% of their total wage bill to fund the system. The more accidents you have the more you pay. Most industry groups pay around 2 - 3% (building trades, especially roofers can go as high as 17%) The contributions are ring fenced for paying medical fees and handicapped allowances to people injured at work. Go three years without a lost time injury then you can get back down to the 1% Apart from possible fines and other penalties this gives a calculable figure directly affecting the bottom line. Remember that the 2 or 3 (or 17) percent reflects the average salary, including those of managers. So to save a couple of % it is often worth employing a competent H&S person. Merv

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Merv - and other viewers.... The significant difference in perspective has to do with strategy rather than tactics, with delivering benefits rather than beltings (other than in cases of manslaughter or homicide: arguably organisations guility of such negligence are cases for extinction before they cause further suffering). I see the UK (and Irish) safety system as suffering from the understandable compromises of the historical circumstances in which it muddled through. In that sense, it's like the NHS - a worthy ideal originally, now all too often overwhelmed in bureaucracy. This was dramatically illustrated to me by a senior hospital consultant, working at director level, in a hospital in the south of England, with whom I was chatting with over the weekend. She told me that during the last six months (not years!), her hospital has had 3 chief executives (and the appointment of the fourth is submerged in strife!). While she inevitably has to trim her sails continually to what staff for whom she is legally responsible are willing and able to deliver, she is only too aware of the failures she tries to shore up, having chosen explicitly during recent years to make the most of her career within the NHS. In that light, I v. much respect the commitment of all those whose job it is to operate safety systems to do what the great majority do: processing 'legs and regs' carefully into some sort of processes that offer human reinforcements for safe behaviour and into ergonomic work-systems; and at the same time, I now think it is worth advancing the case that dwelling mainly on legal compliance is of itself putting oneself in the situation of my friend the medical consultant, painting oneself into a corner. I believe the 'big picture' realignment is best viewed in terms of larger systemic changes in funding, through different forms of insurance premiums rather than the fines proposed by Bob. In other words, the UK will expand private insurance at work and rationalise the present civil litigation system, ideally along Australian lines where rehabilitation and accident prevention are serious economic propositions. Writings of economists like the Scottish guy, John Kay (Oxford and the LSE), who is all for EFFECTIVE specialisation, persuade me that within 25 years, cost-effective conduct of safety will be happening through a merged HR/safety function (although perhaps this may be 'unofficial' as IOSH and CIPD and smaller groups like the Erg Soc and the Occ Hygience Society, etc. may be left trailing along separately for a further generation still), on the one hand, with occupational medicine and health re-aligned with insurers as a development of the rehabilitation improvements in recent years through the emergent Case Management Services UK, punching much heavier than its present weight, on the other.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Sorry to raise this again but the administrative fine of £14m on Network Rail for overrun of engineering works does seem to stir this pot further. I personally can see both sides of this problem A) H&S is seen as a poor relative when viewing fines levels and thus life and limb is of much less value than financial malpractice or public inconvenience. B) Fines are a blunt instrument that can punish the innocent employees or other persons financially rather than the organisation per se. The trouble with the second view is that these levels of fines will be continued to be levied elsewhere and thus H&S will be viewed as inconsequential in terms of business risk. My musings ask myself what if the HSE etc could impose administrative punishments other than fines via prosecutions where injury is not involved? Could directors and managers be required to attend specified training and development courses or then face personal consequences if they fail to do so? Could an organisation be required to place Mentors into the business to assist cultural change? Is this just an extension of the current Notice system but with some teeth to force individuals to take responsibility? Fines involving injury could then be pursued more vigorously and potentially rise. Just thoughts in a vacuum at the moment but society is needing answers to the hard questions regarding producing safer work places. Bob

Posted By Kieran J Duignan To the extent that change in organisational behaviour is the intended aim, there's a lot of evidence that facilitating participation and involvement of employees is more cost-effective than penalties. Limits on improving safety through participation and involvement depend to some extent on the nature of hazards and on the degree of rigorous control arising from statutory obligations. Yet, the impact of well-facilitated and methodical team learning offers scope for innovation about safety and its links with other functions in a business. Are the possible benefits to the safety profession and its members sufficient to move them to enlarge their agendas to incorporate initiatives about organisational change? How might we/they tell if we/they were succeeding as a profession as organisational developers? How would it feel if there were a greater shared interest in promoting 10 classes of attractive innovations for each class of fine?

Posted By Robert K Lewis Kieran Perhaps this is actually where IOSH does need to be looking and potentially leading the way. We do not need to rely on the Regulators to open up initiatives. If we are not here to change organisational behaviours then what is left for the professional. Are we to remain in public perception as Box Tickers rambling on about biased H&S stories in the press? I believe that we are far greater than this. Our strength is in our skills and experience of organisations and these must be put to effective business use if the trail of destruction is to slow down and come to rest. Kenneth Fines or financial penalties? - It is a matter of words. The rail regulator sees is as a fine and the courts merely impose financial penalties as a punishment for behaviour in breach of a particular regulation, whether H&S or not. The real point is that they are imposed to deal with unwanted behaviours and the comparison between specific areas and H&S appear to make H&S a second fiddle in the minds of the lawmakers and judiciary. Bob