Well let’s get this on the forum and see what everyone’s opinion is on here: http://www.constructione...olicy-from-union-attack/

My Opinion:

Having started my Career as a HSE Professional in 2001 – (5 years) with O’Rourke Civils then and now Laing O’Rourke for a few years, can say they have come a long way, since them days.

It is strange, as my outlook has changed dramatically and today, I am moving more towards Project Management. Have experienced so much in the field of HSE around the world, nearly walked away due to the bureaucracy and paper trails, that stopped the work being done on the workface. Said on a few occasions that it is the people doing the work that need to focus on the Health & Safety aspect of the job, not someone sitting in the office that has just passed their Health & Safety Qualification / Professional Qualifications and never done the work or gained experience on the ground.

Fortunate to be working with a young Project Team at the moment and working as a site support, focusing on production / health and safety. It runs hand-in-hand. This Zero Tolerance approach that we continue to aim for is not working, it has been around, so long. We need to think outside the box and great Laing O’Rourke taking the lead. Health & Safety is the responsibility of the workforce and they should have the active role in it.

This is my opinion, let’s get this out there and see what everyone feels towards the approach they have taken. Remember, O’Rourke did not take HSE seriously in the early days, production was the lead, they started focusing on HSE and leading the way in 2004 / 2005, changing the direction they done business.

It is good to see that the boundaries are being pushed and we continue to look outside the box to improve

Oh well said guys. Although I am not sure that "it is widely accepted" . . .

I too am astounded at the degree of interference from major clients and very large PCs, now being applied - relatively new to construction from contractor perspective, an unexpected 'bonus' of the manufacturing company I now work for. But not new to H&S!

An example of this parent/child and 'do as we say cos we know best' approach features in the IOSH mag this month. With all their initiatives, 'one way' 'zero-this' and 'best practice-that'. Wouldn't mind if such clients seemed to be running safety really well, but sadly not so. Circulated newsletters of incidents, often trivial (in potential), with no clear analysis, learning points or message other than 'take more care' all exhorting more effort to keep those stats down.

Railing against absurdity merely prompts funny looks - 'are you against more safety then?'. Sigh.

I do not believe that not managing the minor incidents is the way forward, but do believe that workers need to consider thier own safety and not rely on employers constantly but by ignoring the minor injuries I think we will go backwards as we will return to the 'we've always done it this way so why change'. This will then creap into the attitude of workers who will also have the same attitude towards the bigger risks. I believe that education is always the key but i don't think TBT's etc are always educational and not many people listen.

Maybe a 2, 3, even 4 tier approch so that we are managing all incidents, but put most effort were we believe the greatest risk whilst managing the and reducing the minor injuries.

Whilst O'Rourke have embraced this process it is not a new idea. Several organizations and projects have embraced the principle and have found it works.
One of the processes we use where I work is the STARRT card (Safety, Task, Analysis & Risk Reduction Talk). This is a daily procedure that takes place at the work face between the supervisor and the workers. It identifies hazards they come across and how they can minimize the hazards, safely, on a daily basis, as they come across them.
This information can be past on to other shifts and other teams. This is in addition to the general Risk Assessment and Method statement.
We find it works well as it is the workforce who are identifying hazards and rectifying the issues, by giving them ownership.
There are a lot of good intelligent people out there who have some good ideas that have been stifled in the past. Not any more, ask the worker what is wrong with a process and they will tell you and also how to get around the issue as well, given half the chance.
They won't always be right, that's what we are here for, to help and guide. Not dictate and shout that "we know best" just because we have an H&S qualification.

If I recall correctly, this also featured in the SHP magazine back in October 2015 titled: Paradigm shift in safety management.

Simon

Sorry but, Mr. Green is just a Jonny come lately.

Many people have been saying this for a long while.
My light bulb moment was reading the Baker report on the BP Texas city incident.
Then I started to look round and found many experts had been saying much the same for years.

Glad Laing O'Rouke have finally seen the light, however they certainly had painful times to get there as their record, especially at Wembley, Canary Wharf & T5 was awful. Hopefully other construction companies will now adopt a proactive approach.

I decided to look at the background of Laing O'Rourke's new safety policy or is it initiative ....

Their homepage on the website still talks about something like a 'zero tolerance' policy



blah blah.... and then refers to their AUSTRALIAN Hub:



https://nextgearsms.com/

.... 'accessible', which doesn't suggest that they have completely revised their corporate policy. Digging deeper and the links don't work, maybe a login is needed :o/

Thanks johnmc.

I was hoping also to get feedback from the first dozen or so posters on this thread, after reading what I reported (#15).

I'd appreciate if anyone can link to somewhere in the LO'R website (not the Australian) where their new policy/philosophy is working.

Hmm. £120 for a 2 hour 'breakfast' seminar. I don't think so.
Or a day for an eye-watering £714 - assuming you are on the doorstep.

The concepts are good. The bit that is missing is the 'how to'.
There is a website you can read for nothing, www.safetydifferently.com, and, or, you can read Dekker's book for £25. Just saying.

Minor accidents as precursors:
The thing about the accident triangle principle is that it IS relevant for one particular CATEGORY of accident at a time - slips and falls on the level for example. Minor injuries in this category may well be an indicator of the potential for a serious one - but only from slips or falls on the level.
Not for falling from the roof, or blowing up the building.

That's where the 'triangle teaching' goes wrong - reducing minor injuries across every category collectively (ie 'the company') has no bearing at all on the potential across each specific category.