Posted By Kieran J Duignan Raymond As you don't specify where or how or precisely when you'll actually 'go...', it's a little difficult to know the focus of what you might welcome comment. While 'zero tolerance' is not a useful aspiration in such a sophisticated environment as the one you evidently operate it, there may be a case for it at the early stage of compliance. After all, the shift from chronic negligence and daily violation of employee rights to safeguards to systematic risk assessment is often the most difficult to bring about; if the price is to tolerate 'zero tolerance' slogans, I see it as a stage far preferable to 'zero safety'

Posted By garyh I thought that all accidents were preventable?

Posted By Merv Newman Going suddenly over to zero tolerance with associated threats of disciplinary action because management are fed up with a too high rate of injuries is counterproductive, adversarial and very divisive. And, as said, what will you not tolerate ? You'ld have to really spell it out. And the penalties. Go back to the various triangles ; 1 serious injury equals 300 minor incidents or whatever. Not every unsafe act will result in an injury. Just for me, today, accept a ratio of 10 UAs to each 1st aid injury (could be 100 for all I know) So for each LTI there are 3000 (or 30000) UAs. Unless the ratio of managers/supervisors to employees is very much higher than the usual 1:10, then the great majority of these UAs will pass undetected. So it's "zero tolerance for a few unlucky employees" The others are getting away with it AND THEY KNOW IT AND THEY FIND IT REWARDING to put one over the boss. Suppose someone in a maintenance workshop (100% safety glasses) takes off their glasses to wipe the fevered brow. Before putting them back they will often take a quick look around to see if the rule-breaking has been detected. If it hasn't : "Hah. Got away with it that time" And anyway, what penalty would apply in the above case ? I do know of one very large plant, not 100 kms from here, where a ZT policy has operated for years. 1st infraction = written warning. 2 infraction = dismissal for persistant safety violations. Their LTI rate has been around 6 per million man hours for the last 20 years (you convert please, roughly 1% of the workforce)Which, it is a very large site, averages about 1 LTI per day. I used to go and talk to the H&S manager once a year. Nothing. They like doing it their way.

Posted By Janette Draper Here here Kieran... nicely put. I have to be honest and say that I have never worked in an organisation where zero tolerance was applicable to accidents..... I have however accepted zero tolerance on wilfulness, i.e. wilfully behaving in such a manner which puts themselves or others at risk of injury or exposes the company to potential litigation and I know of many organisations where this is the case You sure they applied it to accidents Ray?

Posted By Ron Hunter Soem interesting points in this thread. In a 'zero tolerance' culture is every non-conformance perceived as a violation, and therefore worthy of punishment? We all know there are many reasons why things go wrong! Where there is a stick, surely there also has to be a carrot? OK, the 'no blame' culture is a non-starter, but what's wrong with "fair blame"?

Posted By Raymond Rapp Thank you to those who have taken the trouble to respond. I cannot respond to all the comments and observations, but I will mention a few because I am not sure some have grasped my theme, with respect. I stated that Zero Tolerance is a noble concept but unrealistic and I stand by that. Indeed, it is nothing more than a theoretical concept. Being unrealstic it is impossible to achieve, although making improvements in accident and incident rates is achievable. However, improvements are restricted by the law of diminishing return - fact! ZT encourages the non-reporting of accidents and incidents as one observer has already commented on. Not good when many features of a positive safety culture are based on the open minded approach to accident reporting and investigation. For the record, ZT is not adopted by my organisation but it is with one of our clients. For example, a recent conversation with a Construction Manager followed the line 'we have had a few minor accidents and incidents e.g. cuts, bruises etc.' His repsonse, 'not acceptable, all accidents are preventable.' Now, what can I say to that load of nonsense? In my view Zero Tolerance was dreamed up by the same brigade that brought us TQM, CBA, Mission Statements and other various other forms of 'paper safety'. As such, ZT should be discarded to the place where it belongs - the waste bin. Regards Ray Regards Ray

Posted By Robert K Lewis Raymond I cannot help but feel that your thinking on ZT is confused. It should not be a ZT of accidents per se but rather a ZT of what one might term errant acts and behaviours. We cannot eliminate accidents as others have rightly stated but we can be intolerant of those actions etc that might well lead to accidents/incidents or other damage. This is ultimately about proper supervision undertaking its function with an agreed intent and to a specific standard. You can mark SMART targets around this concept. The big problem will be the initial consultation, explanation and implementation for any system you choose to use. Bob

Posted By Raymond Rapp Bob/Kieran I accept your point with Zero Tolerance to unsafe acts, why use the phrase anyway as nobody condones them, but those who are not so informed tend to take it literally and apply ZT to accidents and incidents. Which brings me to Kieran's point. Unfortunately the Construction Manager I mentioned earlier is employed by the Client (PPP), neither is he particularly endearing. Hence there is not much chance of having a sensible discussion. Worse still, his attitude has been adopted by the rest of his team. Regards Ray

Posted By Robert K Lewis Raymond Do not be so presumptive as to say that nobody condones such acts etc. We are dealing with perceptions and any non-correction of an errant situation is a perceived as a condoning by the perpetrator. For an effective ZT programme ALL acts and behaviours that depart from the agreed norms must be addressed immmediately even if it is inconvenient, from the supervisory perspective, to do so at that precise time. Yes I understand your client problem and often you will have to grin and bear it or, if there is an intention to skew your current systems, refer back to any contractual agreements. That however can be two edged. Bob

Posted By Raymond Rapp Perhaps it's just me then...and I am talking a load twaddle. On the other hand...the environment I am working in is with a bunch of red neck contractors, in conditions that are basic to ay the least and many of whom have come from war torn areas like Bosnia and hardly speak English. The commercial pressures of working in an industry where abatements are pretty much the norm for not completing projects on time. Where Clients turn a 'blind eye' when it suits their purpose. That my erudite colleagues is the REAL world of construction and safety. Not much room for academic pontification here, it's a case of sleeves up and get on with it. ZT is still in the waste bin. Ray

Posted By John Murgatroyd The only zero tolerance I know of is the zero tolerance towards anyone reporting an incident ! As for red-necked Bosnian workers, look to the future. Where each countries H&S laws apply to their nationals in whichever country they work. ie:, Bosnian workers will only have to apply Bosnian law to their British job (sorry, English...Scotland has its own laws !) Which means that you will all have to learn the H&S laws of whichever migrant worker is working on your patch !

Posted By Robert K Lewis And Zero accidents as a target is a bad target. We can however achieve ZT but NOT of accidents per se. JM: actually the EU is not saying that you stick with your own national H&S legislation when working abroad - It is a myth developed by the Elf and Safety Innit brigade to demonstrate that there is far too much EU interference in the natural right of the employer to risk injury to employees. It is bunkum as much as the idea that employers actively care not a jot about the safety of their employees. I say again ZT is about proper and clear visible supervision being exercised at all times in an even, recognised and agreed manner. Bob