Safety Scrutiny or Inspection Contention

It should not cost any responsible company any more money if they are already on top of their game- and in Chemical plants,WHY WOULDN'T they be?

Cheap -o managements who put PROFITS FIRST ahead of safety- 'SAFETY FIRST' was actually coined by Judge Gary of USsteel fame_ will have to pay to catch up, and it will be more expensive because they will end up overimplementing their remediation.

SOme dead ancient greek guy said it first: In the first place, do no harm.

Increased scrutiny isn't the answer; Increased responsible action by management is. Scrutiny just focuses their attention. Shouldnt be needed, but people have been dying at places like BP...

Thousands of years later and we haven't mastered this yet? SSSheesh.

milo

"Yes I know it was hippocrates, and please don't tell me it was from the hippocratic oath- it wasn't." (it was from Epidemics, Book I- I lost a bet with my boss once upon a time - he happened to be both Greek and a scholar)

Can not disagree. A company who ignores the well being of their employees will eventually pay the price when their talent due to accidents.

The problem is also in employees taking responsibility for their own safety. for every idiot proof system engineered, there's always a smarter idiot.

Behavior Based Safety (BBS) is probably the most over examined and under implemented aspect of safety. It is much easier to design and install a guard, deadman switch or other type of physical safety device than it is to manage people to perform a job safely. OSHA has primarily concentrated on standards that addressed these physical aspects but not necessarily the human aspect of working safely (with some exceptions), thus in my humble opinion, has not seen the relative gains in safety improvement over the past several years as it made initially.

The one area that differs is PSM which establishes a management system to evaluate processes, identify potential short comings and develop action items to prevent hazards from effecting employees. It also requires the involvement of the actual employees doing the job, bringing an understanding of the pitfalls that may occur by implementing a change, and an understanding of how the work is actually performed. I can attest that on more than one occasion, when discussing a new process, piece of equipment, etc., the idiot performing the job identified problems that would have torpedoed the project had they not raised them, demonstrating he (she) was a lot smarter than me.

Good points. I don't think that there are a lot of workers who get up in the morining and say "I think that I will injure myself / have an accident today."

Nor do I think that management or managements "experts" have a monopoly on understanding workplace hazards.

Getting every one involved in an ongoing process of identifying, hazards, training in safe job procedures, and verification tht procedures are being followed and effective requires time and commitmment.

THAT MEANS MANAGEMENT WILL. And Respect for the workers.

If the safety and protection of the people working for you isn't the first thing on your mind, and on your agenda, I sure hope that my daughter' don't get a job with you!

(By "You," I mean Manager in general, not Safety Wiz personally)

Reengineering the employee to wear ill fitting, obstructing or inconvenient equipment is a faustian bargain.

Engineering processes to eliminate the need for such should be our first effort; then engaging our employees, the process experts, to figure out the next best attainable solution.

milo "Valuing our employees means listening, to their wisdom as you have pointed out"