Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PREFACE
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
ix
they are often not the most effective way of gaining management
attention. What most impresses managers is the threat that they
might be personally prosecuted in the event of some serious health
or safety failure. The implication of this argument is that the authorities must maintain a vigorous enforcement program which involves
a credible threat of prosecution, and must resist any suggestion that
they rely primarily on the economic interests of employers to do
the job of ensuring worker health and safety. This book, then, may
be read as a critique of economic rationalist thinking in the area of
occupational health and safety.
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
PREFACE
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
xi
to play in directing the attention of their employers to OHS, particularly in the case of health hazards. It is appropriate that governments empower workers by providing them with legislative backing,
information and other resources to strengthen their ability to perform this function.
Chapter 9 is the first of two case studies which illustrate some
of these ideas. It deals with the construction industry and argues
that in this context compensation costs play no part at all in
promoting safety. In large project construction it is the union movement, using both its own industrial strength and the resources of
the regulatory system, which impacts on management thinking in
relation to OHS.
Chapter 10 examines the coal industry in New South Wales
where it is often claimed that attention to OHS has resulted in
improved productivity. The chapter argues that this claim is essentially false: productivity improvements are due largely to technological change, and the reduction in lost-time injuries which has
undoubtedly occurred is primarily a result of claims and injury
management strategies and only secondarily a consequence of
improved OHS practices leading to fewer injuries. The chapter
argues that this industry provides a good example of the importance
of regulatory inspectorates in disaster prevention.
Chapters 11 and 12 seek to draw some practical and policy
conclusions from the discussion. Chapter 11 argues that OHS specialists within large organisationssafety officers and managers and
worker OHS representativesare especially well placed to draw
management attention to OHS. It describes how they can make use
of the findings of this study to influence their senior managers.
Chapter 12 deals with what governments and their regulatory
agencies might do in the light of the findings of this study. It
suggests, among other things, how they might empower OHS specialists within large organisations, enhance the incentive effects of
compensation costs and improve the effectiveness of prosecutions.
Chapter 13 provides some concluding comments, reiterates the
importance of regulations and their enforcement, and returns briefly
to the issue of economic rationalism.
Research details
This book is the outcome of a research project funded in part by
a grant from Worksafe Australia, whose support is gratefully
xii
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
xii
PREFACE
xiii
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
xiii
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
xiv
1
Whose responsibility?
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
The central question of this book is: how can we best get management to improve its occupational health and safety performance?
But before we even begin to consider this question we need to
explore the assumption inherent in it, namely that it is management
which is responsible for worker health and safety. This is a controversial assumption. Were we to assume that workers are responsible
for the illness and injuries which befall them we would be asking
instead: how can we best get workers to behave in less risky ways?
We need at the outset, therefore, to justify this assumption of
managerial responsibility. Such is the purpose of this chapter.
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
Blaming-the-victim approaches
Blaming the victim is a style of explanation to be found across the
whole spectrum of human affairs. The rape victim is often blamed
for putting herself in a position where she might be raped; while
the unemployed are accused of not wanting work. Similarly, a good
deal of cancer research is aimed not at discovering environmental
causes of cancer but at identifying types of people most likely to
contract the disease (Epstein 1978, p. 395). (Although strictly speaking such research implies no blame, it does assume that victim
characteristics contribute in some way to the illness.) We have even
seen asbestos mining companies trying to shift the blame for the
deaths of their workers by arguing that the risk of asbestosis is
heightened by smoking, for which workers are responsible. In what
follows I shall outline four types of explanation for industrial injuries
or illness which essentially blame the victim.
(a) Accident-proneness A great deal of accident research is of the
blame-the-victim variety in that it seeks to identify accident-prone
individuals (see Bass and Barrett 1972, ch. 15; Nichols 1975, p. 219).
Injury statistics are correlated with individual attributes such as age,
sex, intelligence and personality in an attempt to discover which
types of workers are most prone to injury or illness. The policy
which follows from this style of analysis is to deny employment to
those prone to illness and injury. As one manager I spoke with said:
If I could have sacked just two of the workers in this plant when
I took over, I could have cut the injury rate in half. If migrant
women are found to be more susceptible than their Australian-born
counterparts to RSI, or if it is found that men who wear glasses are
more prone to accidents in mines because condensation on their
glasses in the moist underground atmosphere obscures their vision
(see AIMM 1975, p. 2), employers may want to screen them out. A
particularly clear example of this approach was an advertisement
placed in the Financial Review of 21 September 1981 by an insurance company. It recommended the employment of short stocky
men to do lifting work on the principle of: less height, less leverage,
fewer back problems.
While the policy of screening out employees at risk may seem
2
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
Blaming-the-system approaches
In contrast to explanations which focus on individual worker characteristics are the accounts given in terms of the environment in
which the work occurs and the systems of management or production. I discuss just a few of these in what follows. The list is not
intended to be exhaustive.
(a) System failure The NSW coal mines inspectorate employs an
accident investigation system which assumes quite explicitly that
accidents are due to a system failure of some kind.
The methodology looks not only at direct causes of an accident but
also at surrounding systems which may have contributed to the accident environment. The exact circumstances of any individual accident
probably will never occur again, so preoccupation with those exact
circumstances is likely to be of limited benefit in future prevention.
Broader examination of systems which may have failed, or been less
than adequate to ensure safety, in the accident environment are therefore brought within the ambit of the investigation . . . System investigations are conducted on a no fault, no blame basisthat is to say
the potential culpability of individuals or liability of organisations, are
not taken into account (Coal Mining Inspectorate, 1993, foreword).
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
often irresistible and many a finger or limb has been lost in these
circumstances.
Another production pressure which is often cited as a cause of
accidents is the production bonus scheme which operates in many
industries (Dwyer 1981). Under certain conditions such systems can
place great pressure on workers to engage in unsafe practices.
(d) The physical/technological environment Physical/technological
environment explanations are often used to account for the high
accident rates in particular industries. The large number of accidents
in North Sea drilling operations, for instance, was commonly attributed to the fact that men were working at the frontiers of technology
and in adverse climatic conditions (Carson 1982, p. 5).
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART
DOCUPRO
FINAL ART