Right to be cynical

I have seen safety web sites put down and criticise so many aspects of safety and further confuse the safety sector by adding more over complication and trying to add more role obligations onto safety workers. It is only fair people have the chance to see the realist side of things.

This is that site.

I do not live in any dream world, I have nothing to sell, nor am I promoting any business tacts. What I do want is some sense put back in safety as too much has been taken out....in my opinion

The Art of Persuasion and humble enquiry (being sold in safety) are every con-persons genuineness. Humble enquiry and all other means to get people to buy things or believe in things is just plain manipulation. Anyone who disagrees is not ethical or just naive; as ethical people do not practice persuasion to sell ideas, and smart people do not endorse it, they practice moral advice that allows those to persuade themselves to a new way. Free chapters of books, free samples of systems, and all other tempters are all those things in which those who practice persuasion use to buy you, suck you in...wake up. Safety needs to get back to the basics first, as this first step has not been completed!


Go to the HUB HERE

Contact Me; libertyswaggie@gmail.com



Preoccupations of safety is the quest for reasons.

I’ve come to investigate the death. I won’t be to long as it is said that it is not good being too preoccupied with finding a reason and  that being a problem solver is not always good...hey look over there, there is an ice-cream truck.

I like how Long is starting to use more grey words like ‘general’, as it sure leaves open doubt and further correction if challenged.  ‘Generally’ Long would use binary discourse and would say something like “Safety only wants to solve puzzles, they are fixated”.

Long says on this post HEREOne of the preoccupations of safety is the quest for reasons” this is very true (even though Long seems to disagree as this is what he would call dumbing us down, done by spudheads or crusaders looking to find something) and thank goodness for that as many people would be killed every day, but again what is safety Mr Long? what is a human? Long again seems hell bent on keeping safety as a wicked silo outside of the collective, a convenient thing he can point towards as a means to attribute ‘BLAME’. I do wonder if Long will ever see that safety is not something to attribute onto anyone or any division, it a collective effort driven by all those who influence and or can offer something into it.

I also do not like how Long says that safety is the one who ‘quests reason’, this is not rational at all, because the collective society and or entity (organisation, family etc) seeks the reasoning and answers. I mean, it’s the society/entity that desires  the answers, so the act of finding issues and causalities via the method of ‘safety’ provides those with the reasoning they require...keep in mind my view that safety is not something one can 'do', as it is a result of many things, you cannot do safety, ask someone to try and see if they can i.e. you cannot do life, but you can do things that give you a life. Also keep in mind my views on who pulls the lever, such as who really is to blame for poor safety...maybe it’s you, the wanting MORE consumer, the humanised sculpted one who desires cheap products and fast services at the cost of what you do not care to know about!...you may not read on as that’s easy.

If safety has no ‘fix’ as much as there are ‘fixes’, then 50% of events are blameless and unfixable. There is nothing to improve/fix/solve perse. Not sure I agree with Long on this sentiment at all, or for that matter is even a good philosophy. I would say there is always a reason why something occurred that can be improved (even just knowledge without change) in some way if the goal of always better is what I was following. Although in my philosophy I do not like this practice of always bettering/improving tangible things as we need to start just accepting that things happen (pity humanisation practices wants and forces us to always seek improvement...more, better, bigger, faster, stronger, smarter etc etc).

I must also make point about trying to reach a mature state of management is actually much like seeking zero. So if Long preaches climbing up, bettering, improving and taking journeys, then he is seeking perfection, something Long agrees with as a mental health disorder! But let’s keep thinking that we will get to perfect one day.

I also do not agree (in the context of practicable safety) that “We simply find an attribution (blame) that everyone will accept” as said by Long, because a complete investigation free from pressure, biases and fears will only come to a conclusion that is not done for the favour of anyone. The facts are facts and those found to have ownership of responsibility need to act upon such ownership. This framing of words is making it favourable to one’s own agenda of assuming that collective morality is possible and that love and care is all we need (in the general sense).

I do like how Long clears up 'a' point about philosophy saying that it sometimes helps one understand that there are no perfect answers, I will be sure to use that in argument against some of Longs fundamentalists views about who he thinks knows about what and that all books written could be wrong. Like the complex solution of phycology that all can just practice.

Now in relation to Ted story.

Sometimes when a causality cannot be found for a tragic event, it does not mean that there was not one that activated the event just like in Malaysia flight 370.

How easy and convenient it is again to say that there was no reason for him to fall. Were you there? Did you see it happen? And let’s assume the obvious was missed as very often is in investigations done in a week. I found causalities to incidents that a group of investigators had not even considered...because I imagine and visualise many scenarios, it’s a knack I think I do well.

Maybe he was embracing risk from the age of 15 when he started there and was trying a new way to walk down stairs, as even risk conscious people do stupid things they know is unsafe. I was walking up stairs once when I was into fitness and using the opportunity to train my calf muscles. So I was using the edge of the step so to do calf raises as I walked up.

While blame may not be easily found due to not understanding what was happening at that point of time, events still need to be investigated with complete focus. So I ask Mr Long, do you practice half ass investigations (have you ever done an investigation) or do you go in with the mindset to find a reason that may or may not be fixed (the LAX approach). You seem to discredit the effort of the investigation process and people who are putting effort into finding a causality (for many good reasons like closure for the loved ones). Is a half ass investigation method going to find that the carpet may have caused his shoes to grip less due to the cleaners change in cleaning products that day, or that the shoes he was wearing might have been new and slightly longer causing his unchanged step to collect the anti slip lip of the stair. Maybe he forgot something like his phone and turned around to go back up and misplaced his step. There is always a reason, although not all reason can make for tangible changes.

Maybe the hard hat was not being worn at the time and it fell from his hands and he tripped over it... Maybe this investigation may reveal how the organisation senior management constantly swept hazards under the carpet due to cost of fixing things and keeping their LTI and death rate nil, as it was made clear that things being swept under the carpet had occurred the last few times...maybe like many big PIIEs (see my dictionary), ignoring hazards was the causality. If this was so =, I am sure the family would like to know that incompetent profit seeking leader caused a death of a friend and loved one...

But how easy is it to criticise the effort to find something ...let’s as an expert using hindsight bias say after the investigators have found nothing say that we should just not even attempt to find a causality as there is not always one to find because sometimes being a problem solver is not good...Sometimes!!!...that’s like telling an elite sports person that sometimes it’s not good to always win. Should a police investigator take a half ass effort in solving a case as its not always good to be a problem solver...

The whole article is really priming the discourse about the constant rant about “how” zero primes people...Is Long telling us that because the company had a policy of zero harm that the worker chose to hurt himself. Are people really going to choose to put themselves in harm’s way because of a slogan and or a goal of having zero incidents? Do you really think zero discourse is going to alter the way in which an investigation is done by external inspectors who are not (or should not) be looking out to hide anything they find. Are people even going to reduce the safety appetite because the safety board now reads one? Zero harm or no Zero Harm, the same event would have occurred, so I wonder what is the point is about zero in this argument. How has zero harm primed this person to fall down the stairs?

We cannot go into any investigation with the attitude of not finding causality, in my view that’s the lax behaviour that leads to missing facts. Like the elite sports person, they go in with complete expectation and drive to learn what may have gone wrong to hopefully mitigate any further instances of failure.

The disposition of ‘problem solver’ is always good to own. A problem solver/investigator should always think they will leave no stone unturned. You don’t have a half ass attitude of maybe or may not...Even on my planet B all events are fully investigated with no time limits as blame is not treated as a negative term (you humanised people may find that hard to comprehend). If it takes a year to investigate, then so be it, so as long as we have made sure the things we can control are controlled and or the things we choose not to improve upon (as on planet be we do not always strive for better) are at least better understood.

I will again post an analogy of blame as used once before to prove how stupid the argument is that one does not believe in blame;

Your child wants to take up Billy Cart racing as there has been a local club operating for 10 years. After a few competitions, for which your child is pretty good in his fast red cart, you attend a day that is a bit wet from rain. You have some concerns, but it not enough to be serious enough to pull out of the race. As your child speeds down the steep road in first place, they come to a corner and slide off the road where they plummet 20 meters down a cliff, smash their head on a dead old tree and die.

You say to yourself accidents happen and let it go, even though your wife is distraught. Now unbeknown to you, you find out a few days later that there were two previous deaths on the same corner and same rainy wet conditions in the last ten years. You find that there has been repeated concerns raised about this corner and safety issues but nothing was done. There were no controls and no management of risk.

What would a psychologist who does not believe in the attributing blame game do?

Please be real!

In ‘general’ one would go all out to find a way to fix the issue as it is in the best interest for the greater good. Would Long just not worry about finding truth and say that it is no always good finding problems?