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



Lets just call it a accident with no reason

Do you see any charter boats...no...I'm wearing a box you fool.

Funny the LinkedIn posts added when the authors say they don't do the LinkedIn thing as full of fools...

This is not a heavy post at all HERE by Long even though a bit heavy on the list of books...it’s just saying that someone thinks that some catastrophic events are not a result of accumulative or contributing factors and that some are caused by only a random single trigger, would like to see a “catastrophic” event that had no prior warnings.

See other post Re this topic HERE

Sadly, many ‘catastrophic’ events have occurred because many near misses hazards (including the people hazard) and processes have been ignored. There was not preoccupation with failures, there was not collective mindfulness that would have solved these events.

Counting of near misses or hazards is a good measure to point proactive leaders into an area that seems to be having many non-activated events. It is a good way to take action and fix any issue.

If you have say two organisations and both are doing the exact same thing i.e. making cars and one has more near misses than the other in the fitting window section, then there is causality for that reason (either why one is better or why one is worse, that a mean level in other companies could help clarify which it is). There is a reason why one organisation has 20 while the other has none (if all events are being reported and not hidden that is). One might have a poor culture, less skilled workers, poor equipment and or products...which in this example was cheap glue that did not stick so the windshield kept falling out while they moved the cars into storage. Keep in mind here the poor glue is effecting the moral of workers so there attitude diminishes as management does not seem to care...this results in other topics not being done properly which is another accumulative factor leading to a possible larger event that may seemingly be a random event (which is not true although a convenient result for those who do not want to find a reason)

Now if a front windscreen fell out at speed (because the glue was not sticking) from a car made in the company that had more near misses or reported hazards, and this event of the window falling out caused a multicar incident after sale, then the ‘butterfly effect’ has played a critical part in that tragic event. A lax incident investigation may just say it was a random event. Then we have major failure in the process as those who ignored the near misses continue to work and put more people at risk...and so the cycle continues via sheer incompetence.

A reason why catastrophic events are not controlled is because near misses, hazards or even minor events are not put through a process of ‘what if’ investigations or managed appropriately via simple risk management practices. So they say; so what the window section has a few near misses, there is nothing that will cause a tragic event and the organisation leader ignored it (itself an accumulative causality hidden by laxness). The collection of small indicators (near misses) and events ended up creating a catastrophic outcome. Hindsight should not be needed to find the reason as to why, because the near misses should have been dealt with in a proactive manner in the first case. If the near misses had of been dealt with appropriately, then the investigation of the tragic catastrophic event would not have existed, it would have never occurred. But no, the cheap glue the second company was using was ignored as a fault and production continued to meet that month’s profit expectations.

As with the person falling down stairs accident Long used, just because a causal factor could not be found (or proven) does not mean there was not one worthy to be found...Which is a shame as we miss an opportunity to learn. That’s like saying a murder case has no murderer because one could not be found. We cannot say what this person was thinking who fell down the stairs...was he fatigued, stressed pressured etc (all points that could have lead to a causality of a over-worked workforce that maybe resulted in people moving in haste all the time, including up and down stairs). It is convenient to say that this was a random event and a simple miss-perception or fallible mistake made in one moment. It is in my view a very dangerous place to tread; that of ignorance.

If we come out and say that there is no cause, and that it was just an act of randomness, then how easy is it for all organisations to just start to using this as a defence...just because some expert with an opinion says it’s a valid argument. What if there was a reason and the reason was because management was known for sweeping things under the carpet...is that fair to the victim’s family. Is it professional for an expert to promote such laxness? I don’t think so. It’s na├»ve and unfathomable to me to make such a argument.

Take the Pike River incident HERE...imagine they said “sorry, we could not prove that senior management knew that gas levels continually exceeded safe limits, so all we can do is say it was just a random event with not a single accumulative factor attributing to it...” well there is trust in justness.

The quest to find a reason in our culture for why an event occurred should never accept the proposition that harm and suffering can occur without a cause? As everything has a cause. For every action there is a reaction...this states that an action of neglect, is a cause for an action.

I don’t think any ‘catastrophic’ event outside natural occurrences can have no accumulative or contributing factors. Such complexity of catastrophic events would have a reason why a final event was activated. A building that falls is most likely built with poor material due to cheap steel, a plane that crashes is most likely due to poor training, over worked pilots or lax maintenance, a space shuttle the blows up is most likely to be because of ignoring continual advice under pressure to produce, the truck driver that crashed is most likely because of fatigue or time restraints (pressure).

NASA has just released a statement saying this was an act of randomness, there was no long list of concerns about meeting expectations...said a leading psychologist
  
And how can you plan for uncertainly? It’s a question I am longing to know the answer too. In my view you only know what you know, you can only plan for a certainty, and even though this act of planning for every certainty is not practicably possible with so many factors that are known that need to be controlled...So good luck planning for all those uncertain things that may occur.