What you can do?

[TOM]

In a behavior program, you will be told not to force the employees correct their unsafe behavior as it will not last long, the best way is to let the employees conclude they are at risk by themselves. It is to talk safety with employees instead of shouting.

There will be always someone in a company who is risk-oriented. They assume a little cut or minor accident is a nature of the job （especially who have spent most of their life in the company with bad safety management） .

WHAT you can do with such an employees except discipline?

To explain my question well, let me develop a scenario. A mechanician is using diesel to clean the part without any glove, you see his hands soak in the diesel and know diesel is not good for the skin. Then you may start a conversation like this .

LEO:Hello, John, I am glad to see you have your safety glasses. （behavior safety program say we shall start from positiveness to remove hostility and create the trusty ）
JOHN: Hi, LEO, thank, i have to protect my eyes, you know diesel may go into my eyes without safety glasses . But this glasses is dim and make me dizzy.
(JOHN takes off the glasses and show to LEO )
LEO: John, you can have a new one. BTW, i am worrying about your hands. You see the diesel is not good to skin.
（There happens to be a chemical label on diesel which explict hazards to skin. LEO shows it to JOHN）
JOHN: LEO, it's bossip, I have been with diesel over 20 years. my skin is fine. the supplier just exaggerates the risk.
LEO: there is not just one supplier mention the hazard. diesel's harm on skin is chronic. So you still have no symptom although you have been with it for over 20 years, but if ..., it will be late.
JOHN: thanks, LEO. I do not believe and it brings a lot of ,,trouble with glove.

[Pieter]

Most of our sites have safety walks implemented.

All people doing safety walks (mainly managers and foremen, also e.g.
our safety representatives) are always reacting to unsafe behaviour.
Remember: if you pass by unsafe behaviour without saying anything, it
is also a message: this is allowed, acceptable or even perceived safe
way of working in this organization. We train our managers in such a
positive way of dealing, so that the message remains in the heart and
mind of the person performing the unsafe act; start with a positive
reminder (one exception: if a person is in immediate danger, require
him with a friendly voice to stop doing what he is doing and require
him to come to a safe location), and make the person him / herself
realize that what he / she is doing is a hazard, and how it can be
done better. Ask questions, don't provide the answers. Be however
clear about what is acceptable and what not. We have some training
packages in this area, I can see what I can put in the public domain.

For us, safety walks are done by managers, and typically LTA frequency
of those sites are between 4 and 12 per million working hours. For
sites which are getting below 4, we advise use of Behaviour Based
Safety Program, where all volunteer employees of the site are
participating in BBS. This is a more simple program (mark safe /
unsafe behavior on a card, very easy to recognize behaviors listed),
but we have sites with 100% participation, all employees observe the
others! BBS: amount of observings are followed, percentage of safe
behavior of the observings, and percentage of employees participating
in the observings as observant. LTA frequency at such sites is
typically zero (or one LTA case every 10 - 20 years). BBS is in our
company never a standard solution, all sites have their own way of
implementing BBS (what behaviors are observed, how registered, etc.).

Pieter

[TOM]

we implemented DUPONT's STOP for supervision and each other since 2004 at both sites. We have received 100% invovlementrate with at least 1 oberservation per capital each week. in 2007 at one site, we received over 2500 observation cards with about 140 employees. So far,the site has 924 LTA free days.

As you have mentioned, only when the employee realize their behavior unsafe, they will stop doing the same behavior.

some hazards are obviously and consequence is acute. it is easy to get the employees find the answer. but there are hazards with distant and minor negative cnsequence, it will be difficult to change employee's mindset just like the scenario i developed. under such situation, what can you do to change the mechanician?

---- 邮件原件 ----

[Pieter]

Tom,

Your two sites are doing rather well, with 140 employees and no LTA's
in almost 3 years.

Hidden hazards: I would advise training of employees in hidden
hazards, and obeying the instructions related to handling of chemicals
(including diesel oil). Get the message through that those
instructions are there to protect you from long-term effects. Handling
of chemicals should be clearly instructed and all chemicals should
have a card showing the required PPE. Same info preferably available
in one paper or computer file.

The message should be 'this is the way we work here'. Use of required
PPE are for us a condition of employment, this is not an item we
discuss more than one time. So, the attitude is, train your people
what is required, remind them continuously of those requirements, warn
them in person if not following the rules, warn them a second time in
writing that they may loose their job in case rules are not obeyed
(give them one day off without payment to think about the company
rules and consequences, if allowed in your company), and third time of
not obeying rules leads to dismissal. There need to be pressure, but
the rules shall be clear and trained. Such a procedure as described
here shall be agreed upon in the management in advance (if needed also
with the labour unions) and published openly before it can be used.

A similar case was the 90 dB noise during 2 hours per day. No
immediate effect, most probably long term effect. I would mark this
area as an area requiring noise protection, and provide earplugs (for
employees, hearing protection on the helmet). I would preferably
protect the equipment noise by insulating it, if possible.

Pieter

[TOM]

1 site with 140 has a long LTA free days, the other one near 200 just have over 1 year LTA free days. the sites are moving from independent from teamwork.

As to the scenario, in this case, you prefer to using discipline? But is there other means we can used? training of course will be a basic means. But training is not always effective to change the employees’ mindset. one-on-one communication will be more effective. But as you just see in my previous message, it fails too.
Then what can we do ;except discipline? improve our communication skill or other?

---- 邮件原件 ----

[carls...@gmail.com]

Didn't been here for a long time. This group is really booming,

Sometimes we use discipline it's really work that why we use it as
short term solution.

But it also bring some badness influence we should not addictive to
it.
It's only have effect when safety guys watching them when safety guys
leave they start their game.
It's can not really involve employee to safety activity even have some
oppositive effectivety.
It's hard to help us to continue improve our safety performance. The
safety performace I mentioned here is not just the statistic data but
something hidden behind the data.
When we sign a warning much communication and training work need be
done to make employee understand their failure to me this is the hard
part because simetimes warning may influnce relationship between
employee and cause some inimical emotion it's not good for employee
involvement.

We should set up a base line about our safety work.
All employee should clearly understand it. It's help protect our
employee and reduce company risk. Any activity beyond this line should
be disciplined. Other activities we need balance before we make
decision.

Words above is just some fraction about discipline in my mind.

[Pieter]

I fully agree with Carlson, you need to get behind the data, e.g. the
things going on at night or in the weekend and in the dayshift. How
people behave, what is respected. In great companies, the de-facto
leaders (opinionleaders) in a group are safety minded. Give those
opinionleaders with the right attitude some extra responsibility and
respect.

The only way to get there is to show commitment:
- training, training, training
- safety rounds by line people
- bother to get in at night or in the weekend to talk about safety..
we care about you!
- showing examples of slow hazards (chemicals, noise) ... pictures,
illnesses
- showing how easy it is to protect yourself
- clear rules

AND
- start with setting rules for the management, top - down. Let the
management set their believes and their rules they commit to, put them
on paper, get them signed, make them public, and follow-up.

Pieter

[TOM]

A reverse direction to set up rules will be more effective to cultivate safety culture. That is bottom-up. Rules developed in this direction will be regards as commom commitment, rules set up by the management will be taken as discipline.

The foundation for a bottom-up rules development is that foremen really understand risk associated with them . That means training will be 1st priority, 2nd, a total hazards identification and evaluation is a must（that is what our sites are doing. 3rd, discuss with foremen on the similar scenario I developed then ask them what can we do to keep the mechanician safe. you will be easy to let them conclude discipline is the only choice. then set up a 3 tiers discipline rules but let them foremen decide how to use.

---- 邮件原件 ----

[TOM]

pay attention to vapored behaviors（foremen's first reaction when they see you, it will disappear in 1st 10-30s and then called as vapored behaviors by dupont）, then you can know how they behave when you are not on site .

[Tom]

From Mark,

Tom,

I am a leading practitioner in behavioural based safety and must say I
disagree to some extent with Felix comments, as discipline is not only
not always the best way to modify behaviour for two reasons i) it is
not as powerful as positive reinforcement and ii) the trigger or cause
of the behaviour may be outside the control of the individual, I would
ground the approach around a Just Culture to address the first issue,
secondly if an intervention has occured then we on solid ground for
getting the results you want. Discipline does have its place, but
unfortunately in many cases this is the only way some people know of
modifying behaviour. Positive reinforcement drives the desired
behaviour, punishment does not, Positive reinforcement is far more
resistant to extinction than punishment if we use punishment it quite
often drives unsafe acts underground i.e. people learn not to get
caught.

I think quite often the mistake is confusing the issue of protecting
against liability, rather than understanding about improving safety
performance. If you do the former you do not necessarily get the
latter, but if you aim for the latter you will probably achieved the
former

So I really think that your scenario was sound, what I would say is
that the feedback process would have more impact if you utlise certain
motivational techniques, as research shows that simply pushing your
point forward reinforces their belief and does not have much influence
them to agree with yours. I would also look at how you can use
behavioural safety as an indicator of deeper organisational issues. I
have a paper that I have written on developing a positive safety
culutre if you are interested? and there is chance I may be coming
over to China to assist in delivering workshops on behavioural safety
in Shanghi, it would be really interested in meeting up if I do come
across and you are in the area.

Mark

On 8月24日, 下午2时10分, "TOM" <tomcsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a behavior program,youwill be told not to force the employees correct their unsafe behavior as it will not last long, the best way is to let the employees conclude they are at risk by themselves. It is to talk safety with employees instead of shouting.

>
> There will be always someone in a company who is risk-oriented. They assume a little cut or minor accident is a nature of the job （especially who have spent most of their life in the company with bad safety management） .
>

> WHATyoucandowith such an employees except discipline?
>
> To explain my question well, let me develop a scenario. A mechanician is using diesel to clean the part without any glove,yousee his hands soak in the diesel and know diesel is not good for the skin. Thenyoumay start a conversation like this .
>
> LEO:Hello, John, I am glad to seeyouhave your safety glasses. （behavior safety program say we shall start from positiveness to remove hostility and create the trusty ）
> JOHN: Hi, LEO, thank, i have to protect my eyes,youknow diesel may go into my eyes without safety glasses . But this glasses is dim and make me dizzy.

> (JOHN takes off the glasses and show to LEO )

> LEO: John,youcanhave a new one. BTW, i am worrying about your hands.Yousee the diesel is not good to skin.

> （There happens to be a chemical label on diesel which explict hazards to skin. LEO shows it to JOHN）
> JOHN: LEO, it's bossip, I have been with diesel over 20 years. my skin is fine. the supplier just exaggerates the risk.

> LEO: there is not just one supplier mention the hazard. diesel's harm on skin is chronic. Soyoustill have no symptom althoughyouhave been with it for over 20 years, but if ..., it will be late.
> JOHN: thanks, LEO. Idonot believe and it brings a lot of ,,trouble with glove.

[PamS]

Instead of discipline, I would involve the employee in the solution.
I've often found that when an employee doesn't want to do something,
there is an underlying reason.

Take the safety glasses: The employee knows to protect his eyes. But
the safety glasses he currently wears poses an additional problem -
dim and makes him dizzy (Though I would think it is the diesel causing
the dizziness). Explain to the employee you understand the glasses
are causing him problems. Engage him, by asking his help in finding a
better style of safety glasses. If he is able to pick a pair that
doesn't cause him problems you both will be ahead, as he is far more
likely to wear them. If he still experiences dizziness, look into
respirators, moving the parts washer to an area with better
ventilation, or changing the parts washing solution to something
better than diesel.

Next the gloves: Same idea. It seems obvious that wearing gloves
causes him issues that not wearing gloves solves. He has come up with
the excuse that he doesn't believe the diesel causes his skin harm to
validate his not wearing gloves (even though he knows its harmful to
his eyes). Don't buy into this excuse. Find out the real reason he
doesn't want to wear gloves. Do the gloves cause his hands to sweat?
Is he not able to feel the parts as well? Can he not do his job as
quickly while wearing gloves, and thus has his supervisor
complaining? Find out the underlying reason he doesn't want to wear
gloves, and again involve him into the solution. Have him help
research which gloves would best protect him from the harmful effects
of the diesel, while allowing him to comfortably, effectively perform
his job.

Once an employee understands that minor accidents do not have to be
"the nature of the job", and you are not only interested in their
safety, but are actively interested in helping them solve their
problems, they will be more likely to tell you the underlying reasons
behind their unsafe behaviors. Employees want to feel they feel they
are part of a solution, rather than part of a problem.

Just my 2 cents,

Pam

[Tom]

From Chris
1. Why is the diesel fuel in the area still? Not sure the actual job
or if it would be too difficult to implement but something to think
about. In aircraft work we removed MEK and replaced it.

2. Employee may not know that the issue is more than just to the skin.
The skin is a sponge and the fuel goes to the organs.... I wonder if
the mechanic really knows this. As an ex-fuel systems mechanic I
thought nothing about using fuel to clean either until I got a false
alarm on a bad kidney test.

3. There are dip tanks and drying racks with hoods if reasonable.

4. Not to say discipline is not the answer just don't know all the
facts yet.

[Tom]

From Chris.
Pam,

Nicely said. I just sent Tom a separate response that basically stated
that behavior based programs are just part of the system that allows
or encourages this to happen. There are possibly many other conditions
that influence this behavior. Treating the behavior alone with
discipline is the last step when you have truly corrected the other
system issues and facts.

There is always the possibility that this hazard can be removed
completely or the target could be removed as well. But many fail to go
to this level and stay at the administrative level. So if you have
explained this to Tom before, the question goes to Tom.

Tom, what are you really looking for.... a script for your virtual
scenario?

[Tom]

From Colin
I have to agree with Pam has said on this subject matter. All to often
I see companies issuing personnel with low cost and low quality PPE. I
have found in the past that by issuing good quality PPE, not only does
it tend to last longer but personnel are also more inclinde to wear it
with out objection.

Yes you could disciplie the person, but if he has valid reason for not
wearing PPE then I doubt very much it would stand up for much should
he make a claim against the company.

Speak with you PPE supplier, gte some samples in and try them out to
see what they like. just because something is good for one it doesnt
mean its good for another.

Colin

On 10月23日, 下午10时04分, PamS <pshei...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tom]

Chris,

Yes, I would like to see a script for the scenario.

One possible root cause behind this unsafe behavior is inferior PPE.
But in this scenario, it is not the case. Remember although John said
his safety glasses is dim he did insist on wearing them. He just
complained to Leo how bad his safety glasses is.

As I explict in the subject, discipline will be a solution, but just a
temporary solution as Mark Taylor and Pams pointed out (see his
comment and others at http://groups.google.com/group/ehs-elite ) and
hence shall be last solution.

Somewhere exist a permanent solution to this scenario. And we have to
use our wisdom. (although the scenario is a virtual, i did meet a
similar scenario)

Tom

[Tom]

From Felix,

Hello Tom,

You have laid out a realistic scenario worth sharing my perspectives
with you. John's attempt at plausibility and justification deserves
your leadership skills long before you decide on disciplinary action.
However, avoiding disciplinary action in favor of open dialogue could
come back to haunt you.

Judging from his matter of fact response to your appropriate safety
concerns, John is exposing the company and himself to potential risks;
in his case, medical and the company civil liability. Once you address
the observation and fail to convince John of the need to adhere to
sound safety practices and policy, you become the owner of the
outcome.

So, while disciplinary action does not always offer the best immediate
solution, it serves to enforce safety policy and practices over the
longer term. Your objective, I believe is the protection of all
employees. Other's who watch while you and Tom discuss the benefits of
your arguments destroys credibility and implies contributory
permissiveness on your part to onlookers.

Your example and my consulting practice have parallel correlations. In
my workplace security consulting cases, I have employees who find
making fun of others acceptable part of the business culture until a
fight breaks out between them. The argument often made by employees
that it has never happened to them or ever before lacks substantive
justification for its continuation.

To accentuate the negative affect of unsafe or inappropriate conduct,
I rely on role playing, scenarios, situational exercises and research.
I use the research data to support my argument by showing how past
similar incidents resulted in injury and termination and how in some
instances, employees have sued the company for the supervisor's
failure to take swift and appropriate action to protect them.

Your risk might not be clear now but being the nice guy will not
always guarantee you success by avoiding disciplinary action. The
objective of disciplinary action is to correct conditions or
situations. Your responsibility is to protect others employees from
those employees who otherwise might believe they are being safe by
being expedient. I always remind leaders that expediency and safety
have no place in the safety lexicon.

For example, what would happen if John fell ill incident to a toxic
exposure? What would be your defense that you opted to avoid
disciplinary action in favor of a positive discussion? Sometimes, but
depending on the situation, it is better to take prudent immediate
action in the face of an employee's justification based on your
experience, facts and research. I would use the role playing,
scenarios and situational exercise to drive home the value of taking
corrective action by showing unhealthy outcomes. You could review
other safety publications as part of your research.

What do you think?

Felix Nater

On 10月24日, 下午9时10分, Tom <tomcsc...@gmail.com> wrote: