Safety At Work Blog

Yesterday Associate Professor Tony LaMontagne spoke at the monthly networking meeting of the Central Safety Group in Australia.  His presentation was based around his research into job stress and its relationship with mental health.

LaMontagne was talking about the dominant position in personnel management where negative thoughts generate a negative working environment, one of stress, dissatisfaction and lower productivity.  SafetyAtWorkBlog asked whether this was the basis for many of the positive attitudinal programs, or behaviour-based safety programs, that are frequently spruiked to the modern corporations.

He said that this was the case and that such programs can have a positive affect on people’s attitudes to work.  But LaMontagne then expressed one of those ideas that can only come from outside an audience’s general field of expertise.  He said that the limitations of such programs are that they focus on the individual in isolation from their work.  He wondered how successful such a program will be in the long-term if a worker returns from a “happiness class” to a persistently large workload or excessive hours.  The benefits of the positive training are likely to be short-lived.

This presented the suggestion that positive training programs, those professing resilience, leadership, coping skills and a range of other psychological synonyms, may be the modern equivalent of “blaming the worker”.  The big risk of this approach to safety is that it ignores the relationship of the worker with the surrounding work environment and management resources and policies.  Even the worker who is furthest from head office does not work in isolation.

It is unclear what the positive training programs aim to achieve.  Teaching coping skills provides the worker with ways of coping with work pressures, but what if those pressures are unfair or unreasonable?  What if those pressures included bullying, harassment, excessive workloads?  Will the employer be meeting their OHS obligations for a safe and healthy working environment by having workers who can cope with these hazards rather than addressing those hazards themselves?

Professor LaMontagne reminded the OHS professionals in attendance yesterday that the aim of OHS is to eliminate the hazards and not to accommodate them.  He asked whether an OHS professional would be doing their job properly if they only handed out earplugs and headphones rather than try to make the workplace quieter?

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog received an email about a new stress management program that involves “performance enhancement, changing the way people view corporate team dynamics”.  Evidence was requested on the measurable success of the program.  No evidence on the program was available but one selling point was that the company had lots of clients.  This type of stress management sales approach came to mind when listening to Professor Montagne.

When preparing to improve the safety performance of one’s company consider the whole of the company’s operations and see what OHS achievements may be possible.  Think long-term for structural and organisational change and resist the solutions that have the advantage of being visible to one’s senior executives but short on long-term benefits.

And be cautious of the type of approaches one may receive along the lines of programs that can change

“…high performance habits so employees can operate at 100% engagement and take their achievement to the next level while achieving a healthier culture in the workplace”.

Kevin Jones

Note: Kevin Jones is a life member of the Central Safety Group.  The CSG is just finalising its website (http://www.centralsafetygroup.com/)where information of forthcoming meetings will be available.

As one gets older, the “where are they now?” columns in the newspapers or the summer magazine supplements become more interesting.  The articles of faded pop stars and political one-time wonders are diverting but every so often one makes you stop and think.

OHS is not renowned for “where are they nows?”.  The discipline and the profession has few celebrities but there are important people.  One such person is Jim Ward.  Jim’s story is long and involved but he came to the public’s attention as a survivor of the 1998 gas explosion at the Esso gas plant in Longford Victoria.  The blast, which killed 2 workers, crippled the State’s gas supply for almost 2 weeks.  A Royal Commission was held into the disaster.

Usually a worker’s evidence may be reported on for a day or two in such an investigation but Jim Ward became more than that primarily due to the attempt, according to some, by Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil) to scapegoat Jim.  This attempt was roundly condemned in the Royal Commission.

In the Australasian Mine Safety Journal, Jim Ward has written a short personal account of what happened that day but, more importantly, how that day has changed his life.

After the failure of steel exchanger and before the fatal explosion, Ward writes:

“I raced to a doorway and looked out into the gas plant where I saw a thick white fog rolling down the walkway. This white fog was a cloud of vaporised hydrocarbon. Gas – highly flammable gas.

Out of the fog stumbled two zombie-like creatures. Two men – blackened from head to toe. They were covered in soot which had been blown from the inside of the huge steel exchanger when it violently ruptured. They had their arms out in front of them trying to feel their way through the fog, blinking as if trying to catch some daylight to help guide them to safety.

Over the roar of the jet–engine–like sound of gas spewing into the atmosphere I yelled – I yelled at them to get into the control room. Into the control room and to relative safety. Ninety seconds later the gas found a source of ignition and a second, much louder explosion shook the control room building again.

What followed from that moment on was sheer unadulterated terror.”

In his article he goes on to explain the psychological impact of that day and the diagnosis of his post-traumatic stress syndrome.  Ward rightly points out that mental health is poorly understood in the workplace.

Many employers are satisfied if they get through a single day without a problem or complaint but silence is not compliance and there may be mental health issues that require attending to even though they are difficult to identify.

Ward’s article is a timely reminder that the measurement of a successful OHS management system or a more personal “safe system of work” has changed and that business needs to scrutinise OHS auditors on the mental health assessment criteria.

Perhaps, most particularly to Australia, it is necessary to gauge OHS laws through contemporary hazards, such as mental health.  The law will exist for decades and need to be able to adapt to emerging hazards, many of them not coming from the physical.

His article also means that workers need to consider colleagues as more than just colleagues and look to their humanity.  In the past many of us are inclusive and dismissive when we refer to someone as a work mate.  People are more than that.

It may be, as this article is written on 9 November 2009, that Jim Ward’s message has already been learnt by the survivors and emergency workers of the World Trade Center from 2001.  But for many outside the United States it is also two days before Armistice Day, the end of the World War which really brought  shell-shock or combat stress reaction and post traumatic stress disorder to the public mind.

When remembering the fallen in war and work we should also ask “where are they now?”

Kevin Jones

The financial newspapers often refere to a BRIC group of countries or, rather, economies.  This stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China and is used to describe the forecasted economic powerhouses for this century.  But there is also the risk of economic growth without morality.  India is a case in point and asbestos can be an example.

The health hazards of asbestos have been established for decades but only officially acknowledged more recently.  One would expect that when some countries ban the import, export and manufacture of a product that other countries may suspect that something may be amiss.

In the introduction to the September 2008 book “India’s Asbestos Time Bomb” Laurie Kazan-Allen writes

“Historically the burden of industrial pollution has reached the developing world much faster than the fruits of industrial growth” writes Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi.  This statement is well illustrated by the evolution of the asbestos industry in India.  In the frantic rush for economic development, there has been a pervasive lack of concern for the health of workers and the contamination of the environment.  Sacrificing the lives of the few for the “good” of the many, the Indian Government has knowingly colluded in this sad state of affairs.”

Kazan-Allen is a longtime campaigner on asbestos.  In 2001 she put this question to the Canadian Medical  Association Journal.

“Chrysotile has caused and is continuing to cause disease and death worldwide. It is hypocritical for Canada to continue to produce chrysotile when it is not prepared to use it domestically. If chrysotile is unsuitable for Canadian lungs, how does it become suitable for Korean, Indian and Japanese lungs?”

A foundation of public health and workplace safety management is that bad practices, immoral practices, are corrected, not accommodated.  At some point the exploitation of others for the financial betterment of a few must end. Could that lead to a “compassionate capitalism” or is that just another term for “socialism”?  These semantics are being argued at the moment in the United States over health care but the question needs to be asked globally, just as it is on climate change and on the financial markets.

The global implications of poor OHS management and practices needs to be placed on the policy agenda not only of the ILO, United Nations and trade union movement, but the business groups, and professional associations who need to develop their social charters.  If those voices are not added to the debate, safety will also be a fringe issue and it is too important for that.

Kevin Jones

In October 2009 a workshop was held on worker safety by the  Worker Education and Training Program (WETP), a part of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.  Many of the topics raised in the workshop – REACH, Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, and nanotechnology would be issues or hazards familiar to most SafetyAtWorkBlog readers.

This report on the workshop, released in November 2009, is highlighted here because it is a very good example of a basic report on a workshop that makes the reader regret that they couldn’t be there.  This respond encourages readers to make the extra effort for the next set of workshops – a major benefit of such reports and, sometimes, the main reason.

The mention 0f nanotechnology is a good link to two new reports on the issue released by Safe Work Australia on 4 November 2009.

Engineered nanomaterials: Evidence on the effectiveness of workplace controls “explores the effectiveness of workplace controls to prevent exposure to engineered nanomaterials.”  According to a media release on the reports this report found:

• “current control and risk management methods can protect workers from exposure to engineered nanomaterials
• enclosure of processes involving nanomaterials and correctly designed and installed extraction ventilation can both significantly reduce worker exposure to nanomaterials, and
• a precautionary approach is recommended for handling nanomaterials in the workplace.”

The lack of available health effects data has directly led to the precautionary position in recommendations but it is good to see that the hierarchy of controls (old technology) is being applied to new technology. The report gets to a point of recommending a combination of

“…controls [that] should provide a robust regime through which nanomaterials exposure to workers will be reduced to very low levels.”

The bibliography in this report is also excellent and includes a comparative table of the research reports and papers analysed.

Engineered nanomaterials: A review of toxicology and health hazards was a literature review that  reports:

“there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that engineered nanomaterials have a unique toxicity. However, sufficient toxicity tests have not yet been conducted for most engineered nanomaterials

nanoparticles tend to be more bio-reactive, and hence potentially more toxic, than larger particles of the same material, and

carbon nanotubes are potentially hazardous to health if inhaled in sufficient quantity.”

Nanotechnology is a difficult area of OHS study as there is so much research material coming through that it is (probably more than) a full-time job just to stay current.  The literature review into toxicology makes a point that it is important to remember in this field.

“A wide variety of in vitro and in vivo experimental protocols have been used to assess biological responses to NPs, some of these yield more useful data for occupational risk assessment than others.  Some are potentially misleading.” [emphasis added]

The second of these reports was a good introduction to the general issues of health risks but must be stressed that these reports deal with engineered nanoparticle(s) (ENPs) which are defined as

“A nanoparticle with at least one dimensions between approximately 1 nm and 100 nm and manufactured to have specific properties or composition. “

Increasing research into any issue almost always leads to a fragmentation of the discipline into subsets.  That research into engineered nanoparticles is different from regular nanoparticles needs to be remembered.  As the report itself says

“…the major thrust of the research is in relation to identifying potential hazards for assessment of occupational safety since working with ENPs is likely to be where most exposure occurs. In contrast to ambient particulate air pollution, where health effects have been observed and research has been aimed at discovering the causative agents and mechanisms, the reverse is true for ENPs.”

Tom Phillips AM, chair of the Safe Work Australia Council said , in a media statement,

“Safe Work Australia has requested that the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme undertake a formal assessment of carbon nanotubes for hazard classification to clarify regulation of these nanomaterials.

“We have also requested that CSIRO develop guidance for the safe handling and disposal of carbon nanotubes, which will be a useful resource for OHS managers.”

It is good to see Safe Work Australia (now an independent statutory body) take one of the ACTU recommendations from its 2009 factsheet.

Kevin Jones

Several years ago while visiting a local council with an OHS mentor, a call came through that a worker had fallen over 10 metres through a skylight into a plant room at a commercial swimming pool.  It was the first time I had been on site shortly after a workplace incident and was party to the negotiations and advice between OHS advisers, health & safety representatives and quickly after the event, the CEO.

I am reminded of that day too often when reports come through of workplace falls and deaths.  Workplace incidents do not take a holiday even during Safe Work Australia Week and this year was no different.  Below are a couple of short reports of incidents from last week.  As they did not result in a death, they were unlikely to be reported in the mainstream press.

“A man has fallen through a warehouse roof, dropping eight metres onto concrete at Brunswick [on 30 October 2009].

‘The 24 year old man landed on the concrete and some bicycles that were on the floor,’ according to Intensive care paramedic Kate Cantwell. ‘Even though he had fallen about eight metres, he is extremely lucky that he landed on his arm and side, and not on his head. He has quite a severe fracture to his arm, and possibly a fractured pelvis.”

“A 62-year-old man fell nearly three metres to the ground when he slipped off a ladder in Heidelberg Heights [on 26 October 2009].  Advanced life support paramedics from Oak Park and Epping were called to the residential building site at 11.05am.

Paramedic Haley McCartin said they arrived within eight minutes to find the man lying on the ground in a significant amount of pain.  ‘He suffered a suspected fractured hip and wrist,’ she said.”

Both these cases were posted by the Ambulance Service in Victoria and reinforce that falls in workplaces continue to occur.  Not all falls cause death but falls invariably result in serious injuries.

It is fair to say that gravity continues to be the number one contributory factor to workplace falls.

Kevin Jones

Almost as a follow-on from the Matt Peacock podcast the UK’s Health and Safety Executive has given asbestos the feature slot in its October 2009 podcast that has just been released.

The podcast and accompanying campaign is aimed at the recent tradespeople who may be under the impression that, as asbestos was banned in the UK in 2000, that the hazard no longer exists.  This is not the case and the podcast pushes this point.

The podcast also mentions how people panic when  there is any risk of exposure to asbestos.  Strangely, the speakers say that harm from asbestos is more likely to come from prolonged exposure than from a single fibre.  This seems to contrast with the asbestos campaigns of the past and given that symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can appear “out-of-the-blue” decades later, the statement sounds odd.

The HSE podcast can be downloaded HERE.

Kevin Jones

The Australian Greens Senator Ludlam is not resting on his “wins” against the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation.  On 22 October 2009, Ludlam issued a media statement.  Some quotes are below:

“If ANSTO believes its record is clean, it should make public the incident reports rather than waiting for the issues to be raised in Senate committees,” said Greens spokesperson on nuclear issues, Senator Scott Ludlam.

Good point. If one places this incident in the realm of workplace safety, the incident still would not become public.  OHS authorities usually only make public incident details after prosecution for, probably, sound legal reasons.  On OHS principles, issues that have relevance to other worksites should be communicated and, in some cases and industries, safety alerts are issued, but should a public notice be made of each incident that is reported? Probably not as disinterest and complacency would soon emerge.

“The ANSTO statement confuses the issue by referring to imaginary claims of a ’spill’ and seeks to downplay an incident by noting, “The quantity of medical isotope in the vial was 1/10 of a teaspoon”.  The quantity of material exposed is irrelevant: as ANSTO well knows, it is the level of radioactivity of a given sample that matters, not how many teaspoons may have been dropped.

Agreed to some extent.  Quantity does not equal risk.

“ANSTO is also aware that there is no safe level of ionising radiation… as confirmed by the National Academies of Science BEIR VII report on “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation“.

There are umpteen instances of arguments over “safe levels” in OHS and environmental management.  It is likely that the Australian Greens will become more vocal when the determination of “reasonably practicable” becomes more widely applied throughout Australia.  Exposure levels are arguments that cannot be won in the short term and vary considerably as research continues

Whistleblower

“ANSTO’s whistleblower policy states that disclosure of threats to the health, safety and welfare of staff, and/or the general public is in the public interest.”

The environmental sector has relied on whistleblowers for decades – Silkwood, Brockovich, being obvious examples – or at least, relied on those who persist or become obsessed.

The call here by the Greens is likely to have many companies reassessing the application of their whistleblower policy, should they have one.  OHS doesn’t usually work through such a policy but it is an approach that may require reanalysis in line with the expansion of OHS law into the traditional areas of public liability.

One would hope that a corporation’s sense of social responsibility would be applied in such worker and public health matters.  Given the secrecy over nuclear power leaks and spills at England’s Sellafield plant, an important part of England’s weapons program for many decades, the Greens’ suspicion can be easily understood.

Kevin Jones

According to a media release from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States, a new research report says:

“Smoking bans are effective at reducing the risk of heart attacks and heart disease associated with exposure to secondhand smoke, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine.  The report also confirms there is sufficient evidence that breathing secondhand smoke boosts nonsmokers’ risk for heart problems, adding that indirect evidence indicating that even relatively brief exposures could lead to a heart attack is compelling.”

The report claims to have undertaken “a comprehensive review of published and unpublished data and testimony on the relationship between secondhand smoke and short-term and long-term heart problems”.  It has looked at “animal research and epidemiological studies” and “data on particulate matter in smoke from other pollution source”.

The study was sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which has summarised the report on a new webpage.  SafetyAtWorkBlog has been unable to obtain a copy of the full report.

The report is unlikely to help those safety professionals who need to control the hazard of secondhand smoke in the workplace.  Legislation has been in some States of America for over thirty years identifying where people cannot smoke and around the world the major control measures are moving smokers outside and encouraging them to quit.

The IOM report seems to confirm the seriousness of the issue but provides no new ideas for control.  This would be like producing a new research report that says mercury, lead or asbestos are harmful – like duh?

US OSHA provides some data on legislative interventions on tobacco smoke but new information on this hazard in the workplace setting is thin.  The US Cancer Institute issued a monograph in 1999 defining ETS as

“…an important source of exposure to toxic air contaminants indoors. There is also some exposure outdoors in the vicinity of smokers.  Despite an increasing number of restrictions on smoking and increased awareness of health impacts, exposures in the home, especially of infants and children, continue to be a public health concern.  ETS exposure is causally associated with a number of health effects.”

More recent monographs are available at the Tobacco Control Research site.

The UK Health & Safety Executive provides this specific environmental tobacco smoke advice

1. Employers should have a specific policy on smoking in the workplace.
2. Employers should take action to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoke to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
3. Smoking policy should give priority to the needs of non-smokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
4. Employers should consult their employees and their representatives on the appropriate smoking policy to suit their particular workplace.

The status of workplace smoking and secondhand smoke in most westernised countries seems to have plateau-ed or perhaps got to the point where every control measure that is reasonably practicable has been done.

That people continue to die directly and indirectly from tobacco smoke illustrates the flaw in the reasonably practicable approach to safety legislation and management which is “so what do we do next?”  Perhaps the attention being given to nano particles may help but is it the particulates in secondhand smoke that is the problem or the fumes themselves? Regardless, a new approach is needed to control this persistent workplace hazard.  Shoving smokers onto the streets and balconies is not enough.

Kevin Jones

The research statistics quoted in an earlier blog article have finally been located.

It is important to understand the limitations of the study.  Firstly, these are not statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics so they do not have the same weight as the regularly issued Labour Force statistics.  It would be great if the government began collating this useful economic and business information.

The data released by Tourism Australia also does not include owner-operators or part-time employees.  Part-time employees account for over 3 million Australians out of a total population of 22 million*. That seems a large number to leave out of the calculation.

Nor does the study include any annual leave that does not involve travel.  So if one takes annual leave and recuperate in one’s backyard for four weeks or some quality time with the kids, this is not included.

These restrictions alone show that official statistics on leave use and retention are needed.

The Research Data has some comments specifically about the workplace

“There is a consistent and widespread perception that leave is harder to take than it used to be. Two separate shifts have contributed to this feeling: that it is harder to take time off from work and that it is more difficult to plan holidays.”

Whether it is harder to plan holidays is not relevant to SafetyAtWorkBlog but why is it harder to take time off from work? It is unclear if this is a perspective of the employee or the employer. What is easier to accept is that

“Organisations were no longer seen to factor leave-taking into employee workloads, but expected people to work 52 weeks per year.”

From an OHS perspective this is unforgivable, unhealthy and unsafe. Any companies that do this are breaching their OHS obligations of providing a safe and healthy working environment.

“People are shifting into ‘work addiction’ behaviour irrespective of how they feel about it. They’re working longer hours and are under pressure to perform. Despite a higher consciousness of the importance of work/life balance, many believe things are going in the other direction.

Rather than the onus of planning leave being on the organisation as in the past, it was viewed that this has shifted to the individual. Whereas many organisations used to have cover for people going on leave, it was seen that it is now the responsibility of individuals to organise their workloads if they want to take leave.”

Further research on what caused the change of attitude would be fascinating. It is suspected that the survey frenzy generated by the global financial crisis may be showing results soon on this issue.

What the research data indicates is that there may be “employers of choice” and one’s awareness of work/life balance is high but the reality is vastly different.   There may be financial, organisational and career barriers to achieving some form of stability in mental health and productivity.  What is undeniable is that having leave from work is as important for one’s mental wellbeing as sleep, and to neglect either is not healthy or productive.

What we need is hard and authoritative evidence so that those who motivate change can do so from a position of authority rather than from impressions.

Kevin Jones

*As with all statistical calculations in SafetyAtWorkBlog, please verify them from the original data. (Arts graduates can describe “alliteration” but can’t count very well) If wrong, please advise us immediately.

Robyn Parkin has completed her small survey of handedness in safety management.  Initial results are below:

• “92% of respondents stated that their companies do not ask whether a person is left- or right-handed on their accident report form, and 77% do not consider handedness as a possible root cause of accidents.
• 13 companies stated that they may consider handedness where ergonomics is a possible issue, eg with poor access to equipment controls.”

More details will be available in an upcoming edition of New Zealand’s Safeguard magazine.  Robyn Parkin can be contacted about her research at robyn@impac.co.nz

Kevin Jones