(Picture drawn by Eane Watson - Unsafe)
(https://www.facebook.com/pages/Unsafe/305048677852)
Main
Reason Workers Do Not Follow Safe Work Method Statements
Problem: What needs to be solved?
One of the issues that I see daily
in my career is the problem of workers not following the Safe Work Method
Statements (SWMS) that have been painstakingly thought out and scribed for them
by well meaning Safety Professionals. Often these documents involve lengthy
processes, and if you have ever tried to write one you would realise that it is
no mean feat. SWMS, sometimes referred to as JSA (Job Safety Analyses), SOP
(Safe Operating Process), SWP (Safe Work Procedure) and other such alias’s, are
in essence a documented procedure/method of performing a task that takes into
account all of the identified hazards and applies appropriate treatments to
mitigate possible risks. In order to develop a SWMS all potential hazards must
first be recognised by way of conducting risk assessments and task analyses and
then applying the hierarchy of control that will best manage them to ensure
that the residual risk rating is kept to the lowest means possible.
After all this hard work it is both
disappointing and confusing to persistently observe workers not following the
developed systems; this is most often revealed following an incident. So the
problem is thus; why do workers not follow safe work method statements?
Context, Describe the problem space: As this is a common dilemma in the Safety
industry there are several schools of thought here from both those that develop
the systems, and those that are required to use them. Some of the suggested
issues are language and interpretation barriers; Australia consists of a large
multi-cultural and diverse society and SWMS can often be difficult to interpret
even by the average Australian educated worker. I have observed safety procedures written in
English only, with no visual clues, in workplaces where over 80% of the workforce
have arrived from foreign countries, and English is not their first or even
second language. Although this issue could be mitigated through training and
instruction by an interpreter, it rarely is. Education and level of competency
is another area that is rarely assessed. I have been guilty myself of asking
someone to sign a form whilst assuming that they have the literacy skills or comprehension
to understand what they were signing. Adult literacy in Australia is presumed
and there are usually few circumstances where the average blue-collar worker is
required to provided evidence that he/she has the capacity to comprehend a
document; to ask is to risk insult, and as Australians this is an area few are confident to trespass. One of my colleagues had an interaction with a business
Manager who had one of the best Safety Systems he had observed. The Manager was
able to pull up the appropriate documentation at the touch of his keyboard and
had an impressive array of colourful signage and SWMS available for his staff.
What his workers did not know was that the he himself was completely illiterate
and could not read a single letter! His wife had developed a colour
coded system for him and purely through practice and memory he was able to run
his business! Somehow he has kept this a secret from his staff for over 25
years! (Of course one has to question why that ingenuity and time had not been
redirected into learning to read and write?!) One of the main excuses I hear
from workers as to why they have chosen to complete a task a different way to
the existing SWMS is that “they have always done it this way and never been
hurt before” also “I have been a XYZ for 25 (etc) years and I KNOW how to do
this safely! Who is he/she to come in and tell me I have been doing it wrong
and now have to do it another way?!”
Realities: Describe the practice space: To continue to look at this problem lets
think about safety behaviours and when/where we are likely to carry them out.
As an example we will use the often referred to task of lawn mowing. If a
worker is employed by a large mowing contractor you would expect several safety
issues to be covered. He [sic] would be wearing enclosed shoes (usually steel
toe enforced) a wide brimmed hat, and long trousers and shirt for protection
against heat, UV, plant allergies, flying debris and insect or snake/rodent
bites. Sunscreen is generally applied, a water bottle is provided and safety
glasses are worn where required. Why then would we
observe the same worker on a Sunday afternoon at home, manicuring his own lawns
in a singlet, stubbies and thongs with only a beer for refreshment? This is a
basic but perfect example of how differently someone can behave in their public
and private practice space. It is also further testament that workers have not ‘bought
into’ the safety principles outlined in the SWMS. Another example of when this
can be applied is where a worker is required to manually lift an object. At
work we are taught to keep our backs straight, knees bent etc; who can honestly
say they do this at home? (It is one of the reasons this type of 'manual task training' has been shown to be the least effective in managed high risk manual tasks)
The reason it is important to
identify the varying habits of public and private practice is in the behaviours
that are formed and the principles about why a worker believes, or refuses to
believe, that a SWMS is designed to provide a safer way of doing things. As
Safety Professionals we often dictate that workers MUST adhere to the SWMS
without the appropriate consideration given as to why it was implemented or the
process behind its development. By enforcing a process without worker ‘buy in’
there is little chance that the documentation developed will be more than a
token effort in due diligence. Workers at any level feel they have obtained the
right to their positions through competence and the mere lack of any noticeable
incident or injury assures them that the way they have been doing things until
now is just fine! In many ways they are often right, and the perceived
arrogance of safety professionals instigating new systems that interfere with
the way things have always been done is understandable.
Actors: The actors in this scenario are the workers, the safety
personal who have created the SWMS and the supervisor/managers who have been
tasked with ensuring their implementation. It can be supposed that Safe Work
procedures protect not only the workers but the people who would be affected if
they failed, such as family, friends and community. Other
parties involved in the success or failure of SWMS could be doctors, lawyers,
rehabilitation personal, unions, government inspectors and workers
compensation managers. Safety documentation is often perceived
as having two functions; to alleviate risk and to mitigate prosecution
following incident. Sadly in my experience one often outweighs the other.
Tensions: After the time and effort that is invested into
developing a SWMS which is then generally (although not always) followed up by
training and induction, Management often presumes that workers are happily following
the procedures; after all, “we showed them what/how we want it done and they
signed off on it!” This is often where the most important step is overlooked;
Managers and Supervisors fail to instigate the checks and balances necessary to ensure
the system is being applied as required. Without monitoring and supervising the
system, workers can quickly fall into the habit of ignoring the newly
implemented documentation. This can happen for several reasons; they may not
have completely understood them as they are often written in either legislative
or Safety linguistics which makes them difficult to interpret or comprehend, or they may have chosen to disregard them because they feel the SWMS were
implemented outside of their control and they have little confidence in their
validity.
Problem Definition: In an ideal world once a safe work procedure is
developed the workers will be able to follow its application step by step, treating all risks and consequently performing the task safely. SWMS would be
easy to understand, interpret and apply; a win-win for Safety Personal,
Management and the workers they are written for.
Concepts: Now that we have defined the problem it is possible to
see that there are several potential solutions to address the issue of workers not
following Safe Work Method Statements. I recently followed a similar debate on
a safety forum and the following improvements were suggested. First and
foremost the advice to Safety Personal or anyone else responsible for writing
SWMS is to stop going it alone! Take a step back and start by talking to the workers!
Yes, that’s right, talk to the people who actually DO the job. ASK them what
they perceive the risks to be and what suggestions they have to manage them. It
is called CONSULTATION! One of my other colleagues gives a really simple
example of how easily this can work. She tells of a business that found that
despite the SWMS directing workers to wear safety glasses in the workshop,
there was persistent non-compliance. The risk analysis had proved unequivocally
that the need for protective eyewear was necessary, so there was no room for manoeuvre
on the subject. The company engaged a safety product salesperson to address the
workers and provide them with samples of a variety of glasses, after which
employees were invited to choose the style that they felt they were most suitable
and comfortable with, within a very generous budget. The outcome was that not only did
workers now wear their PPE, they also took personal ownership and care of them.
The second step relies on
education. I can’t count how many times I have asked workers to explain how
they work within the SWMS only to be told they don’t understand it, even though
they admit they have ‘signed off’ on them. To compliment the time taken to
write a SWMS, extra time should be taken to ensure that the workers they apply
to are inducted and trained into the procedure, and actually understand not only
what is written in it, but also how individual aspects are applied. One way to
ensure this has occurred is through assessment, feedback and observation.
The final test of whether a SWMS
has been successful is through monitoring and review; a step often missed in
the risk management process. This can be done through adequate supervision,
behavioural observations and even simpler, by regularly consulting with workers
to discover any issues that have arisen from the application of the procedure, or
any areas that might have previously gone unnoticed. Many times a SWP is not
reviewed until an incident has occurred or a review period has arisen. An
easier method is to take the SWMS out to the workers and observe the task it
has been created for; if any idiosyncrasies are noted then return to steps 1
through to 3.
There is no dispute SWMS are often necessary, particularly in high risk operations, however the only true measure of their success is the elimination of injury through their consistant application. Workers are not trying to be difficult by refusing to follow a Safe Work Method Statement, therefore consulting and working in conjunction with employees to develop the SWMS will ensure they are able to appreciate and understand what the process is trying to achieve, and that the adoption is painless.
After all, the most important reason for making your workplace safe is not at work at all.
