Questions

levels_of_safety_in_organizations

Levels of Safety in Organizations and how to Deal with Acceptable Risks

Type your short title here 1

Running head: Safety at work1

Levels of Safety in Organizations and how to Deal with Acceptable Risks

Student’s name

University Affiliations

QUESTION 1

Due to the collapse of a building during its construction arising from negligence my previous company ascended to NORM (naturally occurring reactive management) from SWAMP (safety without any management process). Before the catastrophe the construction company had no safety policies at all apart from wearing required safety gear by employees. The working conditions were not safe. Quite a number of employees had been involved in accidents. The company thus had begun to suffer losses. As usual the blame was on the employees for their lack of insight and safety protection during working hours. The complaints were everywhere. The employees thought that the management had squanderedall the money instead of thinking of better ways to keep them safe. There was even an attempt to boycott work until the working conditions were improved. Instead of a positive response from the management what the employees got were threats to end their contracts if they ever thought of boycotting work. Left with no option the employees returned back to work reluctantly. On top of the growing bill of insurance costs the company was also handling a number of unending law suits filed by former employees seeking compensation after being involved in accidents. The management was feeling the pain. It was then the major accident happened.

After the collapse of a whole building the company had to act fast. Nearly every employee was suing the company. The company was forced to start abiding to safety regulations. Safety managers were employed to ensure that regulations weren’t broken. Every employee was being virtually supervised. Their every move had to be watched. There were numerous programs and training sessions to inform the employees of the best safety regulations. At this point the insurance costs reduced but most of the costs were now being redirected into training and payment of the safety managers. Thus the focus shifted from the hazardous working environment to employees who were breaking safety rules. These employees were considered to be the sole cause of all the lack of safety in the company. Thus disciplinary action became a common norm.

For the construction companies to reach the EXCELLENCE level a lot of change has to occur. First the focus should shift from discipline and adherence to safety rules to what the roots of the accidents are. Safety should not be an abstract topic only discussed in meetings and displayed by huge banners in every corner of the business premises. It should be a serious thing practiced even by the management. When this happens it will be easier to have safety as a culture and not as a rule. Safety would have been integrated to become one of the success factors of the company. When any accidents happen the management would immediately deal with it and try to find the root causes of the incident. The blame that arises from any accident should not be directed to anyone in particular but it should be taken to be the responsibility of the organization as a whole. This would not only reduce the costs of compensations but will also make the organization to become EXCELLENT in safety.

QUESTION 2

Risk is the probability that any activity whether economic e.g. fishing or leisure based e.g. skiing will lead to harm. Risk however varies from one environment to another. A fisherman and a physicist working in a nuclear plant have different risk levels. The aim of safety professionals and safety standard organizations is to ensure that the risk is to reduce to a level that is acceptable.

An acceptable risk is a risk that the public can do with. It is the level of risk that cannot be reduced any further unless the public or an organization is ready to spend a lot of capital while trying to mitigate the risk. Due to the fact that a risk cannot reach its minimum level (the level whereby a considerable amount of finances are pumped to reduce the level of a risk to nearly zero) the ALARP policy is usually employed. ALARP means as low as reasonably practicable. This means that the risk has been reduced to the lowest level when the well-being of the public in conjunction with the availability of finances has been considered. When the well-being of the public has been safeguarded and the finances can be channeled to other sectors which can bring more profits than when they are being used to reduce the risk, the risk thus becomes acceptable.

The ALARP may lead to a few pitfalls. All this may arise due to the interpretation of what is actually as low as reasonably practicable. An organization may decide to reduce the risks but to a level that is only reasonable to them and to their objectives. This would consequently increase the risks of accidents occurring at the organization’s workplace. The clause that brings into focus the opportunity cost that arises from diverting the funds to other economic activities also may cause a company to misappropriate the funds needed to reduce the risks. The company may be interested in making profits but not in making its workplace safer for its employees. Whether a risk can be reduced any further may also become an object of discussion. Once certain standards of safety have been set companies may stick to those standards when maybe they could have reduced the risks to even lower levels. This may also be caused by avarice and the desire to spend on projects that bring more benefits to the organization.

The correlation between ALARP and acceptable risk is dual. ALARP defines what risk is acceptable or not. When a risk has been reduced to the most reasonable practicable level it thus becomes acceptable. For example: the risks that come with deep sea fishing cannot be all-together eliminated but the fishing companies may provide its employees not only with safety tools and gear but also with knowledge necessary for use during the risk of getting ship-wrecked or attacked by sharks or whales. The point at which we have reduced these risks to the most reasonable practicable situation i.e. at the point where we are only left with expensive options like restructuring the sea is the point at which we say we have attained an acceptable risk.

C&C ENTERPRISE SAFETY POLICY STATEMENT

WHAT WE WILL DO:

As C&C Construction Company we recognize our moral and legal responsibility under the occupational and healthy safety legislation to provide a safe and healthy working environment. As part of this commitment we will:

· Ensure that the working conditions of all the parties: employees, contractors and even visitors is safe and risk-free

· Comply fully to any regulation both local and international that will aid in our attainment of a better and safer working environment

· Ensure that any cases of accidents will be dealt with without any delay

· Work towards improvement of the current compensation fund in case any unfortunate incident takes place.

· Ensure that upon treatment any employee will not lose their job unless under personal preferences and decisions

· Train the employees on safety and provide them with a sea of information in a bid to reduce the number of incidences that have been taking place in the previous years.

WHAT THE EMPLOYEES WILL DO:

· They will ensure that the working environment is safe and healthy by adhering to the set standards of safety.

· They will report any incidences either caused by negligence or by accidents that may result in high risks in the working environment.

· They will take upon themselves the responsibility of ensuring safety not only for themselves but also for others.

Authorized by:

Date:

RESPONSIBILTIES OF SAFETY PROFESSIONALS IN SAFETY

Safety professionals are the ones who pinpoint the anomalies in any organization’s safety policy. They analyze the working environment of employees and determine if it meets the required international and national standards. If the findings are contrary to the standards they advise the line managers on how to attain an optimal safety level. In case the environment is at an acceptable risk their duty is to give counsel to the line manager son how to maintain the same level of safety.

They are also responsible for interacting with the employees and disseminating the appropriate knowledge regarding their safety. They are thus completely responsible in ensuring that the current standards in risk management and safety are being followed while at the same time assisting the organizations that are currently struggling with these safety standards.

They are held accountable of accidents when they neglect their responsibility either due to negligence or bias. For example in the case of a construction company the safety professional would be held responsible for a collapse if they didn’t advise the company properly during the initial stages of design and foundation laying. The safety professional would also be held responsible if employees working at a nuclear plant are exposed to radiation. Exposure to radiation without the triggering of hazard alarms means that the professional never advised the employees at the plant of the importance of the hazard alarms. Safety thus is a collective responsibility not only of the employees or the management but also of those who bear the knowledge of safety restrictions and regulations.

References

Hansen.L.L (2005, May) Stepping Up to Operational Safety Excellence.
Occupational Hazards 43-47 Retrieved from www.occupationalhazards.com

Manuele.F.A (2010, May) Acceptable Risk.
Professional Safety 31-38Retrieved from www.asse.org

Roles and Responsibilities of Occupational Health and Safety Professionals (n.d.) Retrieved from

http://comp.utm.my/lab/roles-and-responsibilities-of-occupational-health-and-safety-professionals/

Health and Safety Policy Statement (n.d.) Retrieved from

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/swbbhspolicy