Profiting from an OSH programme

Profiting from an OSH programme: Expense vs. Investment

"Nulle terre sans siegneur" vs. "L'argent n'a pas de maitre"

('There is no land without its master' vs. 'Money knows no master'.)

The first is a proverb of the mediaeval period of history, where feudalism reigns; the second comes a little later, when modern economic perspectives have well and truly taken root. We can apply both proverbs to the modern OSH arena. The first proverb may be paraphrased so we read 'There is no part of the workplace that is without its master'. Because of this, every breakdown in the OSH system will be found to have a person or persons with the absolute responsibility for that breakdown.

The second - later - proverb is more interesting to paraphrase. In effect it clearly hints to the modern reader that 'He who can muster the best legal defence may win the case, right or wrong!'

Either way, it can amount to a very costly affair to have a breach in the OSH system!

In our dealings with matters of an OSH nature, it is very tempting for economic rationalists to see OSH systems as an expense. In fact, they are an investment in the quality delivery of goods and services.

This is illustrated in the next graph:

Risk vs. Awareness for Personal Safety

"Concurrent with a rise in RISK is the need to increase operator AWARENESS for their own safety…awareness that could go to the company if the place were safe…" DRW.

The implication is that the higher the risk faced by an employee, the less concentration he/she can dedicate to the core of the task at hand (which, ultimately, is a task designed to increase the employer's profit). The analogy of ship at sea is used, where, once the situation is grim enough, the command of 'Every man for himself' will be given. Which means no more thought for the employer's enterprise, just total dedication to saving oneself.

If we step back to a fifty percent risk factor, the 'One hand for the ship and one for the man' illustrates the employer now has at least half of the employee's attention dedicated to the business enterprise, and half for himself (or herself), and so on.

The implication is that the higher the risk faced by an employee, the less concentration he/she can dedicate to the core of the task at hand (which, ultimately, is a task designed to increase the employer's profit). The analogy of ship at sea is used, where, once the situation is grim enough, the command of 'Every man for himself' will be given. Which means no more thought for the employer's enterprise, just total dedication to saving oneself.

Stepping back to a fifty percent risk factor, the 'One hand for the ship and one for the man' illustrates the employer now has at least half of the employee's attention dedicated to the business enterprise, and half for himself (or herself), and so on.

If we link this graph to the risk control methods outlined in the Hierarchy of Hazard Control, we can see how we reduce the RISK factor by moving up the hierarchy. Also, the higher up the hierarchy we progress, we can feel more comfortable with an operator who may not be fully aware of the potential for the HAZARD to cause injury, illness and/or damage. That is, the higher up the hierarchy, the more likely we are to protect the trained and the untrained worker, the physiologically-affected and the psychologically-affected worker; the conscious and the unconscious worker in the workplace - and beyond! In the long-term, this means less time spent on worrying about negotiating hazardous situations, and more time concentrating 'on the job'… an important incentive to increasing the profit making potential of each and every employee!

This is realising the profit from the earlier investment in OSH!