Page Six B.C. LUMBER WORKER WHO’S TO BLAME? New Approach Demands Facts, Co-Operation, Job-Training By Old-Timer After 30 years in logging camps up and down the coast, I want to get into the argu- ment under way, about who’s to blame for accidents. In my time, I’ve had to help pack out work-mates, either dead, unconscious or crazy with pain. I’ve had to sit on many inquests following fatal logging accidents. I’m old enough now to be honest with myself about this:‘question. It’s not right to-say that the bosses are to blame for all the accidents. It’s not right to say that they could prevent all accidents hey tried. Neither is it right to say that the men are always to blame. For the most part, loggers, if they know their jobs, and stop to think, are all for working safely. No one likes to be crippled or killed. In my opinion, the commonsense way to look at this matter is to realize that ac- cidents have many causes—often a com- bination of causes— or one thing piled on top of others, till everything on the job breaks the wrong way. The most sensible proposition I’ve heard, since I’ve been in the logging game, is the safety program of the IWA. As I see it, we now take the accidents as they happen — find out the facts about the causes in each case—and then act to re- move the causes. This is much more important than spending our time fixing the blame for something we can’t undo. Management’s Responsibility We must all agree that the first responsi- bility for safe working conditions rests on the operator. He must provide safe equipment. He must issue instructions to obey the usual safety rules. He must not allow his woods foremen to sanction unsafe chance-taking to boost production. Having said this, I’m bound to admit that in the majority of inquests, where I’ve been on the coroner’s jury, I can’t honestly say that the fault in every case was all the company’s. As a matter of fact, less than 2 percent of the accidents in the woods are now due to faulty equipment, and most of these are on gyppo outfits. In cases I know, it was a poor rigging set- up, in others it was due to stupid fools in charge of the crews, trying to make a showing. A Big Change In the. old days, the speed-up on the job was sometimes terrific. I’m not going to stick my neck out and say that the operators have reformed 100 percent. I am bound to admit though,.that there’s been a big change for the better. ‘The proof of that is that the big companies now have their safety directors and safety de- partments. Even so, I can imagine that there’s the usual clash between the men working for safety and the production men, interested mainly in a high output. I do say, however, that, on balance, the evi- dence shows that the top brass have realized that accidents don’t pay. I’m not so certain that the under-strappers have yet caught the idea. Accidents hurt their pocket-books. Acti- dents hurt their reputations. Accidents inter- yupt production. Accidents damage expensive equipment. Accidents mean a heavy assess- ment for Workmen’s Compensation, They’re just as interested as ever in mak- ing profits, but the cost of accidents is showing up on the wrong side of the ledger. They're getting smart about this point. Production vs. Safety I have a case in mind to illustrate this point. We’d rigged an old spar tree to yard in some logs nee ed at the roadside. The foreman ordered it rigged, leaving about 60 feet above the blocks. Any logger knows what would likely happen. : The safety director of this company walked on the job and spotted this. He wanted the tree topped. The foreman objected. When the argument was over it was the foreman that went down the road. The safety man got the backing of the head office, I know of six fatal accidents, which hap- pened last year, when after investigation, the companies fired the men in charge for negli- gence. ’ If the big companies are beginning to take this point of view, our best bet is to back it up as Union members and put the squeeze play on reckless company officials. If the Victims Could Speak The most painful duty I’ve ever had is to sit on a coroner's jury and admit that the acci- dent was due to the carelessness of the dead man. We never say so, at a time like that, be- cause we're afraid to hurt the feelings of the relatives. I feel certain that in many of these cases, if the dead man could speak, he would say, “It was my own damn foolishness”. owsabont thastieaing alingert wholstecd a few feet to one side of a turn of logs after he sent it in, He knew very well, that if it hung up, anything might happen to him. He had taken this chance dozens of times and thought he could get away with it. There came the time when he didn’t, and who could we blame at the inquest? Every old-timer can think of scores of fatal accidents that happened only because of care- lessness, recklessness or because one man on the crew didn’t give a damn. No safety program will succeed unless we also deal with this end of the problem, and talk to ourselves as well as the boss. The Commonsense Solution Where do we go from here? We pull up our sox and get smart. The place to start is on the job. ‘The smart way to stop needless accidents is through organ- ized job action, On every operation we can have a safety committee of at least four members. Our agreement says so. The regulations of the Workmen's Compensation Board say so. Once these committees are properly organ- ized, and on the job, with the full support of the crews, it is difficult to think of any unsafe condition or procedure they can’t stop sooner or later. Suppose some wrong-headed foreman in- sists on taking chances with the rigging or tries the old highball speed-up, outside the safety rules, what can the committees do? If they’re organized, the crew can tell the foreman, “We're working safely, Mister, or you're going to get in plenty of trouble. We know the rules. We know the company policy. You'd better get in line. The safe way to work is the right way and the most efficient way to work.” Suppose some darn fool on the crew has crazy notions, that he’s a super-man, and doesn’t need to give a damn about his own or anyone’s safety, what can they do? No one can put that man in his place faster than the camp safety committee. If he tries to buck a camp organized for safety, he might as well start down the road at once. Safety Training The Big Job I got my safety training the hard way, through accidents ‘in which I was just plain lucky. Not every man now starting to work in the woods has had that training. Both management and the Union should get together on a program of safety training that will put every man on his toes. The best kind of training is right on the job, to pound home the need for co-operation on the crew, from the foreman down to the whistle punk. Every man put in charge of a crew should be made to prove that he knows his stuff. On a passenger ship, they wouldn’t even put a man at the wheel unless he knew his duties. His ignorance might mean the loss of many lives. Ignorance about safety procedures on the part of a man in charge in the woods might just as easily toss away lives of the crew. If no lives are lost, it can easily make cripples. Most loggers can be proud of their skill and endurance. If we apply, the same skill to making the woods safer, We'll have much greater reason for pride. IWA MEN AT SIXTH ANNUAL CONVENTION of the BC questions of Workmen’s Compensation and safety. Forty-fo membership strength. 79 Deaths in 1949 tion Board has issued figures for the year 1949, showing time- .ported for the year 1949 (W- The Workmen’s Compensa- loss accidents, and fatalities in the lumber industry. As these are not. always re- ported in the month in which they occur, and some may be duplication of previous cases, a re-adjustment of figures at the end of the year is neces- sary, hence the apparent crepancy of former figures re- leased. accidents reported 1949 (WCB fig- ures) 9,638. Fatal accidents re- CB figures) 79. WIN A WRISTWATCH Up or Down? Would you like to win a new wrist watch, with initials in- scribed and designed to last under conditions in the lumber indus- try? If so, recall the circumstances of an accident which occurred on your operation. . Describe the details in order to make clear the cause of the acci- dent. “Private,” ordered the officer, Outline your views regarding | a yoy arelivotepatcoldenie anciied! the necessary steps to prevent! /nich I believe ia mined, and fet any recurrence of this type of 8¢-| me know when it blows up.” F tank “Yes, Sir,” said the private. Send it to the IWA District} ,. Tea ay Safety Council, Vancouver, as an| But how shall I let you know?” entry in the “Cause and Cure”; “Here is a whistle,” the officer safety contest. explained, “Blow it for a signal.” The contest is open to all IWA!| ‘Yes, Sir,” was the reply. “But members, with the exception of | when shall I blow it—going up or District Officials. coming down?” The IWA District Safety Coun- cil reminds all IWA members in- terested in safety problems to study carefully the article in the Master agreement with the em- ployers which reads as follows: Section 1: (a) The Management of every operation shall mafntain an Accident Prevention Commit- tee consisting of not more than twelve (12) members nor less than four (4) mem- bers. (b) Such Accident Preventio) Committee shall consist of an equal number of representa- tives of the Employer and the workmen. Workmen rep- resentatives will be elected by a vote supervised by the Union. DO YOU KNOW YOUR AG! (c) Work men representatives shall be regular Employees in the operation, with at one year’s experience in type of operation over wi their inspection duties I extend, Section 2: The general duties of the Aete dent Prevention Committee be as directed by the regulal made pursuant to the Work! Compensation Act. Section 3; ¥ The Company will ps y straighh time rates not exceeding two hours per week to such Committee for the actual spent in attending Safety ings outside of the working OTTO RWOWBETTER =