THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

PARTNERSHIP IN SAFETY

Of late, there has. been some confusion in the minds of some of

our people, and in the thinking of some of the large integrated com-

panies as to the need for a real partnership between Union and Man-
agement in the implementation of a successful safety program.
Joe Morris, our former President, stated this approach so well

that we feel it worthwhile to re-print this editorial:
Responsibility for correc- | others. What has to be done,

tion of poor safety record in
the lumber industry rests on
three parties, the Workmen’s
Compensation Board, Man-
agement, and the Union. Not
any one of us can afford to
step aside in the assumed role
of observer, and attempt to
point the finger of blame at

must be done with the most
vigorous participation of all
three parties. I suggest that
the main requirements are
those of more thorough co-
operation in safety education
on the job, and a sharper defi-
nition of our respective re-
sponsibilities.

DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY

Successful cooperation for
safety on the job is largely
a matter of the correct divi-
sion of responsibility between
the three parties concerned
— the Board, Management
and the Union. In a very real
sense we must look to the
Board to be the custodian of
our safety standards. It rests
with the Board to enforce the
regulations to which we all
give assent, with complete
impartiality. In matters re-
lating to safety education, I
suggest the Board can co-
ordinate, and in the early
stages initiate, projects to
make safety education a vital
force in every section of the
industry.

To accomplish this, I be-
lieve that the inspection staff
of the Board should be sub-
stantially increased. Wher-
ever differences of opinion
exist between labour and

management regarding the
safety of working conditions,
I believe it to be the respon-
sibility of the Board actively
to assist both parties to reach
agreement through methods
of negotiation.

Management has the re-
sponsibility of ensuring reas-
onable safety in the working
environment, and the main-
tenance of equipment, with
provision of the necessary
protective devices. An impor-
tant responsibility for Man-
agement is the instruction of
inexperienced workers, and
the supervision of working
procedures. As Management
has control of the main chan-
nels for safety education on
the job, it is Management’s
responsibility to enter into
friendly understanding with
the Union for the dissemina-
tion of necessary advice and
information.

UNION RESPONSIBILITY

The Union cannot accept
managerial responsibilities
with regard to safety. If it
did, there would soon be
trouble, and the safety pro-
gram would suffer, The main
responsibilities of the Union
are to promote cordial co-

operation for safety on the
job, and constantly keep the
objectives of the safety pro-
gram before its membership.
Provision is made under the
law, and in the master agree-
ment, for the organization of
joint job safety committees in

every operation wherever
possible. I believe it to be the

_ mittees,

responsibility of the Union’s
members to channel their
views on safety to Manage-
ment, through the safety com-
and thus help to
maintain all-round obser -
vance of agreed-upon safety
precautions.

These job safety commit-
tees form the best possible
training ground for workers
who may thus acquire safe
working habits which set an
example for the rest of the
workers. The proper func-
tioning of these job safety
committees is a basic require-
ment for successful accident
prevention results.

SAFETY COMMITTEES

In the IWA, our plan of
organization requires that
these safety committees send
representatives to report to a
Local Union Safety Council.

ted on a

Regional Safety Council,
where a stimulating exchange

always been. All our elabor-
ate plans will collapse unless
we succeed in convincing an
ever enlarging number of
people—workers, executives,
autoists, teachers, and house-
wives — that safe living and
working is an ideal that can
be realized here and now. It’s
not “pie in the sky”, but a
scientific possibility.

We must sweep away the
cobwebs of vague generalities
and latent superstitions in

Settle geist ard Ye inka
of others. The causes of ac-

cidents are usually man-
made, and can be removed by
“Accidents mainly occur

tion program. At times we
have over-emphasized our ap-
peal to the instinct of self-
preservation. Fear is not a re-
liable motivating force. If we
stress accident prevention
simply as an insurance
against injury, it conflicts
with many of the ideals we
have held since childhood.
Football fields would be non-
existent if exemption from in-
jury were the chief consider-
ation. Safety for safety’s sake
is rather a pale virtue in the
eyes of many. The emphasis
should not be so much on the
preservation of life against
injury, as its preservation for
a useful meaningful
career.

and

I am thinking of our job
safety committees when I say
that safety education should
foster group approval of its
aims. Most groups value co-
operation, helpfulness, cour-
tesy, responsibility, self-con-
trol and the other character-
istics that make for safe be-
haviour. The individual gains
prestige by subordinating
himself to the interests of the
group in safety matters.

The element of self-govern-
ment is also of great impor-
tance, when we consider the
work of the job safety com-
mittees. People are more like-
ly to observe safety rules
which they themselves helped
to formulate. Workers’ inter-
est is greater if they are al-
lowed to evaluate the rules
which they are expected to
observe.

I’m again re-stating truths
that are known to all of us.
I am doing so deliberately.
Our provincial safety pro-
gram is not working as it
should work in some sections
of industry in this province.
The reasons may be found in
the neglect of some or all of
these elementary factors. We
face a situation which de-
mands the utmost frankness.
I hope that my remarks are
not construed as an effort to
escape any criticism that may
properly be directed toward
trade unions. Wherever there
are faults, we must strive to
up-root them.

I suggest that we make cer-
tain that there is only one
safety program for any par-
ticular industry. There simply
cannot be one program for
Labour, another for Manage-
ment, and a third for the
Workmen’s Compensation
Board. At all:levels we must
reach agreement as to the na-
ture of the program. Especial-
ly at the job level it is most
important that there should
be a continuing effort to
reach complete unanimity on
objectives and_ techniques.
Let it be possible for every-
one on the er to speak with
pride of “our” program. Let
us drop all attempts to frigh-
ten or coerce people into safe-
ty programs. Wise leadership
wins where dictatorial atti-

tudes fail.
ither the Union nor FOF Poor Women Drivers

vo peal

where the representatives of
management and labour can
meet on a footing of equality
to deal with safety matters.
From top to bottorn, a safe-
ty program must ring with
sincerity. To detect or even
suspect insincerity on the
part of any one of the three
participants is to invite dis-
aster. Both- labour and man-
agement must be on the alert
for the men who seek to make
a “name” for themselves
without making an honest try
to produce genuine safety re-
sults. As far as the unions
are concerned we endeavour
to convince our members that
in safety matters it is always

better to.be right than to
win an argument.

We ask management to take
the necessary steps, wherever
required, to prevent any fals-
ification of accident reports.
An unhappy situation results
when supervisory Officials,
anxious to make a good show-
ing, attempt to conceal the
truth about compensable ac-
cidents. Instances have been
reported where they have in-
fluenced workmen not to re-
port, and to allow themselves
to be reported as fit to return
to work, although actually
unfit. We ask our members
not to lend themselves to this
procedure.

| BETTER TO FACE FACTS |

If the numerous complaints
on this score are justified, it
is a simple matter for top
management to correct. It is
a form of insincerity which
seriously lowers the morale
of the working force and de-
stroys hope of effective co-
operation in observance of
safety requirements. It is far
better to face the facts about
accident frequency rates, and
strive to report a good per-
formance that can be sus-
tained by the facts.

If Jarge corporations desire
successful safety programs,
and I believe they do, care
should be taken that the
agreed-upon safety program
is adhered to right down the
line to the most junior super-
visory official on the job. It
is dangerous to the success of
a safety program to have iob
orders contradict head office

statements of safety policy.
It should not be said that
when a dispute arises be-
tween safety men and pro-
duction men that the produc-
tion men always win the ar-
gument. Here again sincerity
counts for a great deal. If in
the final analysis, safety re-
quirements are to be set aside
for production demands, we
may as well abandon hope.
Our program of safety educa-
tion must convince the most
stubborn of production men
that safety is just as good
business as high production
schedules.

I realize that it is just as
important for the trade un-
ions to meet their obligations
in safety matters with sincer- -
ity. The issues at stake are
too important for any double
talk either from the side of
labour or management.

A REALIZABLE IDEAL

Some may doubt that safe-
ty education is equal to the
difficult challenge it faces. It
may be argued that the hu-
man frailties largely respon-
sible for accidents are such
fundamental parts of man’s
nature that he cannot learn
to overcome them. Although

safety education is compara-
tively new, the promising re-

sults it has thus far achieved

support a firm belief in its
value, if we avoid the pitfalls

of the past..Men of good will,
working together, can make
safety a realizable ideal.

Over 1,000 Workers
Killed Last Year

More than 1,000 workers
lost their lives in industrial
accidents last year. The fed-
eral labor department an-
nounced a preliminary death
toll of 1,061 in 1962, compared
with 1,086 in 1961.

On this basis, the fatality
rate last year in Canadian in-
dustry was .7, compared with
1.8 in 1961. The rate is com-
puted as the number of fatali-
ties for 10,000 workers.

Workmen’s Compensation
Boards in the 10 provinces
reported that industrial in-
juries, both fatal and non-fatal
totalled 575,007, compared
with 539,092 in 1961.

Industrial accidents are
those involving workers gain-
fully employed and occurring
during the course of their em-
ployment. Also included are
deaths from industrial dis-
eases reported by the provin-

cial Workmen’s Compensa-
tion Boards.

Preliminary fatality rates
by industry in 1962, with 1961
comparisons in brackets,
were:

Agriculture 0.9 (1.0); log-
ging 15.5 (11.5); fishing and
trapping 5.2 (22.2); mining
and quarrying 18.0 (17.1);
manufacturing 1.2 (1.2); con-
struction 4.4 (5.9); public
utilities &.5 (4.7); transpor-
tation, storage and communi-
cations 3.4 (3.5); trade 0.5
(0.5); finance 0.4 (0.4); ser-
vice 0.6 (0.6).

The largest number of fa-
talities — 195 deaths — oc-
curred in the manufacturing
industry. There were 190 fa-
talities in the construction in-
dustry; 152 in transportation,
storage and communication;
146 in mining and quarrying
and 115 in the logging
industry.

Hungary Finds Solution