IWA LIP SERVICE . THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER SAFETY PAGE OR PARTICIPATION? Editor’s Note: The IWA’s argument that management is too inclined to pay lip service to safety is substantiated in part by William “Bill” C. Tur- ner, the new accident preven- tion officer for the Truck Loggers’ Association. Mr. Turner in a _ recent article in the Truck Logger macvazine, accused many man- agers of contributing nothing more than lip service to the fundamental concept of acci- dent prevention. The following is the full text of his article: By WILLIAM TURNER Accident Prevention Officer Truck Loggers Association Everyone thinks that acci- dent prevention is a wonder- ful idea but like the weather, no one does anything about it. This attitude while not alto- gether true, does often de- seribe the attitude that man- agement seems to adopt. Many managers, in spite of increasing pressure from the publie and organized labour, contribute nothing more than lip service to the fundamental concent of accident preven- tion. These managers can be found in all phases of indus- try. Such managers give only reluctant support to their own accident prevention programs as though it were some kind of office collection. Their atti- tude is too often a passive one whereby they tend to comply with demands made upon them rather than by recog- nizing the needs and taking the necessary corrective ac- tion. It would seem that such managers have _ abdicated their natural position as lead- ers, at least as far as accident prevention is concerned. It is not my intention to generally condemn manage- ment as a whole. Not only would this be unwarranted, but it would also be very un- fair, Many of you do have a healthy respect towards acci- dent prevention. This article is direeted towards those of you who think you are doing all that is required of you but whose attitude actually dis- plays great gobs of avathy. e examples of this are given below. How does your performance and those of your supervisory staff com- pare? 1. “LET GEORGE DO Ir” ATTITUDE This manager permits safe- ty meetings to be held in his organization but makes no ef- fort to attend and does not even assure that his super- visors or foremen are attend- ‘This makes it impossible r the men to receive direct answers to questions or prob- lems raised at the meetings. Moreover, minor problems that might otherwise be read- ily resolved frequently be- come major ones due to not receiving pr.ompt attention and resolution at the meeting. The men become frustrated and conclude the management does not really care about accident prevention. 2. “CLOSING THE BARN DOOR” ATTITUDE This manager’s concern for unsafe working conditions is usually emphasized only after a serious accident. His con- science apparently bothers him and he rushes around -correcting the conditions that caused the specific accident without regard for similar conditions which will also cause accidents. When every- thing quiets down he goes back to the office and waits for the next one. 3. “THE CART BEFORE HORSE” ATTITUDE Mechanical hazards or equipment deficiencies are not corrected by this manager until or unless he receives repeated complaints by his work force. How much better it would be if he ironed out these hazards in the planning or engineering stage where it can be done much less ex- pensively. 4, “OSTRICH OR OMEL- _ETTE” ATTITUDE This manager adopts a com- placent attitude towards in- juries on the job especially when none of them appear serious. He hopes that every- thing will turn out all right, but he feels that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.” Such a man would be the last one to “Trust to luck” when it comes to production quotas or ma- terial availability but he will blithely sit back and wait for the law of averages to catch up with his accident perform- ance. Congratulations to those readers who can honestly say that none of the foregoing applies to them. I am afraid, however, that such managers , do exist and to a greater ex- tent than is realized. Why is this? Why would a manager who understands and appreciates other factors affecting his operations take such a lackadasieal attitude towards accident prevention? The reasons are many and varied but the two main ones are that he can’t deal with the intangible aspects of accident control like he ean his other responsibilities and, secondly, that he usually doesn’t have any idea of what a poor acci- dent record is costing him. In order to cope with the in- tangibility of accident control the manager must recognize that his working force is one of the main assets of his oper- ation and must be maintained in good working order. Couple this with the fact that 80-90% of all industrial acci- dents are caused by human failure and it becomes appa- rent that this is the obvious route to a good accident pre- vention program. By investing a similar or even greater amount of time and effort in the personal needs of his work force such as he does in the machines and equipment in his operation he will yield a similar return. . In regards to the cost of accidents, the manager often~™ assumes that his accidents cost no more than the amount of his Workmen’s Compensa- tion assessment. He overlooks those accidents which do not cause injuries but do cause equipment damage. He also overlooks the indirect costs involved in both types of ac- WILLIAM “BILL” C. TURNER Truck Logger Safety Director Scores Management Safety Attitude cidents. The accident preven- tion. specialists contend that the cost of accidents can be likened to an iceberg. The ex- posed tip represents the direct costs such as Workmen’s Compensation and the sub- merged portion represents the indirect costs such as equip- ment damage, shut down time, reduced workmen’s efficiency, retraining costs, reduced em- ployee morale, etc. This does not include the cost to the in- jured man in lost wages and reduced earning power, which is also part of.the cost of the accident. Just as an interest- ing experience, why not have your accountant estimate the cost of a few of your acci- dents. You might be very sur- prised. The foregoing illustrates some of the typical problems and possible solutions to man- agement’s involvement in ac- cident prevention programs. It is hoped that it will cause some of you to re-assess your position and become more deeply and directly involved. Remember that all accidents can be prevented and that in- dustry’s goal must be the ulti- mate “0” frequency. Difficult, certainly, impose never! By ERIC WOOD Financial Secretary, Local 1-367 We are now entering a new year, this month, the month of January, was named by the ancient Greeks after the god Janus. Janus was supposed to have had two faces—one look- ing back into the year past and one looking into the year ahead. It is perhaps fitting that in this month we should be look- ing ahead into the year before us and planning some new approaches to the problems which we were unable to solve in the past one. One problem which we en- counter repeatedly and which spreads in epidemic propor- tions through the Union are the cases of employees hurt on the job and returning to work on so-called “light duties.” Many of these people, after being injured and hav- ing received medical treat- ment by a physician are im- mediately contacted by the company and encouraged to return to work. This failing, the company reverts to a pro- gram of outright intimidation and harassment of the em- ployee and his family, the threat of dismissal being only one of the many tacties used. There are even cases on file DEFEAT HONEST SA of company. supervisors com- ing right to the homes of these people and demanding that they return to work. Offering to keep an injured man on the payroll while the man stays home in bed or limps around the operation is also a common practice. It is not too difficult to find the company’s motivation for this illegitimate substitute for an accident prevention pro- gram. Because overall Forest Industry compensation costs rise in relation to their acci- dent frequency based on Jost time, it gives the company in- volved real incentive to keep you off compensation. It’s a cost factor. And this is where you be- come involved, because when an employee agrees to return to work or take a few days off and collect wages in lieu of compensation benefits, he not only jeopardizes any fu- ture claim to compensation, but also risks his future earn- ing capacity and his family’s security. The Compensation Board’s position is consistently pre- dictable in these cases, if a workman did not require compensation initially his chances of a claim in the fu- ture are slim indeed. Conse- )" CASES FETY PROGRAM quently there are many men today employed around mills and logging operations who, because they were misguided by company officials, have dif- ficulty performing their work, or are forced to take lower paid, less demanding jobs. And still others who cannot find suitable employment of any kind due to their dis- abilities . . . and are denied compensation benefits. This, then, is a problem we face in the New Year. It will not go away on its own; the solution is an informed and aware membership. Don’t jeopardize your future earn- ing capacity and the security of your family by being a WALKING WOUNDED! Turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the company, the god Janus is not the only one with two faces. NO COMMENT A young man - about - town approached a cute young damsel behind the counter and asked: “Do you keep sta- tionery?” Said the cute young dam- sel, “Yes, up to a point, then I go all to pieces.”