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