Safety decisions workers

When used judiciously, the advantages of QRA can outweigh the associated problems and costs. Companies that prudently commission QRAs and conscientiously act on the resulting recommendations are better off for two reasons (1) they have a better base of information to make decisions and (2) their judicious use of QRA technology represents another demonstration of responsible concern for the health and safety of workers and the public. However, companies should resist the indiscriminate use of QRA as a means to solve all problems since this strategy could waste safety improvement resources, diverting attention from other essential safety activities. Once executives are able to interpret and use QRA results, they will appreciate that the quality of their decisions rests largely on their ability to understand the salient analysis assumptions and the limitations of the results. 

An increase in management safety culture should have the same impact on safety outcomes as an increase in worker participation in safety decision making, for similar reasons as more management resources are employed toward integrating safety within overall corporate strategy—and as more ways are foimd to minimize post-injury retum-to-work hurdles—accident costs will be reduced. To the extent this happens, the returns to safety investments increase, the level of job safety rises, and time away from work because of injuries falls. Higher values... 

Do you feel workers play an important role in making hazard control and safety decisions ... 

Much was made in Chapter 12, Hierarchy of Controls The Safety Decision Hierarchy, of the need to design work methods so that they were not error-provocative or overly stressful. Safety design reviews should not be Umited to the facility, equipment, and processes, that is—the hardware. They should also limit the hazards and risks in the work methods prescribed, taking into consideration the capabilities and limitations of the workers so that the risks of injury and damage are at a practicable minimum. 

View of Worker on Safety Decisions Model (Saari, 1990)... 

Clearly, this is a horrible learning environment. The next time workers trained in this manner are faced with a safety decision to make or problem to solve, they will be at the mercy of their instincts. This needs to change. We need an environment that both draws the interest and attention of the attendees and maximizes their ability to retain and recall the material that is covered. This can be accomplished through the strategic use of competition. We all have experienced the visceral attraction of competition. But doing it in a way that facilitates learning is easier said than done. 

Participating in safety decision-making throughout the organization s operations (Draft Proposed Safety And Health Program Rule 29 CFR 1900.1, Docket No. S H-0027, n.d. Employee Involvement, eTools, Public Domain, n.d. Managing worker safety and health, n.d.). 

These survey findings reflect the fact that safety decisions relating to PPE use are not just made at the management level. They are made by individual workers who make decisions on a daily basis vis-h-vis whether or not to follow PPE wearing protocols. 

Once a toller has been selected and any required preliminary confidentiality protection is in place, the client typically shares more detailed information. The toller can then make an informed decision about the economic, technical, and safety aspects involved in bidding the work. If the two parties decide the project will be mutually beneficial, agreements and obligations are negotiated and then formalized in a written contract. Both parties—the client and the toller—have roles in fulfilling the contract and in carrying out their responsibilities to the workers and the public. The purpose of the written contract is to clarify and document those roles and responsibilities to effectively execute, maintain and eventually terminate the project. 

The major finding of the study was that the manual blowdown philosophy, particularly with respect to gas situations, was not clearly defined. This was most apparent in the offshore attitudes and perceptions regarding the importance of blowdown as a safety system. No decision criteria specifying when blowdown should or should not be activated were provided for the support of control room staff. Blowdown was essentially left to the discretion of the workers. Consequently, the offshore interpretation of this vagueness and ambivalence amounted to a perceived low priority of blowdown. It was concluded that this percephon would probably lead to a significant delay in blowdown or possibly the omission of blowdown when it was actually required. 

Decision as to possible health hazards in mass production preliminary information on type of hazard which might exist in mass manufacture Safety of equipment necessity for ventilation, safe atmospheric concentration selection of suitable physical protective devices for workers (respirators, protective clothing, showers) procedure for medical treatment in emergency if this requires special equipment Decision as to health services needed at plant plan of preventive medicine (including selection of workers according to expected degree of exposure and methods of periodic check on health)... 

The chemical and physical compatibility of decontamination solutions or other decontamination materials must be determined before use. Any decontamination method that permeates, degrades, damages, or otherwise impairs the functioning of the personal protective equipment (PPE) is incompatible with such PPE and should not be used. If a decontamination method does pose a direct health hazard, measures must be taken to protect both decontamination personnel and the workers being decontaminated. Figure 16.22 presents a decision aid for the evaluation of health and safety aspects of decontamination methods. 

James Reason offered another useful model, often referred to as the Swiss cheese model, that explains how the many factors can converge, resulting in an incident (Figure 6-5). A company tries to promote safety and prevent catastrophic incidents hy putting into place layers of system defenses, depicted in Figure 6-5 as slices of Swiss cheese. Essentially, the term system defenses refers to the safety-related decisions and actions of the entire company top management, the line supervisors, and the workers. This model recognizes that each defense layer has weaknesses or holes. 

The search for mitigating reasons that would allow the practitioner to view the adult s incapacity as a temporary problem to be resolved, and therefore not necessarily a decision about child safety, was also a feature of the drug workers response to the situation ... 

The Environment, Health and Safety Committee shall have the authority and the responsibility to assess any and all aspects of the company s decisions that pertain to operating policies and practices at its facilities to determine their impact on worker safely and health and on the environment in and around its facilities and to make recommendations to the board of directors and the management of the company. 

Assessing subjective sleepiness is an important issue in our 24/7 society. For instance, workers frequently have to rely on their internal assessment of sleepiness when making decisions about whether they are alert enough to work an extra shift or drive a little further before stopping. Often the subjective feeling of sleepiness may be one of the first cues that a worker has that he or she can no longer function on the job in a safe manner. Obviously this type of self-assessment can have profound safety implications in real-world settings. 

---