Rob Vetter is technical director and managing partner with the Ives Training Group, in Blaine, WA, USA, a leader in North American mobile equipment training systems since 1981.
I get reflective at this time of year as the sun sets on the waning days of the past year and dawns on the hopes and anticipations of the future.
I like to look at what I did well and not so well to see if I can replicate the good stuff and eliminate or improve on the bad.
It appears business and industry have been doing this as well because things seem to be getting better on the safety front. I'm not necessarily referring to injury/fatality rates, but general industry's perception and acceptance of safety and its related components, such as training.
I detect an elevated level of tolerance toward, if not an outright embracing of, training in today's modern workplaces. I realise the heavy mobile equipment training I am directly involved with is a tiny cross section of the overall scene. But I have discussed this with safety professionals all over the country and the consensus is that employers and employees alike understand the value of training, on personal and professional levels, now more than they ever have.
There is not as much consensus on why this is taking place. I believe it is nearly impossible to nail down a single factor as the motive because there isn't just one, there are many.
For employees, the reasons are relatively simple because the benefits of safety for them are immediate and quantifiable. The benefits are directly related to life and limb and easy to see value in. Employees are also motivated by the employer to a large extent. . If the employer diligently provides, monitors and enforces a comprehensive safety program, it sends a message that they are serious about safety. That means there are usually significant consequences meted out to employees who may or may not choose to "get with the program". The employer may provide incentives for those who do and discipline those who don't.
Employers, on the other hand, have more numerous and complex drivers that contribute to their rationale to comply. They must protect the health and safety of workers and attend to all the pressing matters that accompany running a business. They include fiduciary issues, such as return on investment, growth of the company and its stock value, and all things related to overall profitability.
Regulatory compliance, or lack of it, can significantly affect a company's bottom line performance, with the average Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) fine now about $1,500. The possibility of having the dubious honour of becoming OSHA's "jackpot" employer, as was the case for an Oklahoma-based uniform company that was hammered with $2.78 million in fines this year, means employers are well aware that gaining OSHA attention for the wrong reasons could result in a serious knee in the wallet. On the positive side, everyone from the CEO through to department supervisors is beginning to appreciate the financial benefits of a well thought out, diligently maintained safety program in decreasing overall operating costs. When attention to safety is up, workers' compensation claims, equipment and product damage, repair and maintenance costs, and many other significant profit vacuums go down.
The safety purist may view this trend as a case of the right thing for the wrong reason and, to a certain extent, it is. The philanthropist may look on it as hard-earned wisdom, gained through centuries of painful lessons, finally finding the light of discovery in the hearts and minds of the populace. I see some truth there as well.
So which is it? Have employers simply identified sound safety practices as a method of enhancing company financial performance or is it the more profound reason of the benefits of safety being its own reward, or a bit of both?
Ultimately, the question of why this apparent change in the industrial "climate" is no easier to explain than the other climate change issue, but, whatever the reason, I really like the change.