3 ms·
An important thing to keep in mind with the "safety third" idea is also the distinction between true safety and low liability. A lot of "safety culture" is comp
by jjk166 5y ago
An important thing to keep in mind with the "safety third" idea is also the distinction between true safety and low liability. A lot of "safety culture" is composed of things like checklists and hazard warnings which are more geared towards shifting the blame for accidents onto somebody else than actually preventing those accidents, and that many people saying safety is a top priority are just going through the motions. The major impetus for Mike Rowes' safety third thing was when a member of his camera crew, despite the many safety procedures in place, was horrifically crushed to death. It's not so much that people should be less risk averse, but rather that our judgements should be made based on efficacy instead of emotion. I disagree with Mike Rowe on a lot of things, but people often unfairly malign his stance to be opposed to safety when really it's the opposite, and I think that's a disservice to healthy discussion.
- nradov 5y agoWhich member of the camera crew was crushed to death? I've seen most of the Dirty Jobs episodes and don't recall that accident.
- jjk166 5y agohttps://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-safety-third-is--a-conversation-worth-having- https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-sa... > The job sites were no more dangerous than they’d always been, but the mishaps among my crew were skyrocketing. Then one day, a man was killed while we were shooting in a factory near Pittsburg. He was crushed by the door on a giant coke oven. In the break room, where I was told of the accident, a large banner said, “We Care About Your Safety!” That got me thinking about things like unintended consequences, and the dangers of confusing compliance with real safety. My mistake, it does not explicitly state they were a member of the camera crew
- dragonwriter 5y ago> A lot of "safety culture" is composed of things like checklists and hazard warnings which are more geared towards shifting the blame for accidents onto somebody else than actually preventing those accidents While there are sometimes misalignments, those things are effective ar shifting emotional ans legal blame elsewhere because they are perceived (and, at least in a stunningly wide range of fields, this is supported by massive empirical evidence for checklists) as being very effective at preventing avoidable accidents.
- jjk166 5y agoNo one’s saying they can’t be useful, the problem is that a lot of people don’t take the time to verify that they actually are well implemented and achieving their intended goals, which often gives people a sense of false confidence about how safe an environment actually is. The argument is that safety is a lens for looking at a situation, not a task to be completed. It doesn’t matter how many accidents you’ve avoided, people still need to be vigilant.
- perl4ever 5y agoIt's not either or. The corporation, itself, is legal technology to diffuse and shift (emotional, legal) blame for all sorts of bad things that may happen in a business.