Consciousness Bombarded

Here is an interesting quote; 

 

“Humans cannot retain extensive amounts of information in one sitting. It doesn’t take much to flood human consciousness. Bombarding the senses with data over a number of hours cannot be absorbed. Real learning is both longitudinal and relational.” RL

 

I would have to wonder how anyone could have made it through school and university when not only was the consciousness bombarded in one sitting, it was bombarded every day for many years. 

 

If with think about school, and we use the 80/20 rule for example as a rough guestimate to make my point (students only remember 20% of what they a told).

 

8820 hrs in school (grade one to seven) at 20% = 1764 hrs of data absorption....that's about 58 weeks of schooling 294 weeks of school (7 years)...that's just over one year in seven.

 

That in my world is a lot a days not learning much.

Workplace death rates are going down

I did an interesting the other night. I was again looking at workplace death rates stats (as I have been for sometime), and was staring at the national fatality rate between, 2003 to 2013. Something was not right as I know stats do not always show the truth, why was it going down. I was in a critical thinking state of mind and was trying to work out another reason why rate was trending down (which looks real good). Readers of mine know that I also think that this rate is going down for other reasons, such as better plant and equipment design and more officer ownership of safety. But there had to be more to it.

I thought, what did the unemployment line look like. So I got onto a site showing the employment rate and punched into the graph the dates between 2003 and 2013. I then copied these and placed them next to each other and then looked at them to see if there was any relationship there. At first I could not see anything, but always thinking outside the box, I flipped one graph upside down. There it was; a somewhat similar trending line that when superimposed over the other matched very close the other trending line. What I have observed is that the unemployment rate seems to have a similar line to the death rate. What does this mean? We’ll just on this one point, we cannot look at our death rate and advertise to naive people that safety must be working, that there are other influences that can make a difference to outcomes on graphs. The government is not going to say that workplace death rates are down because unemployment if up are they! I wonder if suicide rates can be related to unemployment, I know they do, I have already looked.



The red and blue lines are what I superimposed; the death rate is red line and blue line is unemployment rate (the red line is the one I turned upside down to relate the incline in unemployment with decrease in deaths (although it looks like an increase in deaths here which is not correct as its upside down)- point here is the
less people working the less death rates - bring on AI

And people call me too passionate and to critical to dam right (you can see why business don't want to employ such high drive and passion for safety – don’t use my research for your own gain!

OHS sector full of leadership incompetence

With all these workplace deaths that happen in Australia every year, other than maybe the real big ones that have inquests, why are the causal factors not released to the public?. Are we afraid of the truth? Do we prefer play them down and forget about them? Is it unethical to lay blame on whatever caused the event? If it’s purely an accident there is nothing to be ashamed of and there still could be some good learnings. If though there are another reasons, such as pressure, unfit plant and equipment, rules not being followed, poor supervision or management etc etc, then these have to be advertised. I want to know the main causality of all workplace incidents. I think there are also too many “phoenix” companies – companies which intentionally go into receivership in order to avoid their legal obligations.

"We want to talk morality and ethics in relation to OHS, I see not much of it being practiced" MD

 

There has to be a few main inherent causalities that do not deserved to be swept under the carpet. There has to be reason why people who allowed for these incidents to occur have been able to kept their jobs. I know of leaders/officers that still work in a company or have gained new employment elsewhere who have contributed to an incident through inaction of known factors. You don’t see this on their LinkedIn profiles, it’s all perfect and full of advertised Safety First promotion and Safety Leadership. It is like the big incidents we have, if there were no inquiries into these, the truth would never be known (other than what crap is spun on TV). Companies would hide every truth and lie about all facts using the old “ah, we didn’t know”...

 

I would propose as a start, that all workplace death causalities and or any other incident requiring state OHS inspectors involvement be made public in central national OHS webpage, that officers to be named if found responsible (this includes harassment, bulling etc). I have seen incidents occur that did not have to occur, but did due to neglect of requirements and the ignoring of best practices. I have seen in these cases not one penalty handed out as WHS Qld was not interested (to under staffed). I have seen the investigation not handled with due consideration and real causal factors hidden. No one seems to be taking safety serious. It’s a reactive industry full of ass covering and incompetence.

Why RULES matter and looseness is loose

Here is an small example of why rules matter and why it’s important to not allow workers under control of organisation to make their own rules up based on their own judgment. in repsonse to this post HERE

I am not a welder, but I know through past procedures and guidelines on welding practices it states that you must not start cutting or welding a sealed drum, tank or any other sealed space without knowing what was in that space first.

Now if I was the owner of this company and had such a basic welding rule, and my deviate loose thinking worker decided to take it upon themselves to not follow a rule that is in place to protect them, and if they are still alive and or I have not been forced to close down due to a this workers death, then I would not want that person working for me. It is very dangerous for safety experts to be telling people to loosen up on rules and use their own judgment within the workplace.

Worker injured in industrial site blast

08:14am, Monday 19 January, 2015

 

A man has been taken to hospital in a critical condition following an explosion at an industrial site in the Central West region of New South Wales, approximately 254 kilometers west of the state capital, Sydney. The incident occurred on Thursday morning. According to reports, the 41 year old worker was cutting the lid off a 44 gallon drum when the drum exploded, causing serious fractures to his head and upper body.Police said they suspected the drum contained explosive materials. This is not the first time a drum explosion has caused injuries to a worker. In September 2014, a drum containing paint thinner exploded at a mobile workshop in High Wycombe causing serious injuries to a worker, while in early July, a man was killed and another seriously injured after a petrol tank exploded at a cattle station at the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. The two were doing welding repair works on the cattle truck when the incident occurred.

 

DSM - how do we get a new listing entered.

If we agree we are just fallible, if we accept that we just operate in autopilot most of the time, if we think we only learn best by trial and error, if we express hindsight as being stupid for determining risk, if we say measuring history to gauge the future is nonsense, if promoting thinking in grey is better than binary thinking, if telling everyone that making hard choices is dangerous, if wanting everyone to be loose on rules is the way forward, if thinking we can learn to think unconsciously is the answer, if telling everyone to unlearn all that we know about safety, if telling people we can know how to adapt to the unexpected/unforeseen/unpredicted will protect us, if advertising to all that planning for the unknown is key to safety, and that safety is a wicked problem that cannot be solved, then we are screwed in safety and you might as well pack it up.

I have seen experts try and allude to us that being cynical, sceptical, pessimistic is toxic, that the very act of cynicism hides behind undisclosed values as only they can discern what is true or not. That this sort of thinking they say is a psychological disposition, and that because its listed in the DSM as a neurosis it must exist...WELL...I am skeptical to all this. I would rather be all these things ten times over than believe in the bullshit spun by some people trying to tell/sell us the next silver bullet. I am optimistic that we could fix safety but as our species cannot work together and that people will push their own agendas, safety won't be solved. I would rather be a realist than live in an unconscious state of unawareness. I think these few things listed in the first paragraph can only show a state of delusional awareness. Can we add professional delusional awareness to the DSM?


 

As for the truth about the DSM click HERE

99%

99% of safety people I have had any dealings with are scared and anxious about applying safety in any practicable manner as raising real issue threatens their job. When talking to them about an issue that needs practical resolve, a resolve they know they cannot raise due to fear of being attacked by production or management, the most common reply I have heard is “I know, but what can you do, best leave as don't wan't to upset anyone”, this is a cop out and weak.

This is referencing the fact that they have chosen to ignore an issue, have preferred to take the easy way out, they have failed as a person practicing due diligence and failed as a safety person. These people are not safety practitioners of any real value, for if risk management cannot be taken serious or you are affraid to raise topics of safety, then you would get more self dignity cleaning toilets. If you ignor safety isues then there cannot be any real value applied to safety. Anyway those who choose to look the other way, who choose to live in grey areas are reward for this ignorance; job security.

Can't believe everyone did not do the moral and ethical things - we live in Dystopia

I just had to reply to this stupid post here in shorts bites (i am sure the author was in dreamer state),  http://www.safetyrisk.net/i-cant-believe-that-nobody-was-seriously-injured/.

Each point is reflection of the original post.

We allowed social free choice and moral judgment – A society example

1.    We no long have engineers checking the integrity of structures and we sacked all those surveyors who check earth movements. We now do a drive by and use a pair of binoculars. All the checklist data that is usually put into the computer model for trending analysis and risk monitoring is all gone, some radical experts said She’ll be right mate”

2.    We now have companies building and fixing roads whenever they like, school teachers can now teach what they want based on what they feel suits them. We have sacked all police because there is not generic rules anymore, people drive to suit what they feel is best, car manufactures have decided to take out all safety devices as the safety by design rules are now governed by the auto group, Mining companies can just dig a hole and not worry about long term environmental issues, we are sure they will do the right thing as moral humans

3.    All safety campaigns and advertising is gone.

4.    We no longer ask any person or business to keep records, we see no value in trying to understand why events occurred who was told about safety issues etc and the last thing we want to do is lay any blame on anyone, we believe they will not cover up evidence and will fix the problems so it will never happen again

5.    If we do require a risk assessment, no scientific data is allowed to be used, we don’t believe in using tested knowledge as way to mitigate further risk,

6.    With all this freedom, our community members are going ape, going around doing as the please, they are so happy with no constraints. Last thing we want in our society is structure and rules, no one likes these things as proven by a novel human survey tool.

7.    We have closed all prisons and mental health facilitates; we all make mistakes, yes even rapists and murderers. They now live in your street and drive around doing burnouts and when you’re not home they will steal your TV and food.

8.    All asylum seekers and new Australian residents do not have to pass any tests to gain a common understanding of Australian traditions and rituals. When anyone walks onto a military base or enters a nuclear reactor plant, all areas are accessible, if visitors what to tell them how to run their workplace, then they will tell them. No one deserves to be told anything, you just have to listen to people telling you as this is the only way we learn.

9.    All road rules and laws have been axed, pilots no longer have to follow any flight prestart procedures as we feel that accidents just happen. Last thing we want is everyone being controlled to some degree, in fact planes can land in any order they want, first in best dressed we feel, let's rid control towers also.

10. Nurses have set a new goal, they say 15% from the mean level of accident is now achievable. There is a great new system better than the old one that will do this; it’s so achievable to lower incidents as we now understand why people make mistakes Dah. They just don’t think 95% of the time and are always running around on auto pilot; we have controlled this through with another new program or mind manipulation. We are glad they now use their own means to manage collective risk.

So, ten years on and society as we know has broken down, There are more wars, more extremist groups fighting over what is right and what is wrong, crime is everywhere, people are being killed because they have no sense of common rules that alert them to such dangers and best collective ways to do things, I would say if you know the Easter Islands story, well, this is what we created; we just did not want to learn or lead our people, the fundamental rule of building a society was broken. We now have to set up a committee to work on trying to bring back sense out of all this chaos, we should have just done what our society needed so it could succeed. Now we have to bring back all the old stuff that actually worked.

Let me just remind everyone that a society cannot exist without structure and rules as man is just as cruel and self-serving as every living thing, we do not allow ourselves free choice because we chose bad choice over moral choice. Anyone who knows a little about social psychology would know this through the scientific study on how we act and what makes us act.

Is an Academic always one?

Once an academic has their title (Dr, PhD etc), they seem to have a life protected by that title, but are they always an academic? I mean; would you let a 60 year old mechanic who has not worked on a modern car and who got their certificate 40 years ago fix your modern car? And just because one says they are a mechanic, does this mean they can fix anything mechanical? I see people with Dr in front of their names...but what expertise is it for? Could be for art for we know.

They can go on and read a Google document, or watch a TED talk just like everyone else can if they are interested in a topic, but then use this to market themselves as is they knew it all along. I would say some academics get presented with an idea they are not that knowledgeable about, go and do some basic research, then come back into an argument making out they are experts in that area also. Like all aspects of working life, there are good and bad in everything, There are doctors who are better than others, yet both passed the same tests. Some academics are just good at memorising data from text books, sadly, the concept of having a good memory seems to class you as smart.     

If you got your title 40 years ago, and many things have changed since then, and you don’t need to renew your academic title, then everything you have learned since then is just as accessible to everyone.

So why do we assume that because someone has a academic title (that they use to persuade others) that everything they say must have been learned via academic studies. I mean I can read a book about subatomic particles, be very understanding of current information, maybe know a bit more that some academic who got the title 40 years ago, but my knowledge will not be preferred over the titled academic. The other thing I have always had a concern with is novel thinking.

If I had a theory about subatomic particles and how they act in a given situation, as an non academic, my view would not pass into the academician world unless an academic took my idea. I think an example would be my system one and two embedded heuristic idea. Yes it maybe be raw and not written in a academic way, but I don’t think you can get away from the fact that there are ways in which heuristics are embedded into our minds. I think some academics despise anyone outside the academic world coming up with ideas and concepts. But just imagine for a moment if a world leading academic did come up with my concept a write a book about it, there would be lesser academics all over the world praising the ideas and using it on blogs to explain, for example; why it is hard to override (as one cannot unlearn) a system two embedded heuristic with a system one heuristic.  

Why do we take academic hearsay as the only truth in so many areas of life. It seems having a title in front of your name gives you some magic pass into the world of “you must be or are always right”, and sadly many who cannot think for themselves just agree with everything they say and say; “they’re the expert they should know”. I am not saying that all experts think that they are always experts and say they are right all of the time, but there are many that seem to ride on the “expertise chariot” and use their title to promote their subjective opinions in all areas outside their original study.

Let me put something to you. An academic is only an academic up to the point they became an academic, everything they learn after that is just as accessible to every other thinking person.

Say to become an academic, you have to read and memorised a book, you do that and pass the test at the end with a 99% score. Great, you are now an academic and do no further research into that study. Then say another person come along who has never studied and was not an academic. This person was self educated and read not only the book that you did that granted the academic pass and accompanying title, but also continued to learn and study other topics of similar nature. This person actually became more knowledgeable about the topic than the titled academic. This person writes a theory and so does the non-academic person about how to solve a systemic problem. Both theories are submitted, but instantly the non academic is passed off as non credible because there is no title to their name. As an academic, their idea gets used while the non-academic goes away being told their idea will not work. But what if the idea presented by the non academic was in fact the better concept, yet is lost forever because of the theory that only academics have a brain and can think. I mean, imagine that I told you a couple of bicycle mechanics was working on a machine that would make us fly...the academic world would laugh and say that you need an engineering degree to understand flight...

There are many examples where non academic ideas have been lost because the academic establishment and people within those establishments do not like anyone breaking into their realm of academia. There are many No Nos (Our Iceberg is Melting) in this world that cannot stand their super ego being challenged. And sadly, I would say that this is major contributing factor as to why so many things do not work well in our society and in our workplaces. We don’t listen and take into consideration the ideas from people who also have good ideas and workable concepts very often. These non academics try and put in an idea and they are quickly reminded about all the other academic books and studies done to prove you must be wrong. I have had Kahneman tell me in a private email "it’s almost impossible to break into the academic world from the outside" there it was in black and white form a person who knows.

Having a title does not give anyone the right to discredit anyone. In fact I would say it is unhealthy as is driven by ills intentions. There are many clever people out there in this world with good ideas and concepts with little to know formal education, it’s just a dam shame many people prefer self serving protection than being open and accepting.

And there is one other thing that I feel is a great injustice; this is when the academic uses the idea the non academic came up with and spin it into their own idea that you guessed it, is then used.

 

 

We want freedom!

All this talk about giving workers their freedom at work, about allowing for self motivated decision making, about permitting looseness, about letting go of rules and systems and ignoring the old ways is fanciful on the pretext that workers will not do good with all this liberty and relaxing of constraints and it will also add to the confusion; more freedom, more choice, more choice, more chance to make wrong choice, more blame, more fault. As dehumanising as it might seem, it is actually collectively humanising us to be exactly how “those” want us to be.

 

The organisation is different from self governing employment; a group cannot operate in a social system run without control/rules. Egos must be controlled in the presence of others. Let me just say that in the practice of safety, just like in all things that comprise civilisation, there are all these things ordered onto us that are derived from negative results that grant us an improved form of collective moral virtue and order that are for the benefit and greater good of our existence as a societal creature. Teams work better when they act in the same manner and within constraints, just as untouched nature does. Even a single predator keeps a rule; do not kill off your host!

 

Let me also say that if we do allow for such small deviations of loosening up, of relaxing rules that continue to creep into the nature of order itself; that which gives us some sense out of chaos, then even those newly set parameters will be tested and pushed into further and worse deviations by nature of man I.e. allowing for a relax on speed from 100kph to 110kph will still attract the same amount of deviations, you will have the same amount of speeding fines as those who once sped at 110kph in a 100kph zone will now do 120kph in the 110kph zone, you may even have the same amount of incidents but the consequences will be worse. Constraints are already tested with looseness (and lucky for most there is a safety factor included in this process) and when they are tested, there is more of a chance for things to go wrong. So what then results is a greater negative outcome/trade-off that goes even further away from the original sense based fulcrum point (by this I mean the rule). The more loosening of the rope (the task at that current point to of time) from fulcrum to bob, the wider the reach and the bigger the pendulum sway area. By this I mean, more chance of floating unknown risks being caught and a knot formed that will alter its smooth sway. It is best to keep the rope tight, the rules governed, and system neat. Too much freedom in our current immature state of being (by this I mean collective naivety and stupidity) causes greater chaos.  We humans simply do not do the right thing most of the time, and giving freedom will cause negative effects on the long term goal of the governing body (society, organisation, family unit etc) i.e. society needs control, the organisation need a goal and even the family needs a goal.
 

I have made a quick drawing to show my concept. Simply put, the more looseness that is accepted, the further out the risk bob goes, and the more area where risk will be collected in its sway between point A and point B (start and finish of task). By allowing for looseness to grow/expand, the bigger the chance for unknown risk to be activated. In my concept there are an unknown quantity of risks that are unknown (cannot ever be thought of) in every single step within a single task. I would say that there would be at least a factor of 10x for every known risk in every step in every task. I.e. taking the cake to the oven (one step) might have 3 known risks 1) drop 2) burn 3) slip, so in this case there will be at least another 30 potential uncertainties (grey areas, unknowns) that are floating around just waiting to be activated by randomness. It falls in line of the old “who would have thought of that happening” comments after an incident has occurred. I would say that the unknown risks would look like something like the universe and be infinite with endless possibilities the longer the looseness  and the more possibilities could be activated, it is only by keeping a relatively tight reign within governing constraints that we can keep the many unknown risks out of the pathway swing from point A to B. I will improve on this novel concept in more detail at a later date.

 

 

 

ALARP

If there were truly a organisation out there that really wanted to manage risk to ALARP, that really wanted to follow the rules and work within said constraints, that really did want to put people first, that after incident really did want to find real causality, that being alerted to a hazard acted with due diligence, that after audit and or inspection really did want to improve, that took time to run what if scenarios to help prepare for risk, and who really did want to be proactive in all other aspects of getting people home to be not worried about work, then they would be lining up to employee me. If I were compared to an Olympic Superhero, and could win a single race by doing the very best I could, by following all the rules and other methods for success like training and diet, then I would be rewarded with great respect...sadly though, I am not an Olympian!

ISO31000 what's that

With all these new systems and ideas flooding the safety market and being promoted as the next new big thing, the next new way, I see little to no reference to ISO31000 and supporting documents. I have worked for managers that did not even know this document even existed, let alone follow any of the practices it explains in what I think a fairly simple process. I have seen some experts put down ISO31000 with trivial points and utopian thinking. How much more simple can it make a point about consultation and ways to mitigate risk. If organisations just start (I mean really start not a half ass effort) to use and promote such well prepared documents that really do lead us to managing risk as best as practicable, we would be able to make “safe safety”.

2% profit

FACT NOTE- if a company is making less than 2% profit, there are 2 main reasons i feel...the owners and members are paying themselves too much or the company is just not successful (bad market, lazy workers or just incompetent workers). Say a company has 30 workers out of 200 who are on salary, the salary by legal requirements is paid for 38 hrs a week...but these workers work 55 hrs a week due to pressure to make up x...what have we got as extra labour; 17 hrs x 30 workers = 510hrs a week, 510 hrs x 48 weeks = 24480 hrs a year x $40 per hour = $979,200.00 per year, what does this sum mean; this sum is the total of free labour given free to that company so it can make more money above its unsustainable position . What does the worker get? just more pressure to work harder and longer...it's no wonder we are all getting burnt out!...if a company cannot afford to pay the real cost of labour (or pay people as humans not slaves) then that company should not be operating. Imagine if we went back totally to the paid by hr wage? - It’s kind of like the governments constant over spending, to recover costs the incompetent government has spent (wasted), it just increases taxs etc...the way a company does it is by increasing work load (job multitasking), more bang for the buck...the company then turns around and says things like "these are tough times, we need you to put a bit more in to save your jobs" just to make you feel bad for expecting what you deserve, a fair a reasonable rate for your labour. Then you can see why a company operating on such tight margins cannot follow safety in any reasonable manner...there is no margin for more time delays.

Zero Harm

Zero Harm, why don’t we remove every worker from every sector, because everyone has some form of issue that can cause a possible litigation. I.e. Joe, whose pet dog just died should not come to work this week because, his mind is not on the job; Penny, who is a week behind in rent should not come to work either, she’s a potential risk; There’s John, he drinks a few beers every day after work, he must be a alcoholic and have depression, he’s a risk; There is the new 18 year old receptionist Tina, she just broke a nail, she is “really”upset and should go home...and then there is me, I seem to be drinking too much coooofffffeeeeee at work of late which might say I am tired or overworked. Maybe in some way the coffee machine the company has installed should have a sign on it saying; only drink 1 coffee a day, 10 is too many...but hang on, isn’t coffee likened to a drug, so maybe if I fell down the stairs because I was “incofficated”, there might be a good chance I could sue the company...mmm, I should delete this last sentence and keep it for if I every do fall down the stairs. I can see it now, $300,000 coming my way because the company failed to provide a healthy workplace by supplying a drug that increased my heart rate and dehydrated my brain, which caused me to misjudge the steps.

Reducing Events

There are so many safety programs out there that claim to reduce the occurrence of accidents and improve culture, yet I don’t see any solid evidence of anyone particular program that has proven to be totally effective. A business may have one owner and one employee (i.e. owner operator of a small lawn-care business), but even they, with no other internal or external influences can have accident or deviate form their own governance, thus allowing for a failure. It seems true to me, that because the basic stuff is not working, not being done, mostly because it costs too much time and effort, we introduce more complex stuff to see if that will work.

Humans are very good at overcomplicating things, only to discover the easy option was in fact the best option, but because we don’t react well to easy stuff, because we think we must be already be doing it, because if we weren’t already doing it, then we might seem incompetent. So we neglect the easy systems on the basis that; only fools use basic systems and smart people use complicated systems. Safety needs to get back to the basics; good training, good communication, good procedures, good risk management, and mindful leadership

 

 

Who protects the victim

Why is it when a worker raises a bully case to management, that organisation will spend more money protecting themselves than helping that person who is being treated unethically. I read so many cases where a business has clearly done wrong to the worker (caused harm), but will spend much expenditure on lawyers to get out of their true responsibility - people first. The worker gets put through so much, have to prove why “they” feel they have been treat unfairly, often while they are feeling down, all while the company ignores the issue. Why is there not a TapRoot, or Icam investigation done for such incidents? Why are the people who cause these risks not treated the same as the complainant. With workplace bullying being the number one issue at work, one must assume this causes much risk (morale, deviation etc), the unseen risk that is. I have also seen those who are going through this treated even worse by work colleges, they are treated as if they are the cause...very sad

Sacked for whom they don't know

When someone is sacked or let go from a position, why is there no investigation into the reason for this? So many workers are sacked not because of the work they do, they are sacked for other trivial reasons such as peer jealousy, not wanting to be in the boys or girls club, prefer to do work than chat all day, etc. So many people are in roles not for their skill, but for who they know and what crowd they are in.

Equilibrium of Events

The workplace sector (everyone who gives labor to collect a payoff) has reached a equilibrium point of accident and incidents (events). Just as there will be a certain number of rabbits killed by foxes, just as there will be a certain level of children sexually abused, just as there will be a certain level of dickheads who drink and drive and who cause innocent deaths, just as there will be a certain level of car crashes, just like there will always be workplace events. All this talk about improving safety (using psychology) getting people to think more, using all methods of mind manipulation and using unconscious thinking will not make any real difference. You see, even those who practice all these things with due practicality still have events. If we cannot have ZERO, then we must just accept a number higher than ZERO, this number is about 10 (a philosophical argument number). Trying to reduce workplace harm below the mean level is a waste of time. Events happen...