FDRsafety brings unmatched expertise to
a full range of safety consulting services.
We get results!

Lockout and tagout appear to have a perennial lock as one of OSHA’s top 10 violations each year. It is a tough challenge in any organization getting employees to take time to isolate and lockout potentially hazardous energy. As I look back now, I realize that I missed something when I first started dealing with the issue in the ‘70s and the ‘80s. First, some background:

When we discovered violations of lockout, it was common to counsel, warn and retrain employees using skills-based training. Eventually, we tried to see things through the eyes of employees and recognized more clearly the issues posed by design constraints.

As an example, in large manufacturing facilities it was common to find disconnects located in overhead mezzanines where electrical panels for transfer lines and other special equipment were placed to maximize floor space. Access to these panels and their disconnects was by walking up a properly guarded ladder. Let’s face it, ladders cost much less and use far less space than stairs.

Put yourself in the place of a maintenance worker performing a task that required lockout. It required walking to the ladder, up the ladder, determining which panel controlled the hazardous energy, pulling the disconnect and then locking it with a personal lock. Back down the stairs to perform the task. Then, a repeat of the prior steps to remove the lock and re-energize the power was necessary.

In addition, there might be another problem that would require further work and a repeat of the lockout sequence.

We determined that existing standards had been developed by experts with electrical backgrounds. Overhead disconnects were great for electricians working on electrical panels, motors and other overhead equipment, but what about personnel on the factory floor? Disconnects were ultimately placed at both floor level and mezzanine to accommodate work being performed at both levels. For me, it was my first insight into what later came to be called Safety Thru Design and now Prevention Thru Design being led by NIOSH. (More on these in later blog posts.)

The better designs improved compliance with employees following standard safety procedures.

It was clear that the old designs required significantly more time to properly lockout. In some cases, the time to lockout equaled the time to perform the work. Furthermore, climbing a vertical ladder is anything but comfortable. Was it any wonder that employees chose to take shortcuts?

What I failed to see back then was how profound the time and comfort issues were in the overall scheme of things. It is another example of how I had my eyes opened sitting through my first FDSsafety awareness session. Had I recognized time and comfort issues as pervasive drivers of behavior, perhaps we would have not only worked on the technical challenges but also tried a “softer approach” to offset the natural tendencies to take shortcuts.

Where lockout and tagout is involved, employees must always be thinking of their family and that their personal safety cannot be compromised – regardless of time and/or comfort issues.

Back in the ‘70s, I moved from engineering to head the Education and Training department in a large automotive engine plant. As an engineer with no formal education in this field, I was unfamiliar with the proper way to assess skill level if we had an employee performance issue. I will never forget the simple test suggested by an experienced colleague.

He offered, “Put an imaginary gun to the employee’s head and tell them to do the job. If they can do it, you’re dealing with an attitude issue – not a skills issue.” Granted, that is a crude metric but it serves as a valid test when we encounter employees taking shortcuts in safety.

Ask employees, “Do you know how to do this job?” and you will most often receive an affirmative answer. Then ask if he/she knows how to do the job safely. My experience suggests that you will again hear a “yes.” If you believe those responses as I do (why would the employee lie?), why do we insist on using skills training to deal with an attitude issue?

We in health and safety use the tools most available in our toolkit – more skills training. Analysis of incident/near miss reports, bolstered by personal experience, suggests that employee training or retraining is often referred to as appropriate corrective action. (I will not digress about the problems with incident investigation and the lack of root cause analysis because it will detract from the point I wish to make in this blog.) Think about how you approach lockout issues, incidents with fork trucks, fall hazards, etc. Usually we put employees back through our available skills training, hoping that it will somehow change their views on working and acting safely. Is it any wonder that employees complain about safety training being boring?

If we want sustainable growth in our companies and wish to prove that “people are our most valuable asset,” it is crucial that we try to get to the hearts as well as the minds so that employees use the skills and knowledge they already possess.

Listed below are my criteria for effective safety training that contributes to sustainability:

• Face to face with a simple, easy to understand message and provided by a knowledgeable and credible facilitator/trainer
• Promotes the view that safety is a value on and off the job and that safety is a value within the organizational culture, facilitating a sustainable future
• Respectful of individuals and different views
• Open dialogue about real world issues with individual and team interaction
• Promotes the concept that safety should be “want to” because of family and concern for others, not “have to” because of OSHA and company rules

It is time that we start dealing with the real world and talk with employees as adults and the real reasons why we all take shortcuts.

The majority of construction accidents are not due to a lack of training, skill or knowledge — nearly all accidents are simply related to poor decision-making.

Whether an employee is talking on a cell phone while working or not wearing his/her personal protective equipment, many workers have placed themselves and others at needless risk to save time or be more comfortable.

But there are ways to combat this kind of decision-making by creating a safety culture on construction sites. Among the ingredients: accountability, demonstrated commitment by management, zero tolerance for unsafe practices and creating an atmosphere where workers are acting safely because they want to, not because they have to.

All this and more is the subject of an article I wrote in the current issue of Occupational Health and Safety magazine. It is posted elsewhere on this website and I invite you to have a look.