The Art of the Long View
The future trumps the recession
Take the quiz: What do these three groups have in common?
-
Social investors: a growing contingent of people who decide what stocks and mutual funds to
include in their investment portfolios based on evidence that firms have an active social
conscience and promote the well-being of society.
-
Millennials: the generational group (also known as Gen Y) who were born in 1982 or later--well-educated,
busy shaping society, on most firms' recruitment lists, and passionate about personal safety,
community action, and long-term planning.
-
Road to Zero advocates: the individuals, employers, trade associations and prevention system partners
who know from experience that applying effort and resources to achieving zero workplace injuries
and illnesses has both social benefits and tangible economic rewards.
And the answer is...
What these three groups share is membership in what author Tim Sanders calls the "Responsibility Revolution"--the
"rise of a new value system" that demands a certain behaviour from companies before you will be allowed
to be successful. As Sanders says in his new book, Saving the World at Work, this is not a revolution that can be ignored:
"If you work in a company that is not socially responsible, whether it is a Fortune 500 company or
a mom-and-pop operation, it will feel the impact on its profits and revenues..."
Investors, consumers, employees, health and safety advocates--those proficient in the art of the long view
are shaping the future. They understand that making employees' health and safety the centerpiece of
a company's corporate social responsibility activities makes sense for two reasons:
-
One, because at its most fundamental level, advocacy--actions that bring about a just,
decent society and improve people's lives--starts with the individual. It starts at home.
We foster health and safety with our employees for the same reason we do it with our family members;
to promote growth, well-being achievement and prosperity.
-
And two, putting staff health and safety first makes good business sense from the point of view of
stakeholder relationships. According to two other authors, Don Tapscott and David Ticol in The Naked Corporation,
transparency is both the best defense and offence in a world of growing scrutiny.
"Wherever you look, employees are looking back at the firm. Every action by its leaders is scrutinized,
analyzed, and judged, and the employees use the Internet and other communication tools to reach shared
conclusions that directly affect morale and productivity. No firm can afford to ignore this voice."
It's difficult to imagine a more fundamental, achievable, critical role for executive leaders than advocating,
within their firms and without, for employee health and safety. It is the essence of human rights,
and it resonates powerfully at both a corporate and social level.
Indeed, the business case for health and safety resonates whether you're motivated by the bottom line,
your reputation, or doing good for others.
If you're a parent and employer, you're predisposed to "get it"
A client shared a story with us recently during a dialogue on the achievability of zero injuries and illnesses
in this province. He'd just hired his 17-year-old son to work at his family-run truck centre for the summer,
and it led him to grasp the imperative of the Road to Zero in visceral way.
"We take health and safety seriously and have always done our best," he said.
"We don't want anyone hurt. But could you imagine if it was my son who was seriously injured or killed,
and I had to go home and tell that to my wife?"
He shuddered. "There'd be no place to hide. The buck stops with me."
For more information on the Road to Zero, visit:
The WSIB Prevent-it page,
which includes a copy of the vision and plan;
Stories about the Prevention System's changes
to make the Road to Zero a reality.
The Latest Health & Safety Violations for Service Sector Firms
Opportunities to learn from others
Every month, organizations cause untold suffering for workers, families and the community,
and take an entirely preventable hit on their bottom line, as a result of violations of
the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
In the last few weeks, how many people have died on the job in Ontario, how many seriously injured, and how many put at risk?
Isn't training workers on how to operate equipment enough?
Atlas Tube Inc., Windsor, which manufactures structural steel tubes, was fined $90,000 for
a violation that resulted in a young temporary worker being struck by a moving bundle of steel
traveling on a conveyor line and critically injured. The employer had failed to ensure a perimeter
gate was locked and a warning sign posted.
Highrise Window Technologies Inc., Newmarket, was fined $160,000 for a violation that resulted
in a worker dying when a rear castor broke off a moving cart, pinning the worker between
falling glass and the cutting machine. The employer failed to ensure that the glass was moved in
a way that would not endanger the worker.
Brewers Retail Inc., Hamilton, was fined $50,000 for a violation that resulted when
a worker was using a forklift to remove a pallet containing cases of beer from a storage rack,
when the pallet knocked the rack, making it unstable, and causing several cases of beer to fall
and land on the forklift. The worker was unharmed. The employer failed to ensure that materials removed
from a storage rack were removed in a way that would not endanger the safety of the worker.
The point is...
it's not enough to train staff on how to run conveyor belts, carts and forklifts.
They also need training on how to load and properly balance pallets, conveyors, and lift trucks.
It's interesting to note that while the Brewer's worker was not injured, the company was still fined.
If a contractor subs work out and there's an injury, isn't the sub solely responsible?
Gerpro Construction Inc., Chateauguay, Quebec, and Construction Bao Inc., Montreal, Quebec,
were fined $100,000 and $105,000, respectively, for violations in Cornwall,
Ontario, that resulted when a Construction Bao employee fell off a scaffolding and became paralyzed.
Both Gerpro, the constructor, and Construction Bao, had failed to ensure that access to the scaffold was by stairs,
runway, ramp or ladder.
The point is...
both organizations were responsible for the injury, and both were fined for the same incident.
The same holds true for when you hire a temp: you and the temp agency are both responsible for the temp worker's safety.
Is gravity really a concern in a lockout program?
TDL Spring & Suspension Specialists Inc., Ottawa, was fined $120,000 for a violation that caused
the death of a worker who was repairing the valve stem on the rear tire of
a recycling truck, when a side bin on the truck that had not been braced to prevent movement,
was accidentally released, trapping the worker between the bin and tire.
The employer failed to ensure that temporarily elevated equipment was securely and solidly blocked
to prevent it from falling or moving.
Southern Sanitation Inc., a Toronto garbage hauling company known as Wasteco,
was fined $85,000 for a violation that caused the death of a worker
who was working alone at the company garage and was crushed between the rails and frame of a roll-off truck.
The employer failed to provide information, instruction and supervision to block the hoist rails of
this type of truck when in the raised position.
The point is...
gravity is an active force that needs to be figured into your health and safety procedures.
Don't forget about securing moving equipment and materials that may fall due to gravity. It's interesting that Wasteco,
the bigger company, was fined less than TDL Spring & Suspension Specialists--possibly
because Wasteco had a procedure but didn't follow it, whereas TDL didn't have a procedure at all.
Is it customary to see inspectors again after they issue an order?
Royal Edge Incorporated, Brampton--which makes edge-banding products for materials like kitchen countertops--and director,
were fined $40,000 and $4,000, respectively, for a violation that
involved failing to comply with orders issued by a MOL inspector during multiple visits.
Stayana International Trading, Toronto--which shreds plastic materials for recycling--and manager,
fined $60,000 and $5,000, respectively, for a violation that caused serious injuries to a worker
who fell from a 1.9-metre high platform to the concrete floor below.
The MOL issued a stop work order, and later discovered the manager had removed the tag and authorized
use of the grinder until a company owner shut down the line.
The employer failed to ensure there was a guardrail on the open sides of the platform,
and the manager pleaded guilty to knowingly furnishing an inspector with false information.
The point is...
yes, MOL inspectors do follow up after issuing orders, and in some cases repeatedly.
How seriously do you have to take the recommendations of a third-party consultant?
Booth Centennial Healthcare Linen Services, Brampton, was fined $90,000 for a violation that killed a worker
who was trapped between a chute and the door opening of one of the washer extractors.
The employer failed to acquaint the worker with the hazards associated with the use of the washer extractor
(which had been pointed out by a third-party consulting firm), and failed to provide a copy of the consulting
firm's safety review to the joint health and safety committee (JHSC).
The point is...
if you get a recommendation from a health and safety consultant, don't ignore it.
You need to fully investigate and implement any findings, and you need to share the report with your JHSC.
If you disagree with a finding, seek a second opinion and get it in writing.
A ladder's a ladder, right?
Guess? Canada Corporation, Toronto, a national clothing and accessories retailer,
was fined $50,000 for a violation that seriously injured an employee who was standing on an eight-foot,
A-frame ladder to return a box to a top shelf when the ladder gave way.
The ladder was too wide for the storage room, which meant the worker could not fully open
the ladder and lock it into place to prevent it from collapsing.
The employer failed to ensure that the worker could carry, move and lift store merchandise safely.
The point is...
use the right ladder for the situation, and train people how to use them.
