Calls for corporate manslaughter misguided?

The Pike River tragedy has prompted calls for corporate and criminal manslaughter. These measures may impact on miscreants, but beating up individuals or boards doesn’t address underlying problems. New Zealanders tend to blame and our survey of over 6,000 managers and employees reveals a ‘cover your arse’ mentality that stops learning and improvement.

It’s time we grew up and got on with transforming our shameful health and safety statistics, but

New Zealanders also are also sucked in by ridiculous clichés that include: ‘People are our most important asset.’

I’m certain 95% of all New Zealand’s company directors would agree that an absolute top priority for a Board is the safety of its workers, and that it stands out if not above, then on par, with the financial performance of their enterprises. If that is true, why is the safety of employees not being driven by Boards?

What would happen if a new CEO said “People and their safety at work really are the most important asset we have – they are more important than financial goals, and I am going to make their health and safety our number one priority? I suspect there would be a lot of guffawing. Yet overseas the UK Institute of Directors and Government Health and Safety Executive say: “Health and safety is integral to success. Board members who do not show leadership in this area are failing in their duty as directors and their moral duty, and are damaging their organisation”

Cliché two: New Zealand workers are protected by OSH legislation and regulations.

The H&S in Employment Act uses the words “taking all practicable steps towards health and safety” and “you don’t have to do everything humanly possible; you only have to do what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same situation”.

Who would invest in a financial institution that said:

“Invest all your money with us, we will take all practical steps to get it back to you, and while we won’t necessarily do everything humanly possible not to lose your money, we will do what a reasonable and prudent person would do when managing your money”

And yet New Zealand workers are supposed to feel reassured that their wellbeing at work is being taken care of.

Under the Act $500,000.00 fines can be imposed but mostly it’s $40,000 for loss of arm; $6,000 for de-gloved fingers; $50,000 for chopped off fingers; and a recent death at $62,250.

Compare Kim Dotcom’s experience and it’s easy to see where the priorities lie: raided by 20 armed police; $17m assets seized; $218m in cash frozen; spied on by NZ Government Security Bureau; arrested and thrown into prison.

150 years ago workers were expendable; they were just a labour unit used to produce profits. Today employees are still called ‘human resources’ and dollars still have a greater value placed on them than lives.

Cliché three: Better rules and legislation will dramatically improve our frightening workplace injury and death statistics.

Kiwi’s hate to be ‘told’ what to do, and Hofstede’s research across 74 countries confirms this trait. Trying to ‘tell’ us what to do, or not to do, will very likely to be greeted with a two fingered hand signal. More legislation is unlikely to be the answer.

The Government has a target to reduce serious harm accidents and workplace deaths by 25% by year 2020. Conservatively that means more than 500 workers won’t be going home to their families, and more than 40,000 will be seriously injured.

Most New Zealand workplaces provide quality personal protection equipment, quality systems and processes, lots of audits, training, tool box meetings and data collection. There are calls to achieve ‘Zero Harm’, forums to engage CEOs, and a real desire for improvement. I question whether we are still looking for solutions through the same old lens, and whether we really need 7 years to reduce workplace harm by 25%?

Perhaps it’s time to start to challenge our thinking. For example: While everything else (technology, communications, political structures, medical science etc.) is rapidly changing around them, executives and managers still manage people the way they did 50 years ago, i.e. SMART objectives, performance appraisals, hierarchical structures, progression based on something other than meritocracy.

With employee engagement levels at 45%; New Zealand’s productivity at embarrassing levels; and accidents and injuries among the worst in the developed world, I think it is time try a different management approach. There are plenty of examples to learn and borrow from. I suggest we approach improvements in health and safety from a different, and New Zealand centric, angle. Borrow from the best, but more importantly consider what is really needed here. Innovation and a practical ‘go get it’ attitude is a Kiwi strength we bring to other endeavours, so why can’t we bring it to saving lives and trauma at work? Quickly?

ends

© Scoop Media