Why Worker Ownership of Safety is the best Investment | FIRST, VERIFY

April 6, 2021

A wise man once said that spending a small amount of time and effort early on is a good investment. It can save you from additional trouble in the end.


This thought is applicable to many situations, but especially so when it comes to workplace safety. Safety professionals have long recognized the value of prevention, and statistics had proven that for every serious injury event, there will have been 29 injury accidents and 300 near-misses.


Keeping a track of near-misses is definitely a powerful tool for safety professionals. Planning for what comes next and focusing on what are known as “good catches” is even more effective.


A “good catch” is recognition by an employee of a condition or situation that had the potential to cause an incident but did not cause one due to corrective action and/or timely intervention by the employee. For example, as one worker prepares to climb a ladder on his way to perform a task at an elevated level, a second worker notices that his fall protection harness is not correctly secured, so he stops the first and helps him adjust it.


Good catches develop when workers truly believe they’re responsible for their own safety, have the right training and the confidence to speak up when they spot something concerning, and know they won’t be punished or penalized for pointing out problems. While near-miss reporting can be very valuable, good catch programs are even more powerful, because they address situations before a near-miss can occur.


When a worksite has an effective program that encourages and celebrates good catches, it creates a proactive safety environment and can even boost worker morale. Just like near-miss reporting, a formal good catch program promotes reporting and learning while providing important metrics that can be tracked and improved over time. It turns a company’s safety philosophy into a clear reality. And, as workers see safety advisors and supervisors call attention to good catches, they’re more likely to make them, enhancing overall safety.


Conventionally, companies have followed very old school means of promoting safety behavior in the workplace, such as notice boards that announce the number of no incident or “safety” days.


Statistic prove that such efforts may actually discourage workers from reporting incidents because they’re afraid of being punished or blamed for “ruining” a good record. In other cases, companies may say they encourage reporting, but the complicated paperwork or process involved with making a report effectively discourages workers from doing so. As a result, such efforts result in underreporting.


A carefully designed good catch program accomplishes the same objective of a safer workplace without discouraging reports. No matter what kind of program is developed, company leadership has to embrace the idea of reporting good catches and issue (and stand behind) a clear message there will be no reprisals for making reports. Programs should work to make the reporting process easier.


It’s important to publicize and celebrate those good catches, and the celebration doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive. Recognition can be as simple as an email or a short note recognizing both the employee who has done the right thing and the person who submitted the card.


An important consideration of any good catch program is giving workers the opportunity to stop work anytime a corrective action is needed without having to worry that they’ll be punished. The slight delay caused by a good catch is minimal compared to the lost time a contractor will incur when a serious incident occurs.


Setting up your own good catch program is less complicated and time-consuming than you might expect, and it will begin to provide immediate benefits. Best of all, it creates a safety mentality your workers will take with them long after the current project ends. That will continue to pay them — and you — back for a long time to come.

You might also like

A group of construction workers are standing next to each other on a construction site.
October 28, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S.Lowenstein
construction industry risk management
October 21, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur.
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management
October 13, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today