Re: Another RSA worker killed

[Bill <wguest@xtra.co.nz>]

Peter Perkins wrote:

> One of the common threads to injuries such as these is the deregulation of
> the RSA and the awarding of contracts for rail maintenance. The RSA workers
> are demoralised at the continual contracting out of work and exist in a
> limbo land. One wonders how much organisation, training, safety equipment
> etc gets to these workers when the ultimate aim is make them redundant and
> introduce contractors. We must also remember that many of those killed in
> the past have been contractors.
> Companies such as Fluor Daniel have an appalling safety record not only here
> but in the US and other countries around the globe. (If anybody wants proof
> of what i've said about Fluor then email me. I have lots of literature about
> their safety problems)
>
> The Government's division of the SRA into 4 separate entities has meant that
> the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Anyone working with
> rail information knows that information about trackworking etc is basic and
> fragmented around the system and that if you dont chase it up yourself you
> miss out on vital information.
>
> The other aspect that has a bearing on all this was the watering down of the
> safety codes last year some time as outlined in a document
> called "Affordable Safety Policy". Don't hold me to the title but I
> recollect that this HR inspired document weighed up the cost of providing
> safety as compared with an acceptable level of death or injury. Ill see if I
> can find a copy and post it here - interesting if not ridiculous proposal
> which no doubt was introduced as policy. This mathematical and statistical
> way of measuring risk against cost was accepted by both unions. No doubt
> there are savings to be made in this area, but they are paid for by the
> deaths of rail workers.
>
> cost savings =cost from number of deaths or injuries - savings from not
> providing full safety mechanisms

When employers start blathering about "safety at reasonable cost", start
worrying! In my opinion, the concept that "a few deaths are acceptable because
the overall cost is minimised" is utterly wrong and morally repugnant. Ask
yourself this question: who among my family and friends am I prepared to see die
in fulfilment of this policy???????

This is not to say that workers (and others) should get away with careless
attitudes towards their own wellbeing. A test of reasonableness must apply
somewhere. But training, supervision, provision of safeworking procedures, and
safety equipment are all the responsibility of the employer in my view.

Bill