It it just me or what? I find that writing out a JSA makes absolutely no fu#king difference to how I would have performed the task if I hadn't' written a JSA out. There, I said it. Feel like the boy who pointed out the "King has no clothes on"
For the life of me I just can't see what a JSA does for somebody working alone. Maybe be if you were working with a group of ****wits who didn't have a clue and you were the only one with half a brain, maybe it might help the idiots.
I bet it was a bean counter who thought up Multi Skilling. Would you let the hospital cleaner cut a tumour out of your brain after reading a WMS (work method statement). course you fu8king wouldn't.
It really seems like an 'Arse covering exercise' by management. Another proud moment in the history of the human race.
(only 3 coronas, I'm sorry)
Select to expand quoteCrusoe said..
....... Maybe be if you were working with a group of ****wits who didn't have a clue and you were the only one with half a brain, maybe it might help the idiots.
.....
It really seems like an 'Arse covering exercise' by management. ......
there's your answers
Big corporations outsource labour and skills to labour hire companies, so a lot of crews have limited skills. covers their arse. The idea is that the job site should be safer, but you explain its going to take twice as long and cost more to do it safely and see how it goes down.
When a employer wants a certain amount every shift it become a total waste of time...I would just have generic jsa's filled in during smoko for a task you complete 50 times a day
just do it but do the absolute bare minimum described. Like pathetic but technically acceptable. Generalise wherever you can. Like have one and modify the title for the job. If anyone goes u and you know the bare minimum, then u can point out where there wrong in detail and stick it to the pen pushing cants.
Select to expand quoteCrusoe said..
Yep, and this is why other countries out compete us because of overheads like this.
Wait until you have to do Site Safety Surveys as well. You fill one out after doing checking the JSA/SWMS to see if anything is different or changed . Lots of no but the bosses want to see more than that written. ARRRRRRRR !!!!!!
The bottom line is you can not legislate against stupidity but that is what they are trying to do with the mega industry that WHS has become. Stupid people will do stupid things. There is no way around that. (I believe in the basic premise of WHS legislation - that an employer should provide a safe work environment, all employees have some responsibilities to achieve that end, and it should be achieved in a collaborative manner).
TH...
Select to expand quotetangohotel said..
The bottom line is you can not legislate against stupidity but that is what they are trying to do with the mega industry that WHS has become. Stupid people will do stupid things. There is no way around that. (I believe in the basic premise of WHS legislation - that an employer should provide a safe work environment, all employees have some responsibilities to achieve that end, and it should be achieved in a collaborative manner).
TH...
Trouble is, its become a bit of an ar!se covering work around for the big companies as well.
Some sites i work at will leave everything running (a lot of the work i do is best done during a shutdown, when everything is switched off) whilst you the worker work around all manner of hazards, but its all good because theres a jsa. If something happens and its been missed its "well well well, why wasnt it on your jsa?"
First of all Crusoe, pour another drink mate, you sound like you need one. I'm in the safe profession but i agree with you on the benefit of a JSA or JHA or whatever the "company" wants to call it. Basically they were introduced to spell out the task and associated hazards (things that may hurt you) so ****nuckles don't cost the company money. It's always pulled out if a job turns to custard and the individual is generally fingered, The company says "you didn't access the risk". Also Insurance has driven this. If done properly, which in my experience they never are, they can be a great planning tool for complex non routine tasks.
More than often a waste of time.
I used to like putting lines in the controlling hazard space like
The supervisor that signs this licks arse and fingers his own bum
And watch as they signed it off without even reading it
Select to expand quoteVince68 said..
First of all Crusoe, pour another drink mate, you sound like you need one. I'm in the safe profession but i agree with you on the benefit of a JSA or JHA or whatever the "company" wants to call it. Basically they were introduced to spell out the task and associated hazards (things that may hurt you) so ****nuckles don't cost the company money. It's always pulled out if a job turns to custard and the individual is generally fingered, The company says "you didn't access the risk". Also Insurance has driven this. If done properly, which in my experience they never are, they can be a great planning tool for complex non routine tasks.
More than often a waste of time.
Sorry Vince, I never meat to offend, as I knew this was your line of work. But I realise that you are like the rest of us and are caught up in the system. Yes, I can see the value in it when getting untrained individuals to do tasks that other in the industry have trained there whole lives to do. But how much worse will it get before it's get better.
I love jsa,
i love jha
i love sws
Look a jsa makes it good for insurance, please remember a jha also absolves much of the responsibility of the business when something does go wrong.
it also means that they take your house instead of going for the business.
the best part is that if you are doing something (anything) not clearly identified within the jha than you are not only at fault but also liable.
here are my favourite sentences to insert in a jha to assist with absolving liability of yourself and work crew.
spatial and physiological awareness ( this basically states all crew on job are fighter pilots and are totally aware of themselves and surrounding so when something does happen it can only be an accident.)
Many sites now photocopy the old ones so if a different crew write one and someone gets hurt , they go over records and find all the stuff in the jha where the job went well, than use this against whoever wrote the jha on the same job someone was hurt in.
I do high risk work I'm all for safety (no really I am )safety is important on the job but it doesn't want come from a Jha the jha only makes the job safer for the business.....
Select to expand quoteVince68 said..
If done properly, which in my experience they never are, they can be a great planning tool for complex non routine tasks.
More than often a waste of time.
True, if done properly, they serve as a good way to make you think through the job and pick up on things that can hurt you that would otherwise be missed.
ive noticed just lately that some companies have decided on a zero tolerance of medium/high risk outcomes on jsa's. Im not sure theyve thought through the consequences of that. Some jobs do end up with that outcome. You can put all manner of procedures/ppe in place and reduce the risk of it actually happening to rare. But the end consequence of it actually happening keeps it in the high medium outcome. The human thing to do is not put it on there, because you know you can't give it the low risk score they will accept.
i have come across a few companies that are going back the other way now and are using it as a safety tool rather than a company mitigating responsibility tool. But theyre rare
And I've just had some random fella contact me to tell me there's something wrong with my meter box panelling and it's going to cost me $$$for a sparky and $500 to Western Power.
I'm sure the panel would be fine for the next 50+ years as it is.
Its a way of trying to make people think about the task and associated risks to themselves and others BEFORE they start the task.
The amount of times I have mentioned to guys that they must have there safety harness on because they could fall, or make sure they stand clear of a load being lifted because it could fall and be met with the response "but if it falls it is the crane drivers fault" or "I'll be right". Doesn't help you when your dead.
Yes its a load of wank.
OTOH some people work in a job where the OSH Act states they can't refuse to do dangerous work, AND workers comp does not apply to them. If you get badly hurt you are simply sacked and get no $$ at all. So maybe count yourselves lucky and put up with the bullsh!t paperwork. Its better than being TPI and getting nil.
I occasionally work on critical sites where dip Sh!t mistakes could but others lives at risk or disrupt the lives of thousands of people. For these organisations the JSA / WHS systems and procedures are critical in the process of validating the people working on or in the facility actually are aware of the consequences of their actions and are technically competent... sorry for the inconvenience but not everyone is a superstar expert in their chosen field.
A signature on a piece of paper does not automatically make a work site or proceedure safe.
Had an isolation/operator once at the Rio Tinto Alumina Plant in Gladstone who thought it did. There was a caustic filled vertical line that he could not prove as "drained" because the drain valve was blocked. He signed the permit to work anyway.
The fitters doing the job were very aware of the situation and very gingerly cracked the line and sure enough it was full of puss.
I fully endorse work safety proceedures but I abhor the way companies use it to shift blame from themselves. I think it is particularly relevant when labour hire crews who are not fully conversant with the plant systems are brought in to do shut down work.
I am retired and don't do that shizz no more but I still have skin problems from a minor caustic burn at that site. They tried to say I had not been at the site long enough to claim the medical treatment. That shows how much they care about people.
Select to expand quoteCrusoe said..Vince68 said..
First of all Crusoe, pour another drink mate, you sound like you need one. I'm in the safe profession but i agree with you on the benefit of a JSA or JHA or whatever the "company" wants to call it. Basically they were introduced to spell out the task and associated hazards (things that may hurt you) so ****nuckles don't cost the company money. It's always pulled out if a job turns to custard and the individual is generally fingered, The company says "you didn't access the risk". Also Insurance has driven this. If done properly, which in my experience they never are, they can be a great planning tool for complex non routine tasks.
More than often a waste of time.
Sorry Vince, I never meat to offend, as I knew this was your line of work. But I realise that you are like the rest of us and are caught up in the system. Yes, I can see the value in it when getting untrained individuals to do tasks that other in the industry have trained there whole lives to do. But how much worse will it get before it's get better.
Mate i'm not offended. One has to have feelings to be offended. This is discussion of opinion often called debate. Will it get better? Not too sure about that. If companies stop employing supermarket trolley pushers and placing them in heavy industry it might improve. Unfortunately companies have to cater for the lowest denominator (moon units). And we have to carefully step around them and hold the hand of the snow flakes.
Every organisation needs legislation, policy and procedures etc. But the main point of this discussion is the quality and effectiveness of JHA/JSA's. In my experience they are not done properly, they are not read by the crew and they are not followed. They are generally completed and signed to get the job started. Therefore that aren't worth the paper they are written on (Most of the time)
Safe work come down to safe work procedures, training, education and correct tools and equipment, then supervision. Most of the time the supervisors are generally bogged down in admin to focus on the actual work being done in the field and ensuring the crew are operating safely.
Had this very conversation this morning:
5 personnel
2 work areas
5 individual Risk assessments all with different hazards/risks and controls.
JHA's are just a piece of paper which won't save your life.
They will however get everyone on the same page, thinking logically through the steps to complete and ensuring that if the risks are there everyone is aware of them and the controls are in place.
They are only as good as you want them to be - no doubt, but as a supervisor i'm responsible to sign off on that work to be carried out so i insist on going through the steps with the work crews.
In my experience, it's the supervisor they look at first when the sh!t hits the fan, then the individual, then the organisation.Select to expand quoteVince68 said..
"Most of the time the supervisors are generally bogged down in admin to focus on the actual work being done in the field and ensuring the crew are operating safely."
Then u have the take 5 another layer of paperwork...industrial manslaughter now here in qld .. stay safe ..
Just wait till you are the boss.
Worksafe works on the unique legal stance that you are guilty, until you prove you are innocent. That is you access the risks do the training req etc and you document everything so you can prove you did everything to remove risk.
If you can't prove it and you are the boss:
Someone dies -up to 20 yrs gaol.
Just put someone in a serious risk situation -upto $600 000 fine and 5 yrs gaol
etc
There's a lot going through this thread and not sure many are going to change their minds and yes it does touch a nerve because I've seen too many serious injuries and/or fatalities in my time (yes first hand not in the press etc.) but here goes maybe it changes things for someone ........
I've spent the last 2 years in a role with a purely safety focus, that said I don't like it and I've spent 17 of 20 years in production, engineering or operations management including being a site manager on sites owned by a multinational, here is why I say above.
JHA or work place risk assessments and the like (I'm including Take 5, Think, JHA and all of the similar tools) are very good tools not only for ensuring safety but also ensuring efficiency, like all tools though they only work when they are used well and well supported (by the site management). Used well means done as a team reviewed properly by a supervisor or other competent third party, escalated when required and then most importantly followed. In my opinion a workplace risk assessment should never be done by an individual (even if the task is).
No the piece of paper won't save your life but done well and followed; then steps, controls (instructions) in them just might. Yes they can be done effectively without being written down and through a simple conversation, when I worked underground the guys I worked with stopped for a smoke to discuss the job before they started (yes a certain irony in the fact they are killing themselves while trying to avoid being killed but none the less the act ensured that the task was planned, risk assessed and executed carefully). Sadly though as Vince points out not all can be relied on to do that well/at all and that means the rest of us have to demonstrate that it's been done (well) by writing it down and yes this is done in an attempt to protect you (first and foremost) as well as people such as myself and the companies we work for from unreasonable litigation (when that is the case, not implying that it isn't reasonable in many/most cases).
With all that said, the tick and flick, photocopied, signed without being read, done in the crib room, insert your shortcut version is a complete waste of both your and my time. If this is you then here is what happens when you do have a serious incident (and why I disagree with a lot of the arse covering discussion above), the regulator (+/- police and coroner) turns up and turns the site upside down, goes through the management systems that were meant to protect you and identifies deficiencies in them (such as the shortcut you took by not completeing the JSA with diligence) in this case if they can show a pattern of non compliance (that means either not done or accepted poor quality) then they will hold the operator (both individual and company, atleast in WA) to account for this and yes at the end you too will hold some of the blame for your injury the argument will be how much. The investigation and litigation process typically goes on for years and has huge costs (both monetary and non monetary) to all involved. What I've described above also completely ignores the other impacts on those around you (work mates, site morale, family, friends etc.) which can and does have profound affects.
I'm not clear myself about how insurers handle these but ultimately I also don't care if it's got that far it's already too far, the goal is not to get there (yes I know this is a little unrealistic as there is an element of luck in many things).
At the end of the day what companies need is you to come to work do a fair days work for a fair days pay and do it safely (so you can go home to your friends or family and then come back and do the same thing tomorrow), this does not mean that the world is perfect or that sometimes there will not be trade off's made but when they are they need to be trade offs that all involved are clear about, comfortable with and can live with the consequences of, that's what these tools are really meant to be for.
It's your safety that's on the table here do them properly for your sake (or if you have to the sake of your family/friends/workmates) and tell anyone who disagrees to F*@K off and if you are ever on a site I manage (and you'll know if you are because I'll have told you this first hand already) and you've seen this or been pressured into this make sure I know (I value my freedom and the wellbeing of my family too much to do nothing).
Well said blueprint, well said...
For those people struggling to work with what might seem like over the top safety controls, it is a better situation to be in than being in a workplace that has no controls.
I've seen nasty crush injuries, had colleagues die at work and seen more near misses than I can count. Less fun than filling out a JSA....
In the end, workplace safety is about identifying the hazards and implementing controls. The JSA (or other document) is just a way to facilitate this...
If you don't want to fill out a JSA/SWMS to the satisfaction of the site supervisor go work elsewhere, simple.
OH & S is not going away, do yourself a favour and go with it.
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..
Then u have the take 5 another layer of paperwork...industrial manslaughter now here in qld .. stay safe ..
While I was based at Southern Cross, we supplied explosives to the Koolyanobbing mine site.
They were getting "serious" about the number of take-5's that workers had to submit.
One of the fellas thought he would stick it to the safety mob, and completed 75 take-5's for the shift, [one even being for filling out a take-5!]
It didn't quite go how he expected, he got a pat on the back for being so diligent regarding safety, and told to keep up the good work 
Then on other sites, it was always "safety before production" [as long as it didn't slow down production]
Good if your doing repetitive work and operations tasks like maintenance cleaning shutdown etc..
But breakdown work involving production loss where skilled tradesman know plant should be competent to asses ever changing risks on jobs .Tasked are undefined Levels of Isolation and energy dissipation are usually identified with exposure and experience lifting rigging scaffing and basic trade skills should not be underestimated A risk assessment simply doesn't work.
A lot of this comes thru companies using labour hire contractors who aren't aware of the plant they are working isolation is an issue hazards become an issue on the jsh becomes and advantage to workers .
If your trained competent and are specialized personal in your industry specific there is no need. The personal should be competent in there job and that includes common sense and the ability to asses risks.
They key with breakdowns when shutting down plant is communication with operations managers and supervisors. Using correct isolation procedures (which have come thru risk assessments ) confirmation of the testing of isolation and the tagging out policy which include personal danger tags.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said..
Good if your doing repetitive work and operations tasks like maintenance cleaning shutdown etc..
But breakdown work involving production loss where skilled tradesman know plant should be competent to asses ever changing risks on jobs .Tasked are undefined Levels of Isolation and energy dissipation are usually identified with exposure and experience lifting rigging scaffing and basic trade skills should not be underestimated A risk assessment simply doesn't work.
A lot of this comes thru companies using labour hire contractors who aren't aware of the plant they are working isolation is an issue hazards become an issue on the jsh becomes and advantage to workers .
If your trained competent and are specialized personal in your industry specific there is no need. The personal should be competent in there job and that includes common sense and the ability to asses risks.
They key with breakdowns when shutting down plant is communication with operations managers and supervisors. Using correct isolation procedures (which have come thru risk assessments ) confirmation of the testing of isolation and the tagging out policy which include personal danger tags.
If you are doing repetitive work there should be a procedure for it and if it's any good it'll cover you for most situations, if you are using a JSA for repetitive work I'll bet money it's no good and/or not being followed.
While I'd very much like to subscribe to the theory that trademen/specialists can be relied upon to apply good judgement unfortunately the evidence to the contrary is pretty damning, similarly the old "common sense" that isn't so common. From my experience what I see is that level of education has little to do with either common sense or practical application of it, I've seen engineers (supposedly some of the worst) with great common sense and an ability to apply it (call it situational awareness) and I've seen tradies that have none, I've also seen people who did not complete high school (or anything after it) that are better than all of them.
Here's some of what I've seen (again first hand) with the consequences excluded (where I can, some of which I'm aware have been done by others with far more serious consequences that what I saw), these cover the entire spectum of education, experience and competency: 2.2kg Cast primer (with detonator in place) bashed against a rock to get it to "fit" inside a piece of poly pipe, chemical line openned upstream of the isolation point (while not wearing PPE), face charged while still being bored, working with explosive while smoking, load lifted with uninspected and out of date sling (dropped), welding while raining and/or under leaking water, 9" cutting disc used on 7" grinder without guard (similarly with 4/5" grinders), worked on wrong piece of equipment (unisolated and even though it was labelled) I could go on and on and on.
Over my 20 years what I've seen is a progressive lowering of skills, experience, critical thinking and to some degree standards and what has been lost mostly is an understanding of WHY we do some of the things we do, mostly this is not because the HSE guy says we have to but because somewhere along the line someone has done something (sometimes dumb and sometimes not) and got themselves seriously injured or killed the result being that as an industry we tried to learn so it doesn't happen again (again I have plenty of examples).
I guess my point is that it's individual but what is required (by law) is consistency and there is only one way to achieve that (sadly). I do know tradesmen who I would trust to do the right thing without the paperwork as I do professionals and equipment operators, the irony is the guys (girls) I know who I'd trust to do this also happily do the paperwork and do it properly. In my experience being safe is an attitude and yes it does not require paperwork to have it and nor is the paperwork going to protect you if you don't. My experience is people who "know better" generally are not those with the attitude required, they stopped learning (and/or applying their skills of observation) long ago and as a result when situations change are also likely to still "know better" with sadly predictable results.
But its an ass covering exercise. If you are requested to do one do it. People often make the mistake of thinking that HSE are there to represent the "worker" There not they couldn't care less about you" They would stick a knife in your back as soon as look at you. HSE represents the company.
Like I said, if you get injured at work everyone loses......simple as that.
If it happens because you didn't take a tool your company gave you to protect yourself from what caused it seriously why should they or their representatives have to suffer (unless they didn't train you, didn't enforce standards or encouraged you not to take them seriously etc.)
If it's just an arse covering excercise to you (and you work in the mining or chemical industries) please PM me your full name, occupation etc. so I can be sure not to employ you.
Maybe others don't take their responsibilities seriously (and think that simply having them covers their arse) but I've experienced otherwise and for me being able to sleep at night means knowing I've done whatever I can to ensure I and the people I employ are doing our best to achieve both our safety and production objectives (and yes they are related though maybe not the way you'd see it).
Edit: and not sure about the people you've worked with but most HSE people I've worked with are in that business because they've either seen or been involved in something terrible that they dont want to see again, doesn't get much more personal (or more care factor) than that.
As I said HSE isn't there to represent you as a Worker there Gutter trash running there own agenda . Most of the HSE are women or people who have been injured or simply to unsafe on the plant and to have been promoted . They represent the company .Government makes some policies keep the cripples happy and employed. If you think that your gona hold up a million dollar an hour production line to fill out a JHA your living in a dream world. You hse just dayshift bottom feeders. Just go back to managing your contractors and 457`s
