OH&S got some teeth

[FishingMOM]

Workplace safety fines include employees for first time
Sunday, September 08, 2013

Alberta is implementing a new system of workplace safety fines, cracking down on workers for the first time, as well as their employers.

The financial penalties - which are part of Alberta's new Occupational Health and Safety legislation - were approved Friday. Under the new system, agency officers will have the ability to issue tickets of up to $500 on the spot to employers or workers caught flouting workplace safety rules on the job site.

The government will also have the ability to slap hefty administrative penalties of up to $10,000 on what Occupational Health and Safety spokesman Brookes Merritt called "repeat non-compliers. Basically, employers or workers who have a repeated chronic history of not complying with the legislation and putting the health and safety of others or themselves at risk."

When the new system takes effect - Oct. 1 for the administrative penalties and Jan. 1 for the on-site tickets - it will mark the first time Occupational Health and Safety has had the capacity to issue monetary fines. It also gives officers an enforcement tool midway between issuing a stop-work order and taking a violator to court.

"We needed something that was more severe than an order to comply, but less severe than prosecution," Merritt said. "We had what we felt was a gap on the enforcement spectrum."

Instituting a ticketing and administrative penalties component brings Alberta's workplace safety legislation in line with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan - all of which either already have, or are considering, similar systems.

The new rules also attempt to address concerns raised by Alberta's auditor general, who called in 2010 and 2012 for improvements to the province's workplace safety programs, especially when it comes to "high-risk" employers.

Still, the Alberta Federation of Labour says punishing workers for safety code violations is a mistake. AFL president Gil McGowan said if the responsibility for workplace safety is placed on the shoulders of individual employees, it takes the onus off employers to invest in proper safety training and procedures.

"Employers will end up washing their hands of responsibility for health and safety and saying it's the workers' problem and the workers' fault. That's not the way to make workplaces safer in this province," McGowan said.

McGowan said he likes the idea of an intermediate enforcement step that falls between a stop-work order and prosecution, but said it should be restricted to employers since they're the ones who dictate safety culture in the workplace.

However, Craig Loewen, press secretary to Human Services Minister Dave Hancock, who is responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, said the government believes workplace safety is a shared responsibility.

"You can often have policies in place, but if they're not being followed, you're not in a safe workplace," Loewen said. "And if you're one of the workers that is following the proper safety procedures and guidelines, but one of your co-workers is not, you're also put at risk."

There are more than 60 contraventions under the Health and Safety Code for which employers and employees could be ticketed. These include everything from failing to wear personal protective equipment to smoking in a work area where a flammable substance is being used or stored.

Recipients of administrative penalties will have the ability to appeal through Alberta's Occupational Health and Safety Council. Individuals who are ticketed under the new system can plead not guilty and go to court, just as they could with a traffic ticket.

With files from Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald

astephenson@calgaryherald.com

[Weedy1]

They better have their JHA's filled out before they start trying to hand out fines on a job site.
I hope it isn't just another tax grab and they truly target the idiots.

[FishingMOM]

Originally Posted by Weedy1

They better have their JHA's filled out before they start trying to hand out fines on a job site.
I hope it isn't just another tax grab and they truly target the idiots.

Apparently the fines can be upto $500 for an individual.

[wally338]

No!!! It's just another money grab for the government. I suppose they will deduct more of my hard earned pay to pay for the new "cops". No thanks I feel quite safe as it is.

[sailor]

OHnS on site- everybody hide!

[Canadiandiesel]

Oh more unneeded job openings for people that don't know what or how the world really works,

Safety is written in blood and also Darwin souls

[Sundancefisher]

Workers need to be responsible for their own safety as well as the companies. One of the biggest problems now is companies having great safety programs in place and a few employees ignoring them which puts them and others at risk.

It should however all come down to education and changing attitudes and behavior. I hope that in lieu of a fine they have a few safety awareness courses someone could take.

[Wild&Free]

Hello Nanny state.

[Bobby B.]

IMO, OHS can write up all the legislation they want in an effort to satisfy WCB and others. The only industry I can speak of with some authority is the roofing industry. A few years back, OHS presented roofing contractors with a questionnaire asking our opinion of whether or not safety lines would increase the safety of roofers. Of everyone I spoke with, contractors and shinglers alike, all were in agreement that a roof interlaced with ropes would create a much greater safety hazards than it could possible reduce. Nonetheless, OHS pushed it through. Obviously, some ******* somewhere needed to remove the responsibility from elsewhere and place it on the shoulders of the contractors.

As an employer, I can stress the use of safety lines all I want, but I can't be at every roof all day long to ensure my workers are tied off. Nor can I hire someone to stand at every jobsite all day long and force the roofers to tie off and remain tied off.

IMO, the overwhelming source of safety hazards is drunk or stoned workers. No one on my jobsites is allowed up on the roof if there is any suspicion that they are impaired. I don't hire drinks or stoners to begin with, those rejects can go complicate someone else's business.

As a business owner, you can establish all the safety measures you should but, in the end, the worker decides whether or not to follow the rules. Why today's workers need to be stoned or drunk to make it through their work day is beyond reason. IMO, about the last thing we need is to legalize marijuana and further increase the problem of stoned workers.

If stoned contruction workers are acceptable, why not stoned surgeons? Best thing would be for the stoned surgeons to operate on the stoned workers. That would be just.

Bobby B.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by Bobby B.

IMO, OHS can write up all the legislation they want in an effort to satisfy WCB and others. The only industry I can speak of with some authority is the roofing industry. A few years back, OHS presented roofing contractors with a questionnaire asking our opinion of whether or not safety lines would increase the safety of roofers. Of everyone I spoke with, contractors and shinglers alike, all were in agreement that a roof interlaced with ropes would create a much greater safety hazards than it could possible reduce. Nonetheless, OHS pushed it through. Obviously, some ******* somewhere needed to remove the responsibility from elsewhere and place it on the shoulders of the contractors.

As an employer, I can stress the use of safety lines all I want, but I can't be at every roof all day long to ensure my workers are tied off. Nor can I hire someone to stand at every jobsite all day long and force the roofers to tie off and remain tied off.

IMO, the overwhelming source of safety hazards is drunk or stoned workers. No one on my jobsites is allowed up on the roof if there is any suspicion that they are impaired. I don't hire drinks or stoners to begin with, those rejects can go complicate someone else's business.

As a business owner, you can establish all the safety measures you should but, in the end, the worker decides whether or not to follow the rules. Why today's workers need to be stoned or drunk to make it through their work day is beyond reason. IMO, about the last thing we need is to legalize marijuana and further increase the problem of stoned workers.

If stoned contruction workers are acceptable, why not stoned surgeons? Best thing would be for the stoned surgeons to operate on the stoned workers. That would be just.

Bobby B.

Good post. Right up until the last part. Good way to turn this thread into a pot and alc. thread....

[Attilathecanuk]

No, they have plenty teeth as it is.

[Bobby B.]

My intent was to link grass and booze to safety, not to derail this thread.

IMO, OHS should come down hard on those who ignore safety regulations. If the employer breaks the rules, jump on him hard. If the employee breaks the rules, jump on him hard. IMO, what happens now is the blame is shared, regardless of who is at fault. In a sense, fines should be 'user pays'.

In addition, OHS cannot be allowed to simply place unreasonable expectations on either the employer or the employee merely to cover OHS's own ass and exempt them from all responsibility. Likewise, whoever is dictating the strategies to OHS must also be reasonable. Otherwise, everyone is merely 'passing the buck' onto someone else and very little is being accomplished.

As always, more and more rules do not equate to achievement of desired goals. It is simply impossible to legislate perfection as **** will always happen. When it does, hold the offender responsible. However, bear in mind that accidents can and do happen. I mean 'true' accidents, ones that happen despite careful precautions to prevent their occurence.

Bobby B.

[leeaspell]

Man, I feel safer already

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Bobby B.

My intent was to link grass and booze to safety, not to derail this thread.

IMO, OHS should come down hard on those who ignore safety regulations. If the employer breaks the rules, jump on him hard. If the employee breaks the rules, jump on him hard. IMO, what happens now is the blame is shared, regardless of who is at fault. In a sense, fines should be 'user pays'.

In addition, OHS cannot be allowed to simply place unreasonable expectations on either the employer or the employee merely to cover OHS's own ass and exempt them from all responsibility. Likewise, whoever is dictating the strategies to OHS must also be reasonable. Otherwise, everyone is merely 'passing the buck' onto someone else and very little is being accomplished.

As always, more and more rules do not equate to achievement of desired goals. It is simply impossible to legislate perfection as **** will always happen. When it does, hold the offender responsible. However, bear in mind that accidents can and do happen. I mean 'true' accidents, ones that happen despite careful precautions to prevent their occurence.

Bobby B.

Bold and underlined statement nailed it right on the head.

Italics underlined, Most places I've worked at believe that all accidents are preventable, yet are unwilling to spend money on minor repairs and modifications in the name of safety as it effects the bottom line and doesn't increase productivity and revenue.

[Zip]

Bobby B...Bringing stoned and or drunk people into the topic is just wrong..and that's all i will say about that!
I believe that it is about time that individuals can be fined for their non compliance of the safety rules that are clearly stated in any oh&s manual,on all jobs in the oil and gas pulp and paper sector's there are safety persons on the site trying their best to keep the dumb ones from hurting themselves or someone else for that matter..i have been in that industry for going on 15 years now as the human resources manager,as well as the northern operations manager..we always had pre job safety meetings,a hazard assessment form that the workers were to fill out while standing at the place they were to be doing a particular job..we always did our level best to ensure that all workers were given the proper tools in order to make them safe while working...we wanted to make sure that everybody got to go home safe and sound...but even in doing all we could...the message we gave each group every morning at the safety meetings was that you the worker are really the only person who is responsible for his or her safety..as a company you can only do and give what you can to make sure that people are safe...but unless the person follows those guidelines...even with a safety person on site trying to watch over every job that is going on..people still get hurt..i think this new system is aimed at some of those people in the bigger industries..re shutdown workers,maintenance workers at plants and mills..bigger construction companies who employ lots of people...this is good that the actual person can get a fine as most companies really do their best to try and make sure everybody gets home safe...
A big rant i know...but this one is close to my heart..been there done that sorta thing.

[grizz325]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Bold and underlined statement nailed it right on the head.

Italics underlined, Most places I've worked at believe that all accidents are preventable, yet are unwilling to spend money on minor repairs and modifications in the name of safety as it effects the bottom line and doesn't increase productivity and revenue.

I work for a company just like this and the sad thing is its a crown corporation

[skoalzie]

I really do not like the idea of tickets on job sites. This is all a big money grab. And tthese cops have to write out enough tickets to pay for their salaries for the year. I think this could be a huge mistake by OHandS. I think this will make certain people quit their jobs as they cannot afford these fines.and there are some things that just need to be done and it may look unsafe but the guys doing it are just fine with it. And OHandS is gonna have to be pretty sneaky about catching people in the act because every time one of them is seen the jobsite sure clears out pretty fast!!

[Albertadiver]

This is old news and has been in the works for a year or more.

Like it or not, it's here. More regulations to protect us from ourselves instead of simply enforcing the pre-existing ones.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Hello Nanny state.

123 dead in the workplace in Alberta in 2011, most of them in their twenties or younger. Some action seems quite appropriate to me. Obviously something isn't working.

[twofifty]

The regs protect us from ourselves in that without regs most workers will not speak up in the face of irresponsibly unsafe mgt. expectations.

It's the govt. mandated culture of safety that gives most of us workers the legal space in which to refuse patently unsafe working conditions, like deep trenching work in loose soils without proper shoring up.

Safe workplaces also buy the brash "it'll never happen to me" or "watch this" young 'uns the decade or so they need to mature in dangerous work environments - without dying first.

[Bobby B.]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

123 dead in the workplace in Alberta in 2011, most of them in their twenties or younger. Some action seems quite appropriate to me. Obviously something isn't working.

I doubt you'll find anyone who believes nothing should be done. But exactly what should be done and to whom is the issue. Other than stating obvious generalities, what do you recommend?

Bobby B.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by Bobby B.

I doubt you'll find anyone who believes nothing should be done. But exactly what should be done and to whom is the issue. Other than stating obvious generalities, what do you recommend?

Bobby B.

Training
Alberta is a transient work environment with many jobs switching hands rapidly. Always people coming and going.the turnover rate on some sites is staggerring. Just not enough time for proper orientation and training. The way a fast paced economy works.

[spaded]

Originally Posted by Bobby B.

IMO, OHS can write up all the legislation they want in an effort to satisfy WCB and others. The only industry I can speak of with some authority is the roofing industry. A few years back, OHS presented roofing contractors with a questionnaire asking our opinion of whether or not safety lines would increase the safety of roofers. Of everyone I spoke with, contractors and shinglers alike, all were in agreement that a roof interlaced with ropes would create a much greater safety hazards than it could possible reduce. Nonetheless, OHS pushed it through. Obviously, some ******* somewhere needed to remove the responsibility from elsewhere and place it on the shoulders of the contractors.

As an employer, I can stress the use of safety lines all I want, but I can't be at every roof all day long to ensure my workers are tied off. Nor can I hire someone to stand at every jobsite all day long and force the roofers to tie off and remain tied off.

IMO, the overwhelming source of safety hazards is drunk or stoned workers. No one on my jobsites is allowed up on the roof if there is any suspicion that they are impaired. I don't hire drinks or stoners to begin with, those rejects can go complicate someone else's business.

As a business owner, you can establish all the safety measures you should but, in the end, the worker decides whether or not to follow the rules. Why today's workers need to be stoned or drunk to make it through their work day is beyond reason. IMO, about the last thing we need is to legalize marijuana and further increase the problem of stoned workers.

If stoned contruction workers are acceptable, why not stoned surgeons? Best thing would be for the stoned surgeons to operate on the stoned workers. That would be just.

Bobby B.

Why cant you hire somebody to ensure your guys are working safe? Curious to know why not? Is it Cost? or is it going to slow your crew down which takes money out of your pocket? Or you just dont want to and cant afford to look out for safety and you expect your guys to follow the safety rules?

[Bobby B.]

Originally Posted by spaded

Why cant you hire somebody to ensure your guys are working safe? Curious to know why not? Is it Cost? or is it going to slow your crew down which takes money out of your pocket? Or you just dont want to and cant afford to look out for safety and you expect your guys to follow the safety rules?

It's because I don't want and because I hope all my guys are crippled on the job. You figure it out.

Bobby B.

[huntsfurfish]

I think it is a good thing.

Will make the workers "more responsible" for their own safety.

And if paired with management/owner fine may finally get the point across.

People working safely should have no problems.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

I think it is a good thing.

Will make the workers "more responsible" for their own safety.

If a worker who is experienced gets hurt because he ignores rules he knows, I'm not too concerned, but sometimes such a guy ends up injuring/killing others.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

If a worker who is experienced gets hurt because he ignores rules he knows, I'm not too concerned, but sometimes such a guy ends up injuring/killing others.

Yes that would be worse.

[Vingiu]

Instead of giving OH&S the power to fine noncompliant individuals, how about just giving them the ability to sack the incompetent buffoons who allow such noncompliant individuals to be hired in the first place? That would have a much deeper resonance in the industry, in my opinion. If you hire the right type of people in the first place, you won't have these issues.

[spaded]

Originally Posted by Bobby B.

It's because I don't want and because I hope all my guys are crippled on the job. You figure it out.

Bobby B.

Ahhhhh I see....

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Vingiu

Instead of giving OH&S the power to fine noncompliant individuals, how about just giving them the ability to sack the incompetent buffoons who allow such noncompliant individuals to be hired in the first place? That would have a much deeper resonance in the industry, in my opinion. If you hire the right type of people in the first place, you won't have these issues.

So instead of issuing fines you want to give the government the right to fire any of your employees they see fit.... hmmmmmm. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.