Document pB2NbB4jV5obBD118DQvL8Zo7

1907 National Safety Congress and sold by tho United States of America Standards Institute, 10 East 40th Street, New York, Now York 10016. Kumpei If anybody is interested, if thoy write me I will provido them with safety in formation regarding theso mills. 1 will also inform them of tho pertinent safety codes that arc in effect for their state. Gold: What can we do when lower man agement in tho plant does not core about safety while, at tho same time, top manage ment does care? Dcry: 1 believe that the most accurate answer to that question is that top manage ment is really not concerned about safety if lower management isn't concerned. Usually, when top management is concerned about accident prevention, they see to it that lower management is also concerned or they get rid of diem. Culoer: This is a problem that we havo had some experience with in our local union. We havo attempted to do (something about it. Our plant is too small tb afford a full-time professional safety engineer. The responsibility for safety is in tho hands of management and the local union; this usually means that accident prevention is in the hands of amateurs. In order to handle these responsibilities, we at first established a union safety committee and a labor-manage ment safety committee. These people really did a fairly good job. Because of this, many foremen felt safety was not their business; that it was tho responsibility of the safety committees. As a result, the foreman usually was the person least concerned. After discussion with management, it was agreed that tho foreman should be tho first line of responsibility for accident prevention. Previous to this, management felt that os long as wo had no lost time accidents, there was no need to take any of the foreman's timo from production to work on safety. We tried to negotiate a contract stipulating that the foreman has definite responsibilities in accident prevention. However, during nego tiations the company indicated that it would look bad if tho union had to force the com pany to accept their safety responsibilities^ so the company said they would issue a writ ten letter stating tho company would insure that the foremen are responsible for accident prevention in their departments. Delegate Nick Corondon, VAW, Local 1010: I am sure that some industries and unions are interested in safety. Howovcr, cvoryono is concerned to a certain oxtent. As long ns accident prevention doesn't conflict with production, everyone is for safety. However, when production must bo held up in order to correct n hazardous condition, the problem gets very sticky. We had a condition whero a scaffold was constructed quickly in order to repair a crane which had broke down. Tho workers and I felt that the scaffold was unsafe. I asked the management people if they would climh up on the scaffold and stand there while the men are working. They said they would not Then I recommended that tho men ask for release from the job, which can be done under our contract. Management re fused release, and the problem was grieved. Following the grievance procedure, we won the case, the scaffold was corrected, and the job was completed. This is just one example whero production and dollars and cents often come before safety. Theso are the times that the safety committeemen of the union must have guts enough to stand up and believe in their opinions. McCarthy, U. S. Steel Corp.: I would like to mention that all management isn't bad. A lot of times we hear of things that happen, that aro not dono correctly, and it is true that these are wrong. But I believe that this is a small percentage. I believe that where management is enjoying a low frequency nnd severity accident rate, they must be doing something right. There is a way of getting lower supervision interested in safety. Whenever wo havo a fatal accident, top management is a port of the investiga tion of the accident This mokes the lower supervision think. The top management in volved in this investigation will be from vice president up. This is probably one of the best mothods of ensuring that lower manage ment does handle their responsibility in nccident prevention, properly. Gold: Probably one of tho most effective ways of ensuring that lower management is interested in accident prevention, is to go di rectly to top management. If top manage ment is concerned, lower management will 6e forced to be concerned. Until you get ac cident prevention coming from the top down, the program isn't worth anything. An example of what can be done if top management is serious about a good safety program is the case of a large company pur- 34