The Safety Man Cometh, Article Critique Example

When the author had first begun working for the construction company in the 1970s, he noted that the only safety measures taken were minimal requirements to avoid fines by OSHA. However, it appears that even the most basic safety requirements were avoided. The author explains that the employees hadn’t received any safety training, most positions didn’t require fall protection, there were no PPE requirements, and no employees were CPR or first-aid trained or certified. This was extremely detrimental to the health of the workers, as there would occasionally be fourteen or more accidents per year. However, since there were no fatal accidents, the company managed to remain under the radar of OSHA.

When the company was purchased by a new owner, many safety initiatives were implemented that would both ensure employee safety and increase the profit of the firm. The most important modification implemented by the new management team is that a safety manager was hired. This was a step in the right direction because rather than avoiding OSHA, this initiative was meant to ensure that all OSHA policies would be implemented. Thus, safe practices would be emphasized in the company and continuously regulated to ensure maximal safety on the work sites. After the safety manager had been hired, fall protection was immediately emphasized. This was followed by safety training, record keeping, and employee incentives.

The basis of Mundy’s role to that of the “safety man” compared to that described in chapter 2 is similar. Essentially, both points of view emphasize a “safety man” as one who ensures that OSHA regulations are followed. Therefore, their responsibility is to observe work practices and determine whether they are safe or not. If they are found to not be safe, they must determine what adjustments should be made. If these adjustments aren’t made appropriately or in a timely manner, it would then be necessary to report the unsafe practices to OSHA, which would result in a fine to the company. The major difference between the role of “safety man” described by Mundy and the one described in the textbook is due to the fact that the experience that Mundy describes is truer to life.

Mundy’s account of the construction site and his evolution from an ordinary worker to a safety manager emphasizes the difficult decisions that safety professionals must make in real world settings. This is different from what could be learned in any textbook because textbooks cannot adequately prepare you for interactions that must occur with actual workers. In Mundy’s example, he demonstrates that it was difficult to adapt to his role as safety manager because many employees were upset with his new policies. In order to change their opinions about the changes that had been made, he attempted to explain to them why the changes were set in place and how they would benefit both the workers and the company. While some workers agreed with Mundy’s point, others were frustrated and upset and decided to leave the company. The major difference in Mundy’s account therefore, is that it demonstrates to us how safety managers must act when there is employee dissent. Their primary goal is the safety of their workers. After this, they must convince the workers why these policies are necessary. If this is not successful, the employees should either be fined or replaced with individuals who are willing to work safely.

References

Goetsch, D. L. (2011). Occupational safety and health for technologists, engineers, and managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mundy, R. D. (2003). The Safety man cometh. Professional Safety, 43-46.

OSHA. (2003). OSHA Facts. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Labor.