(Forwarded) Talking about a question I shouldn’t be thinking about

Thread Content

Talking about an Issue That Shouldn’t Be My Concern 2016-12-01 Shi Yunliang Within less than a month, two major accidents occurred one after another: the explosion at a coal mine in Yongchuan, Chongqing on October 31st, which resulted in 33 deaths, and the construction accident at a power plant in Fengcheng, Jiangxi on November 24th, which caused 74 deaths. These incidents once again drew attention to the issues of safety and accountability regarding safety measures. As safety professionals, especially those at the grassroots level, how should we approach this? This article is written for communication. 1. Regarding accountability: I know a friend who holds high ideals when speaking – China is a one-party state, and accountability is imposed when problems arise; it is a mechanism for self-discipline. In multi-party systems abroad, when problems arise, those in power resign (such as Park Geun-hye in South Korea who resigned voluntarily or was forced to do so); this is a form of public oversight mechanism. Therefore, it is inevitable for China to hold them accountable. So, how can accountability be enforced? Who should be held accountable? Who will be held accountable? Different departments have different approaches. For example: **the entity responsible for accountability, the superior authority of the entity, and the administrative jurisdiction**. Safety accountability: safety supervision (comprehensive supervision), other functional departments (there is not much accountability in this area at present), and the enterprise’s safety departments and safety personnel. However, there are also cases where no such accountability is enforced; for example, organizational departments that fail to hold officials accountable in the event of accidents, as well as public security and transportation authorities as well as transportation management departments that do not hold those responsible for traffic control accountable in case of traffic accidents. But things have changed now; the media has exposed the cracking down on corrupt officials, with buying and selling official positions considered crimes, and accountability is being pursued. It seems the police have not held anyone accountable for the traffic accident yet. It’s important to know who will pursue it. **Giving the authority for safety accountability to the Safety Supervision Bureau is a great demonstration of trust in it. However, the safety supervision agency is accustomed to holding itself accountable, which can be seen as being strict with oneself and lenient toward others. **There was a former director of the Work Safety Administration named Li Yizhong; it is said that he employed a three-step approach to holding people accountable: illegal operations, abuse of power for personal gain, and negligence or dereliction of duty. It is said to be highly effective. He also has a famous saying: Saturdays guarantee no rest, but Sundays do not guarantee rest. It is said that he really did a great job. Under this three-stage and proverbial approach to management, **safety supervisors are overwhelmed, as are the enterprise safety professionals.** This is perhaps why the article titled “WeChat ID XXX: XXX’s Hopes after the Fengcheng Power Plant Accident” was written. Actually, these topics shouldn’t be something for me to think about. Therefore, the title of this article is “On a Question I Should Not Be Thinking About”. 2 As for holding people accountable, increasing the safety factor and pursuing intrinsic safety are things that no one opposes. But real life is not like the Olympic spirit, which strives for \"higher, faster, stronger,\" nor like the space exploration spirit, which aims for \"absolute success at all costs.\" Because such pursuit requires extremely high economic and time costs. At the current stage, **the actual practice among companies is to find a balance between safety and production. However, when holding someone accountable, no consideration is given to whether there is a balance point or whether that balance point is reasonable; rather, it is the outcome that matters (the outcome that occurs under any given conditions). This is a huge flaw in safety accountability and safety awareness! But we can’t change. Perhaps, conversely, even if the balance point is reasonable, do those who die in accidents really have to die? Can’t there be some other explanation? I really don’t know what to do about this. That’s why I said “On a Question I Shouldn’t Be Thinking About.” The balance point: different organizations and different surgeons in charge of safety have varying understandings of what the balance point is; furthermore, differences in a company’s economic and technical capabilities lead to different choices regarding where this balance point should be located. A forging company in the group, after having implemented various safety measures for its equipment and operations, asked: What else can be done? This is the balance point he strives for. A machinery company in the group has placed its cooling oil tank at an intersection not far from the entrance to the factory and installed impact barriers there; is this acceptable? This is the balance point he strives for. One of the companies in the group is an injection molding enterprise; there is a high risk of explosion due to carbon black dust used in rubber processing. However, the company states that it has strengthened software management, which represents the balance it strives to achieve. In the above three cases, in addition to the knowledge and skills of the safety personnel, corporate awareness and financial capacity are also key factors. Security professionals working in specific companies must, when there are no other alternatives, make sure to leave behind security traces that can be traced legally. Remember! This is the only thing that the security personnel can do beyond what they are already doing. I ask everyone who reads this article to carefully examine their own security footprint. In my lecture, I discussed a case of emergency response following a fire on a natural gas transport vehicle inside an × highway tunnel. Due to its emphasis on safety, this company requires accident simulations and post-mortems to identify weaknesses. I will be the team leader, with two officials from the procuratorate serving as team members (experts + procuratorate); this setup should ensure authority. If an investigation is indeed carried out, this will be the investigation team. Corporate systems, individual behavior, ad-hoc decisions, safety records, policy foundations, technical standards, safety facilities and equipment, etc., are the points for investigation. Please check whether the safety responsibilities assigned by the enterprise to itself meet legal requirements and are appropriate for the actual conditions of the enterprise, whether technical standards are followed, and whether safety facilities and equipment are suitable. What needs to be changed should be changed immediately. Never take it for granted, and never consider it sufficient to simply copy a system from a security intermediary agency. Arbitrarily speaking, any organization that simply copies a system and hands it over to a company is an irresponsible one; such organizations should never be approached again in the future. Perhaps, without meaning to, he pushed you into a \"pit\". Since the system belongs to the enterprise rather than an institution, one of the bases for holding someone accountable is the enterprise’s system. “The article titled “XX’s Hopes after the Fengcheng Power Plant Incident” on WeChat account XXXX complains about the safety oversight authorities being held accountable, noting that the basis for holding them accountable is also the regulations established by those authorities or **. 3 Also mentions holding people accountable. In my experience in security work, I’ve found that many corporate leaders and security professionals are not familiar with security concepts or technical standards. In the event of an accident, if held accountable, one can suddenly find oneself targeted. In the dust explosion incident that occurred in Kunshan, Jiangsu in 2014, the owner claimed innocence, saying, \"I don’t understand anything about safety; I hired someone to handle it.\" But it was of no use. Some safety officers fail to identify potential hazards or propose safety requirements; when an accident occurs, they are held accountable with no way to avoid responsibility, and end up being blamed as well (for failing to fulfill their duties). To put it more deeply, if one refuses to learn*, they bring the consequences upon themselves. The Chongqing Regulations on Work Safety specify safety responsibilities in greater detail based on the Work Safety Law; everyone should study them carefully. These regulations expand the range of departments, enterprises, and individuals that can be held accountable. Please carefully understand the safety \"related persons\". The above are the three approaches to holding someone accountable. **At the organizational level, corporate level, and individual level. We can’t do great things, but we must do well those things that are within our control. For things such as responsibility systems, records, and safety knowledge, it should be under our own control.