Episode 157: One Size Fits All

Dr. Mark French discusses the contentious topic of OSHA's "one size fits all" approach to lawmaking. He emphasizes that while this standardized approach may sometimes seem rigid and frustrating, it is fundamentally designed to protect workers and prevent fatalities. Dr. French acknowledges the common criticism that such laws do not account for the unique circumstances of different industries or organizations. However, he argues that these regulations are based on extensive research and data, often written in response to significant human harm and workplace deaths.

He uses the analogy of speed limits to illustrate his point: regardless of the vehicle, the same speed limit applies to ensure safety. Similarly, OSHA regulations set a baseline for safety that organizations should meet or exceed. Dr. French underscores the importance of these laws as the first layer of defense in protecting workers, suggesting that good organizations should strive to go beyond mere compliance to mitigate risks more effectively.

In the second half of the podcast, Dr. French talks about the real-world implications of these laws, sharing examples of workplace fatalities and injuries that could have been prevented by adhering to OSHA regulations. He encourages leaders to view these laws as a starting point and to implement additional safety measures tailored to their specific risks. He also touches on the role of new technologies in enhancing workplace safety, despite their current high costs.

Ultimately, Dr. French advocates for a balanced approach where organizations use OSHA's regulations as a foundation while actively seeking ways to improve safety practices beyond the legal requirements.

Transcript

Mark French: 0:04

This week on the podcast, we're talking about the argument of OSHA's one size fits all approach to law making and how that protects our team and what more we can do about that. This week on the podcast, you

Announcer: 0:35

welcome to the leading and learning through safety podcast. Your host is Dr Mark French. Mark's passion is helping organizations motivate their teams. This podcast is focused on bringing out the best in leadership through creating strong values, learning opportunities, teamwork and safety. Nothing is more important than protecting your people, safety creates an environment for empathy, innovation and empowerment. Together, we'll discover meaning and purpose through shaping our safety culture. Thanks for joining us this episode and now here is Dr Mark French. You

Unknown: 1:20

Hello

Mark French: 1:27

and welcome to this episode of the leading and learning through safety podcast. Thank you so much for joining me. I am honored every time that someone that you have chosen to take 20 minutes of your day and listen to me talk about safety and leadership. I appreciate it. I thank you for it, and let's jump right on in. So what I came across was last month, there was a bunch of hearings on Capitol Hill in the house, regarding OSHA, regarding a lot of things OSHA, some of it was around their ability to make their own laws without governmental approval, and make their own interpretations. That's something that's going to keep going for a while. I expect that we're going to keep hearing about, keep having to really see what happens from that standpoint. But the other approach is an argument that has been around for a long, long time, and that is that OSHA's approach to law making is one size fits all, and one size fits all just doesn't work. I I understand it. I have been there as being around the industry, yeah, there are times Absolutely, have I been frustrated by the OSHA law and the letter of the law and having to comply with it, when I know that I've created a risk, mitigated approach without it, sure I've been there. Has it happened very often? No, not really. At the end of the day, when I really looked at it, when I really evaluated it, yeah, following the law was probably a better approach. And I'm not gonna say that. I'm not gonna say better. I'm gonna say it was a fine approach. It worked at the end of the day. It did not cost me any extra to do it, other than some thoughts and some methodology, and it worked. I also think about other laws that are written as a one size fits all approach, and I'm going to use a really bad analogy, but I'm going to use this one in hopes that you'll just follow with me and hopefully understand where I'm going. Speed limits, if you're on a highway and the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, it doesn't matter what you're driving. It doesn't matter your safety record. It doesn't matter anything else about your car or you, or your ability or anything else. If you're speeding, you could get caught, whether it be a big truck, a small car, electric vehicle, gas powered motorcycle, all the variety. It's one size fits all, and it's there for a key reason, and that's protection from harm. The OSHA laws are written the same way they are the first line of this many layer, hopefully many layer, defense that you have as an organization to protect your team. It is the very first line. It is the baseline. It is the lowest common denominator. It is the lowest bar set that has been well researched. We'll talk about that in just a second. But it's the lowest bar set out there that prevents human harm, significant injury from human harm and death. Why? Because we don't get an OSHA law until a lot of people have died. I'm just being blatantly honest when someone stands in front and says every. One of these laws are written in blood, the blood of innocent workers who were just trying to make a living for themselves. It's true, every law has tons of tons of data, real world data that says we should do it this way because it cost people their lives. And as I look through the news today is I just do a basic search of occupational fatality or work and death or just death, and then sort through for for anything that looks work related, still happening, still a violation of OSHA, all of the injuries I read with very, very few exceptions, very few. There was a law written that they should have been following that would have protected that person from death. It's right there. And so this argument of one size fits all truly bothers me, because I've spent probably one I'm a little sensitive. I've been dedicating my life to this for the past 20 something years of understanding these laws and helping companies in organizations implement these laws in a fair and respectful and hopefully well used like beneficial way, because our ultimate goal is a good organization, and I wish it was the goal of every organization, but it's not, and We see that in the worst cases of the news for good organizations and good leadership, their goal is to go beyond that one size fits all is to be a little bit better, to find where the risk is at and mitigate that risk based on what they need to do. And so when I read the and I see electrocution after electrocution, and incident of falling debris or falling items from a crane, or where they were moving some sort of material and it fell and hit someone or other, all kinds of unfortunate injuries and fatalities that happen, the law would have protected from that. And again, when we look at the good organizations, when we look at those, the real leadership of people, leading people in a real way that's meaningful, we look at what the law says, and we go, yep, that's our baseline. We're going to meet that baseline now. Where is the risk of the rest of the risk, and how do we go after it? How do we figure out what pieces that risk needs more? And we go into that, that's where it's really going to start to create that difference of that one size fits all. The law was written that way. Because again, we go back to the idea that it was here to prevent fatalities. It wasn't. The idea was not to be the best, to set the bar the highest, to be the the multiple layers of protection that's really needed in a good organization to create a Safety Foundation. It's a very basic process and laws that are in place that say, do these things, because we know that statistically, the time after time after time, these have led to worker fatalities. These have these have resulted in significant injuries to workers, things that have debilitating injuries, that that are completely dramatically life affecting. That's where it begins to really make that difference. That's where that one size fits all has to be there, because by the time we started legislating all the things in between, and all the little exceptions we're truly dealing with, in my opinion, like the very, very tip of the bell curve, we're not addressing where the real problem should because we have some still big problems out there, heat, regulation, ergonomics, things that still are unlegislated, but causing a lot of loss and a lot of human suffering that are unaddressed, that need to be addressed. So rather than working in the tiny bits of the tiny percentages of the exceptions that may, and without studying may need to be there. It's a huge assumption, and it's a great it's a great piece of political rhetoric to say we don't need OSHA because it's one size fits all. Not to get political. I'm not here to argue politics, by no means. But what I don't like is making an assumption when every day I see the impact of what a good safety program versus a not good safety program can do for humans, for people, for our people, the people that we employ and have around us and need as part of this social system. I. Talk more about this one size fits all approach. On the second half of the leading and learning through safety podcast,

Stinger: 10:07

you are listening to the leading and learning through safety podcast with Dr Mark French,

Commercial: 10:16

dsda Consulting. Learn you lead others. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is an amazing tool. Problem is that it can be easily misinterpreted. Dr Mark French is MBTI certified and ready to help you discover your inner strengths. The MBTI assessment can help with team building, stress management, communication, conflict management and so much more, individual and group sessions are available to help you discover what makes you great. For more information, visit us on the web at tsda consulting.com

Mark French: 10:55

and welcome back to the second half of the leading and learning through safety podcast. This week, we're talking about the OSHA one size fits all approach, and how that's continued to be an argument for years and years about why OSHA just there shouldn't be laws or there should be removed or changed. And I look at the news, and I look at a basic Google search of occupational fatalities or work death or just search death or accident, you'll find a number of them that come up as when you read it deeper industrial, whether it be and this week, and especially, I'm seeing quite a bit of electrocutions from experienced electricians to tree trimmers and other various items that unfortunately, it's sad that in a line of work, in a line of business, that you just get used to seeing those types of accidents. And I categorize that very generally. And I don't mean it to be funny. I don't mean it to be sarcastic. I truly mean it that this is something that every day, OSHA professionals, safety people and leaders who care about their people. When they read the news and they see it and they go, Wow, that feels typical for our industry, like I've seen that, I know of that, I've heard of that. I've known someone affected by something similar to that that's tough, and it's sobering to what we do every day is people who lead people. They're real people who need real leadership every day. So we continue on, and we look that there was all kinds of incidents that happened, whether it be again I talked about crushing, electrocution, construction incidents, and it just continues and continues when you search these things. And I've said this a few weeks ago, that it's interesting that there's a profession that's made to be the prevention of to save human life, and we talk so much about what cost human life in the prevention steps that could have been done that all the construct, all the things that we could do. Construction Worker hit by a beam. There was crashes, automobile accidents that happened frequently, that are a cause of that. And then more and more. And when I look at that as a leader, and I said, What can we learn from this? We can learn that one if we can follow the law, even though it's one size fits all, even though it can be highly inconvenient, even though it it can have all these other things that don't seem right, don't seem well, don't seem to fit, don't seem to work. It's the best we have right now for holding the line and holding that very big bubble that says, Here is the line that's not, absolutely not acceptable with the idea that, please, if you want to be a good company, if you want to be a good organization, if you want to be responsible in socially aware of what you're doing. Do more, do a little bit more. Sometimes, in some cases, meeting the law is enough. Like you meet the law, you've done what you need to do. It's reduced the risk. And here it is. It's really about how much do we quantify the risk. How big is the risk and how much can we reduce it? Maybe the laws enough, in some cases, depending and here's, here's where the law isn't one size fits all. Here's where you can make it to fit your organization, the best way possible. And that's to look at the laws and go, which ones fit a. Us enough that we can just do the base legal and we've reduced our risk to an acceptable level. The law has got us there. We're good at this level. And then look at the other points of risk in your organization and go, you know, the law is a good start. It gets us somewhere, but we need to do more. That's not enough to reduce the risk level that we have a tolerance for. We want to do more as an organization. We want to be better as an organization. And I'll let's start with Fort trucks. That is one that I have a lot of experience with. I've worked in a lot of different warehouses, a lot of different styles, a lot of different methods, a lot of a lot. Let me put it that way, and I know I'm still not exceptionally well versed. I will say I still got every time I walk into a warehouse, every time I walk into a new location, every time I go to a new trade fair or OSHA seminar, I learn a little bit more, because there's big, heavy, forked vehicles running around with people, and the law gets us in some training. It gets us in how to handle it. It gets us around rollovers. It does a lot. In a lot of cases. We should be doing more. We should be looking at, I love some of the sensors now that have the so many feet around it, and if you get within the zone, it'll beep, or it'll stop, or do something to prevent having lots of mirrors, having lots of visibility, having items hanging from the ceiling now, with photo identifiers that say something is coming, you need to stop All these extras that the warehouses do beyond because they know the risk is not fully mitigated by just following the law. I think that's a great example of where good organizations go for more they see that the law gets them so far, and then they move on in an organization that has very few or enters very few or refuses to enter confined spaces. And I've been a part of a few of those that are just like, hey, confined spaces. We don't want to do them. We don't want to touch them. Guess what? The law is, more than enough. We teach, well, how to identify it, and we teach not to go in it, and we don't do it. There we go. The law is enough for drugs. On the other hand, maybe not. We need all these extras. We need all this technology, and some of the AI technology that you can fit on powered industrial vehicles to prevent human harm. Wow. Some of it's coming along very well, and it's very interesting, and unfortunately, it's also still very pricey. They'll be honest. New technology. There's an opportunity to capitalize. It'll get better. There'll be more competition. There will be better. And I think it will really take it to another level of safety in warehouses of where too many times a vehicle and a person meet, the person doesn't win, never, never, because it's you look at these and they look like they're made for doing some some hurt. They look intimidating, they look a little bit dangerous, and they do a lot of good work. And if you can use one skillfully, wow, it's awesome. I've I am not skilled. I am skilled at watching. I am not skilled at actually performing, but that's a great example of how we set that tone for our company. We as leaders, look at it and say, what is the risk? What is enough risk? Where do we need to go more? Let's make this fit us. Let's take what's there and let's make it fit rather than and here's my final thought, Do we really want the government regulating all of that for us? It I don't see that as getting better. I see that as being very legalistic. We have the approach. Let's do it to the best of our ability. Thanks for joining me on this episode of the leading and learning through safety podcast. Until next time we chat, stay safe. You.

Announcer: 19:26

Music. Thank you for listening to the leading and learning through safety podcast. More content is available online at www dot tsda consulting.com all the opinions expressed on the podcast are solely attributed to the individual and not affiliated with any business entity. This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes. It is not a substitute for proper policy appropriate training or legal advice. This has been the leading and learning through safety podcast. You.