Sept. 11, 2003

Worker safety at the Lab

The recent safety emphasis by Laboratory Director G. Peter Nanos is important, but insufficient. As we saw under [former Director] John Browne, who repeatedly emphasized safety, words don't get you there. Nanos points out that, in spite of a blizzard of words, safety at the Lab is not up to snuff. I suggest three reasons that this is so, none of them targeted by Nanos.

First, accountability of management. When workers see managers removed for safety infractions within their organization, they will begin to believe it is serious. Instead, as in the case of Efren Martinez, the managers responsible for the accident were given large raises and promoted. The Lab tends to praise managers openly and discipline secretly. This is fine in some cases, but will not work most of the time. When employees see managers removed, or fired, for safety problems in their organization they will begin to take it seriously. Until then, it's just talk.

Second, the disparity of treatment within the Lab culture. From sub-contractors I know the following hierarchy emerges;

1. Subcontractors must conform to procedures as they are watched by the Lab and KSL personnel;
2. KSL personnel are "self inspected" for safety issues, so they do "wink-wink, nod-nod" inspections;
3. Lab personnel are notorious for their contempt for procedures, including wearing sandals and casual head gear in construction zones. No one dares to challenge Lab personnel. To prove the point, my "sub" friend took me on a "windshield tour" of construction sites. We saw KSL personnel in obvious violation of safety mandates. This needs to change. Subcontractors, the "bottom of the barrel" must be able to report to Lab, and KSL, safety infractions and "make it stick." The hierarchy must be broken.

Third, and perhaps most important, true representatives of the employees must be involved in "walk throughs." This does not mean management. OSHA regulations were not passed by management, which opposed them. They were passed by unions. Unions, comprised of workers, will always care a lot more about worker safety than management will. Their priorities are different. Get unions involved in the walk throughs and accident investigations. This means UPTE for Lab employees and craft unions for the rest. Until unions get involved, which has been hotly resisted by Lab management, it's just more talk.

None of these points were noted by Director Nanos, thus I believe that the Lab is still not ready to take the "Next Step." Perhaps Nanos should go spend some time at the bedside of Efren Martinez, to see what Lab management is capable of.

--Chris Mechels