Equipment works, but only if workers use it properly
On a typical workday, about 700 Canadians sustain eye injuries while at work, according to estimates from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB).
These injuries often result in lost time and, in serious cases, the temporary or permanent loss of vision. While some natural protection exists — such as a bone cavity, eyelashes and tears — additional precautions need to be taken in the workplace with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
But as sophisticated as PPE has become, safety consultant Alan Quilley said one major barrier still stands in the way of worker safety.
"The physical part of making something safe is pretty straightforward," he said. "We have many, many techniques and many tools available to us to protect our eyes. It’s actually getting workers to follow the necessary procedures that is the challenge in safety."
Experiential learning and activator behaviour consequence are to blame, Quilley said. Employees base their actions not on safety policies but on the consequences of their actions.
"You see signs, you know the rules and then you make a choice. Whatever happens next solidifies whatever behaviour you’re likely to have," he said. "So if the first time you completed a task, you got something in your eye and it was really uncomfortable, you probably would think about that forevermore."
Each time an employee safely completes a task without using the necessary protective equipment, however, the belief that this equipment is unnecessary is reaffirmed.
"The hard reality is the object that might hit your eye doesn’t care how many times you got away with it," Quilley said. "Just because you didn’t splash anything into your eye the first 20 times doesn’t mean the 21st time it isn’t going to happen. You’ve correlated your life experience to increased probability when the probability hasn’t changed at all."
In this way, Quilley explained, taking chances with protective eyewear is like rolling the dice. Each time an employee works without the necessary protective equipment, there is a real and unchanging chance she could be seriously injured.
The most efficient method of engaging employees is to execute safety policies "with" workers, rather than "to" them, he said. The best way to combat experiential learning and activator behaviour consequence is to involve employees in the creation of safety policies, said Quilley.
Employees who contribute to workplace safety policies are far more likely to follow them, Quilley said, because they are forced to use their own experience and expertise to identify and address concerns.
"Give workers all the data you have and ask them what choices they would make. People will make their own choices about behaviour, so why not help them make the best one?" he said.
It’s a model that takes time, however, and Quilley believes many employers choose instead to simply hand workers a manual for the sake of efficiency. But efficiency without effectiveness is not the best formula for safety.
"It’s not perfect and you’ll still have outliers," Quilley said of the behaviour-based safety methods. "But to be as efficient at being effective as we possibly can, it’s going to take non-traditional approaches."
Going beyond the traditional requirements is just as important after an eye injury has occurred, according to CNIB.
In addition to filing the required reports and informing the necessary parties, employers need to provide support to employees following an injury.
"A supportive environment where colleagues understand the nature of the injury and how it has impacted the worker’s vision and performance will facilitate the return to work," said Usha Kumar, a CVLT low-vision specialist at CNIB.
Necessary accommodations following a workplace eye injury might include a gradual return to work or the modification of the type of work being done, Kumar said. Involving employees in additional approaches to develop support and understanding will build on existing workplace policies and create a deeper understanding of the issues.
