88���ֳ�

According to David Caruso and Lisa Steiner of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, although ergonomics is not a currently regulated field, many mines are beginning to realise that the only way to tackle their most costly injuries is to make workplace changes to prevent them from occurring.

For the mining industry, it can be reduced to sheer economics: the cost of workers compensation for what the two refer to as “cumulative trauma” far outweighs what it would cost that same operator to put ergonomic solutions into place. Because of that, a formal program to reduce strains and stresses is vital.

Unfortunately, there are several obstacles to successfully placing such a program at an operation. One of those is the old adage of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

That approach is poor, according to Caruso and Steiner, because the paradigm being used to think about it is incorrect. Rather than a workplace injury only being considered the result of an acute incident, it should also be looked at for the possibility it may have been the result of prolonged exposure to hazards.

Inaction can also be perceived as showing disregard for employees, when often the real reason is that the designated safety personnel are overloaded.

Once an operation opts to incorporate occupational ergonomics, however, the commitment level to the effort can vary and can certainly encompass the entire workforce at a mine. With this team effort in training and encouraging, “no one person has to observe all tasks all the time”

That can also be followed through in many ways. Some operations will opt to have ergonomic concern cards, while some will suggest workers observe others doing their same job to note specific actions. “Considering how mine workers are always looking out for their buddies on the job, it should follow that reporting problem job tasks … could be presented in the same way as machine guarding or other occupations,” they said.

Caruso and Steiner discussed a hierarchical method of risk management strategies to help tackle ergonomic issues. As each step goes upwards, trust between workers increases along with knowledge.

The five main steps comprise the pathological (“who cares as long as we don’t get caught”); reactive (“safety is important; we do a lot every time we have an accident”); calculative (“we have systems in place to manage all hazards”); proactive (“we work on the problems that we still find”); and generative approaches (“safety is how we do business around here”).

It is at the “generative” final stage where everyone is involved in risk management and is working to maintain their own safety and health as well as others, according to the researchers.

“There are many characteristics of these stages not addressed here, but this is a summary of what a company might expect as it moves towards a more generative risk management approach,” they said.

“The first step in achieving generative status is to understand what information is needed and how to educate employees to help themselves and their co-workers.”

Communications mapping, or the pathway in which safety and health information is being disseminated at operations, is the most effective method to ensure the messages being sent out are being equally received. The pathways that must be defined are how the information is obtained, who possesses it and what that person/s does to circulate the information.

Technologically, the options are open for the broadcasting of information, from online information and classes to offline conferences and seminars, person-to-person communication and classroom materials. Who ultimately is chosen to be the disseminator is at the discretion of an operator and can depend on the message’s urgency.

In this case, communication is truly the key. NIOSH, they said, is currently working to communicate with equipment manufacturers to educate them on the principles of ergonomics and to potentially recommend better design ideas. “The idea is not to point out that manufacturers are purposely providing poor design features, but rather in some cases they are not educated to know what potential problems a design can have,” the researchers said.

The greatest disservice, obviously, is to take no action at all. It should be taken into consideration that there are consequences, economic and in relation to the workforce, to not thinking about one’s own wellbeing and that of others.

“If you are not a vigilant watchdog for the risk factors associated with back injuries for example, the potential pain and suffering to the worker and the lost time and cost to your company can be enormous,” Caruso and Steiner said.

“But if you are thinking how to make each task more conductive to proper posture, reach and load consideration, then you will catch more problems before they result in an injury and work to ‘build better jobs’.”