HSE People - Health and Safety Community

I am saddened by the number of contractor fatalities and injuries in high risk and remote environments , there seems to be a huge gap between an organisations permanent employees and contractors.

I would like to know from the contractor community why this ratio is so different and what organisations could do to low contractor fatalities and injuries.

Is it about the on-boarding process or the management of contractors?

If you could change or influence the on-boarding or management what processes would you recommend.

My organisation manages the life cycle of outsourced contractors and we have recently been brought into high risk environments through our customers, we believe there is huge opportunity to influence processes around safety and compliance and we believe every contractor deserves to go home.

I would love to hear any recommendations, thoughts on whether it is possible to implement and govern on-baording especially in remote locations and general comments on the on-boarding of contractors into high risk environments and whether in your experience you were given the necessary training to complete a contract safely.

Thanks

Toni

Hi Toni - welcome!

Your post opens up on a very wide range of underlying issues that are common to the "contracting" business throughout the world.

Even in countries that have strong laws governing these areas of business; the real problems arise from the perceptions of the relationship between the contractor and their client [especially where that client is a more influential contractor [in the UK they would be a "Principal Contractor" & generally be in charge of the whole job].

There is no single issue here, but there are a range of common issues, most of which will be present in most contractor/client relationships. There simply isn't enough space here to effectively discuss these issues properly; but they tend to be based on the principles of ultimate dispensability of contractors, distrust, inequality of values of permanent v contracted staff, & the perceived outcome of a contractor reporting any lost time or damaged plant events [normally result in financial loss to contractor or loss of contract].

I would be happy to respond further if you wish.

Frank Hallett

Hi Frank

Thank you for your response, you are right " contractor management" is complexed and whilst there are many layers of issues it appears that your underlying reasons are more around attitude of the client. Frank, what has worked for you in beginning to change this attitude towards contractors, especially since the use of contractors is only going to increase due to the boom in energy?

Regards

Toni,

The whole emphasis on contractor control should be managed by PSCS/CDM coordinator in the UK/IRL.
But if the scope and timeframe is not right from the outset, then this leads to different objectives from the client, principle contractor and the project management team.

John

John is quite right about the principal management focal point here; however, I must point out that the CDM Co-ordinator is explicitly not required to "manage" the Principal or other Contractors - they are the Clients tool for ensuring appropriate planning, co-ordination, identification of resources and how well the contractor will meet the range of defined Project needs.

The "down-side" is that we have a national UK culture of having a prescriptive and controlling approach to managing contractors that is exacerbated by a woefully low range of appropriate mangement skills in many areas of construction. The norme is now imposition [and often accompanied by micromanagement] by the Client and Principal Contractor that is supported by draconian reactions to any perceived failure to meet any Performance Indicators [also generally imposed].

This simply creates a climate where many who work as, or for, contractors see absolutely no benefit in admitting or identifying errors and consequently generates a climate of distrust and secrecy - when this is identified it is then used as the reason to reinforce the prescriptive regime.

Also, I see a considerable number of manufacturing & office sites where contractors are routinely used; many of these will impose the same rule on all but have differing standards of compliance and punishment for staff and contractors for the same transgression - again, no way to gain any faith or trust from the group [normally contractors] who know that they will receive more harsh treatment for the same failure.

Notwithstanding my comments above, it has to be recognised that there are many contractors that actually deserve to be managed in such a way due to their corporate and individual attitudes to acceptable levels of HSF&E compliance. But I would say that this is an issue for responsible contractor recruitment!

Please don't translate the above as being an approach intended to lessen the requirements of the emminently sensible legislation; it's not! But the above scenarios are all-to-common and should be recognised, rather than ignored, by those that create them.

Frank Hallett

Frank
Thank you for your comments, I'm not that familar with the role of the CDM co-ordinator.
The role of the PSCS in Ireland is to ensure all contractors on the project implement the construction regulations and also to ensure cooperation between all contractors on site.
I agree with your thinking on the draconian measures taken by the management, but it is very difficult to benchmark the construction industry against others.
The reason is the workers are only employed for the lenght of the project and cultures, expectations and performance will vary greatly.

John