” No risk does not exist. » This sentence often serves as the ultimate argument when a company, an employer or an executive is faced with a fatal workplace accident within its teams. The expression reveals a determinism that we must not accept regarding the life of an individual in the exercise of his professional activity.
The idea that work can kill due to inappropriate pace, poorly used equipment, insufficient training, recklessness or excessive pressure is not inevitable. The series of articles that The world devoted to this phenomenon shows that, in most cases, it is negligence, non-compliance with rules, the race for profitability, excessive recourse to subcontracting or the addition of all these causes, which are at the origin of tragedies that must be avoided at all costs.
To do this, it is necessary to understand the phenomenon in all its complexity. It’s a challenge. The scourge rarely makes the headlines. Too often, workplace accidents are relegated to the status of news items. The extent of the phenomenon tends to be underestimated. By seeking to dilute responsibilities, by systematically hiding behind intimacy and private life to explain a suicide, by first denouncing the inappropriate behavior of the employee before questioning the work environment and the level of security of the position, the statistical reality ends up becoming incomplete. Remedying the situation firstly requires having reliable and exhaustive figures.
Death at work is all the more unbearable because everyone is not equal in the face of risk. This is a phenomenon which affects workers more than managers, temporary workers than permanent employees, subcontractor employees than those working for the principals. Some employers also do not hesitate to use young and inexperienced workers, who do not always have the means or the presence of mind to challenge unacceptable safety conditions. Fighting against the trivialization and acceptance of precariousness also means improving safety at work.
Change your mentality
The repressive aspect exists. But it still proves insufficient. The effectiveness of controls to verify that companies have done everything in their power to avoid accidents is hampered by the low number of labor inspectorates. The number of companies prosecuted and convicted of involuntary manslaughter remains extremely rare. When convictions are handed down, most of the time, they are against legal entities, leaving the victims’ families in a certain frustration at not seeing those directly responsible for the accidents punished. As for fines, their amount is not sufficiently dissuasive for large companies.
Acting only on the repressive framework will not allow for in-depth transformation. A change of mentality must also be carried out. As long as security is seen as a cost and not an investment, changes will remain marginal. The levers for improvement are known: technical solutions, adapted work organization, hammered messages and ongoing training. Safety at work is everyone’s business, including customers, who must not accept that their projects take place in poor conditions in order to save money. If zero risk does not exist, it is up to each of us to make it an objective.