Why is responsibility for safety responsibility the responsibility of the company?

After the accident, who is responsible for the pot in the end? If the safety of the company is neglected, everyone will put the pot on the head of the company. But is this true and reasonable? Mr. Wang Liang, in line with practical work experience, stood in a different perspective and looked at the responsibilities behind the accident.

1. An accident of electric shock

This is a small factory with only 20 people and it is not very automatic.

In the past few days, the factory workshop has been unable to move. Suspected electrical lines have problems. There should be leakage. The company hired a professional electrician from the outside for inspection.

The electrician short- circuits the leakage protection switch to help identify problems . Then check the socket connectors one by one under live conditions, and then open the wire trunking to check if the wires are broken. In the inspection process, a broken wire was encountered and the electrician was electrocuted.

The electrician made at least two mistakes.

First, without wearing protective gloves, and not maintaining enough caution, in the knowledge that there may be electrical leakage in the electrical circuit, it is also necessary to hold the wire by hand to pull the pull;

Secondly, the inspection of electrical lines without power interruption is a live operation, and special personnel are not supervised according to regulations. If there is someone monitoring, if there is an electric shock, you can immediately switch off and power off and call someone for first aid, which may not cause casualties.

The question now is: Does the company have any responsibility?

After investigation, the company did not establish an electrical maintenance safety management system, did not establish a safety hazard investigation system, did not establish a safety training system, and did not establish a safety production responsibility system. And in fact, companies have never conducted any investigation of security risks and did not provide employees with three levels of safety education . Many of their counterparts have thus concluded that companies should bear the responsibility for poor management of the accident and should be given heavy penalties!

2 , the company does not bear the responsibility of the accident

This is a case of a production safety accident that happened several years ago. Of course, the details are slightly different.

I presided over the accident investigation team, and during the discussion of the case, I made a concerted effort to determine that the deceased took full responsibility for the production safety accident and did not punish the company.

Of course, the treatment of work-related injury insurance for the family members of the deceased will not change, and the amount of the pension received will be a lot, because the treatment of work-related injury insurance will follow the principle of no-fault.

This will take great political risks. Many people cannot understand our approach. My idea is that companies should not be allowed to have the original sin of safety production, and no accidents should be held liable for corporate responsibility for “ineffective management”. This is also the first “typical” production safety accident case that I did not punish companies after handling the accident.

In the three or four years since then, at least 10 deaths in our jurisdiction have not been investigated for corporate responsibility. As far as I know, in many places, there have never been cases in which companies do not assume responsibility for accidents and are exempt from punishment.

3 , the reasons for the company's exemption

What is the responsibility of the company for this accident?

Analyze the responsibility of the accident from the analysis of the cause of the accident. One incident constitutes the cause of the accident. There are two basic requirements: one is causality and the other is fault. Both are indispensable.

For example, if an accident unit evades taxes, it is a fault, but it has no causal relationship with the accident and does not constitute an accident. For another example, if the accident unit does not arrange for the deceased to work, then it will not be an accident. There is a causal relationship between arranging the deceased to go to work and the accident, but there is no fault in arranging for the deceased to go to work, so it does not constitute an accident.

There are two points in the dispute as to whether this accident should be investigated for corporate responsibility:

(I) Whether the leakage of electrical lines constitutes a direct cause of accidents

The aging of electrical lines is an unavoidable and unpredictable fault. Any equipment may exist. The electrical leakage of electrical circuits does not constitute faults in itself. It is only faults that cannot be discovered or discovered in a timely manner.

The accident unit discovered the electric leakage fault of the electric wire and arranged electrician to rectify in time, this is the correct work arrangement, there is no fault. Therefore, although there is a causal relationship between the occurrence of electric leakage and accident, there is no fault, and it is inappropriate to identify it as the direct cause of the accident.

Since the electrical leakage of electrical lines does not constitute a direct cause, the occurrence of an accident is not due to “the insecurity of things”. Then the occurrence of the accident is not related to whether the company has carried out a safety hazard investigation and whether it has established a “safety hazard investigation system”.

We cannot be held responsible for failing to conduct security risk investigations.

(b) Whether the wrong behavior of an electrician is related to the safety management of the company

Some people believe that companies do not establish electrical line maintenance and safety operating standards, did not establish a safe production education and training system and pre-service safety education and training for the deceased, leading to the deceased illegal operation, so the company has a responsibility.

This reason is not valid. Electrician's homework is a special job that is very professional. It must be specially trained and authorized by the state to obtain the “Special Operation Certificate” before it can be used for work.

The deceased took part in special training and obtained an operation certificate, indicating that he had acquired relevant safety knowledge and skills, and the company did not need to organize training separately. For example, the drivers of our Safety Supervision Bureau can get on the road by obtaining a “driver's license”. Nor have we heard that the Safety Supervision Bureau will also need to separately establish safe operating procedures for drivers to drive and separately organize safety education and training.

As regards guardians who are not arranged, this is also the knowledge that trained electricians should know. He should take the initiative to ask this requirement to corporate managers.

Therefore, although the company did not establish a safety education and training system and had a major fault in safety management, the fault did not have a causal relationship with the “unsafe behavior of the deceased person” in the accident.

The safety supervision department can investigate and punish this fault of the enterprise separately, but it cannot justify the investigation of its accident liability.

To clarify the above two points, the accident investigation team's colleagues have agreed with my opinion: the company should not be responsible for accidents!

4 , Do not let companies bring the original crime of security accidents

As long as an accident occurs, the company must be responsible. This kind of inertial thinking that allows the company to bring "original sin" is not allowed.

Recently talked with the head of a company. I am a good teacher and I teach how to do a good job in safety management. The person in charge grinned, "In fact, I did a good job in safe production. I was responsible for accidents. We must impose administrative fines and blacklist."

I said: "That would not, a fatal accident occurred recently in a pharmaceutical factory. The pharmaceutical company should do a good job. The provided equipment environment is in line with national security technical standards. Each position has a safe operation procedure, and According to the regulations, safety education and training will be carried out because the company has fulfilled its responsibility for the main responsibility for safety production. The accident was actually caused because the deceased seriously violated the rules, so the accident unit was not held accountable.”

This person in charge gave his eyes a glance and his enthusiasm for safe production immediately rose. He said: "This is good, so that our business will have more confidence in doing a good job of safety."

Yes, children have poor academic performance. The teacher will say: Just try your best. After all, the talent of the children is such that it is very compelling. He breaks jars and breaks, not the United States.

It is also true that enterprises engage in security, as long as they perform the main responsibilities of the performance. Even if the final result is "bad", the government should not be held responsible for any accident.

In the event of an accident, the company went online and said that the company was “guilty” at all times. This simple and crude handling method has done great harm to the safety production work!

5. "Learn from lessons" depends on the investigation report that can stand the test

We know that the court's accurate judgment not only provides a good account of the parties, but also provides a useful guide for the entire society.

By the same token, a safety accident investigation report that is scientific, reasonable, calm, rational, and not subject to public opinion and victim's emotions is a clear account of the parties concerned, and also provides direction for other companies to do a good job in safe production. If the investigation report is subject to the victim's tragic accusations and media hype, it would be awkward to say, "Why do you want to add to the crime?" The so-called lesson learned from the accident is impossible to talk about.

In recent years, several major accidents in China, including the “ 8.12 ” major explosion in Tianjin and the “ 12.20 ” landslide accident in Shenzhen , the investigative report written by the investigating team was not flattering. The analysis of technical reasons directly becomes a direct cause and does not tell the fault.

Only the “indications” of the accident units and grassroots supervisors were known, and there was no causal analysis. The introduction of such an investigation report will not allow people to correctly learn the lesson of the accident, and it will not be able to provide correct guidance for future safety work. It is really bad!

The information in this article is from the Internet, and the content viewpoint only represents the author.