European unions: ISO 45001 would scapegoat workers

http://www.ishn.com/articles/100052-european-unions-say-proposed-osh-standard-would-scapegoat-workers

[…] “Behavioural safety doesn’t resolve workplace health and safety problems, it buries them. It finds workforce scapegoats, not management solutions,” said the ITUC in a statement. […]

[…] The standard was initially expected to be adopted before the end of 2016.

See also: http://blog.psybel.de/kategorie/referenzen/etui/

Incestous Audits


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAZF9TJrC_E

Published on Nov 11, 2014
Andy, the auditor, lets you in on a secret in the new ISO 9001:2015 standard.

I know companies where internal auditors do audit their own work or, at least, the work of close colleagues – and the external auditors as well as the accreditation authoritiy knows about it. That’s how the audit business can be run in Germany. The auditors keep covering up the nonconformities of the work of their department.
They did not comply with ISO 9001:2008 which demanded that auditors do not audit their own work. How does the ISO deal with that? ISO 9001:2015 makes incestous audits more enjoyable: “The organization shall select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process”. That is more difficult to measure. It can be measured by auditors who audit their own work. The incestous auditors will find ways to be happy with their work or the work of their close colleagues. ISO 45001 probably will inherit this disease. Who audits these auditors?
See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=”ISO+9001:2015″+”ISO+19011″+”impartial”

Global Compact ist kein Verhaltenskodex

http://blog.psybel.de/offensive-betriebliche-mitbestimmung/#UNGC (aus diesem Blog)

[…] Die Vereinten Nationen bieten mit Global Compact ein Programm an, bei dem sich Unternehmen auf eine sozial verantwortliche Unternehmensstrategie verpflichten können.
Beispiele wie in Bangladesh oder Pakistan zeigen jedoch, dass CSR oft nur auf dem Papier existiert und es ein weiter Weg von der Selbstverpflichtung zur konkreten Umsetzung ist. Gelingen kann die Umsetzung nur, wenn die Interessenvertretungen der Beschäftigten in diesen Prozess einbezogen sind. Auch die Betriebsräte in Deutschland können dazu einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten. […]

 
https://www.amnesty.de/umleitung/2002/deu07/034

[…] Der Global Compact ist bewusst nicht als freiwilliger Verhaltenskodex oder als bindende Regelung konzipiert, sondern soll als Dialog- und Lernforum wirtschaftliche Akteure zur Respektierung und Verwirklichung der neun zentralen Leitsätze bewegen. Vielleicht gerade weil der Global Compact kein Verhaltenskodex oder gar eine verbindliche Regelung ist, wird er inzwischen von mehr und mehr Unternehmen unterstützt. […]

 
Anregung an Unternehmen z.B. bei der Auswahl von Fluggesellschaften, die die Mitarbeiter nutzen dürfen:

  • Es darf nur mit solchen Fluggesellschaften geflogen werden, die COPs veröffentlichen.
  • B2B-Vereinbarungen werden nur mit Fluggesellschaften abgeschlossen, deren Arbeitsschutzmanagementsysteme von ordentlich akkreditierten Auditoren nach Standards wie OHSAS 18001, ISO 45001 (2016?) oder ILO-OHS usw. zertifiziert wurden.

 
Links:

ISO 45001:2017

http://isqem.wordpress.com/safety-management-iso-450012016/ (2013-12-08)

The clocking is ticking as we look forward to OHSAS 18001 becoming an official ISO standard, known as ISO 45001. […] The new standard will be official[ly] called ISO 45001:2016. […] 

  • ISO 45001 will be different from OHSAS 18001 and not necessarily better. Don’t neglect the small but important details. Example: In OHSAS 18001:2007, clause 3.8 is not only about physical ill health, but also about mental ill health: “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation.” In the committee draft the definition of “ill health” has been omitted completely.
  • “The new standard will be officially called ISO 45001:2016.”
    Really?
    How about ISO 45001:2017?

 


Admittingly, “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation” is not a good definition, because ill health of course can be caused by reasons which are not related to work. But this is no excuse for omitting the definition of “ill health” completely.
My proposal is: “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by various causes.”

The Myth of the Integrated Management System

http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/the-myth-of-the-integrated-management-system/

by Christopher Paris | Apr 22, 2014 | Opinion |
Our profession is awash with myths, told by dubious people with overt agendas and gobbled up by an unsuspecting public. The problem with myths is they usually come from cultures in decline, while progress is driven by fact and practicality. Ask the Mesopotamians how that whole Marduk thing worked out; you’ll have to dig in the ruins of Babylon to find out, since it doesn’t exist anymore.
Shmowzow!
Within the ISO standards world, we are constantly confronted with the notion of the “integrated management system” or IMS. Like the mythical griffin, Quetzalcoatl or Ancient Psychic Tandem War Elephant, the IMS is an amalgam of existing creatures, all glued together and presented as if the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It supposes that companies opt to weld their qualty, environmental and safety management systems into one bulging mass, using ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 to do so. The most recent versions of the myth decorate the resulting amalgam with nurnies of ISO 22000, ISO 27001 and an assortment of other standards. […]

[…] Now it is through the Annex SL mandate, affecting all ISO management system standards from here to eternity.
ISO itself has begun to self-perpetuate the myth, going so far as to incorporate it into the New Work Item Proposal for the future ISO 45001 standard, which is set to replace the OHSAS 18000 standard (which is not an ISO standard.) That document drops the “i-word” a few dozen times.[]

I couldn’t stop drawing your attention to this.
See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=”Annex+SL”+”ISO+45001″

European Unions fend off ISO 45001 draft

http://www.etui.org/News/Unions-fend-off-draft-occupational-health-standard

7 November 2014
Unions fend off draft occupational health standard

A draft international standard on health and safety at work failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority vote in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) committee developing it on 18 October. It will now have to be reviewed and voted on again. This is a battle won by the unions against provisions that would leave workers worse off.

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) spoke out against the draft standard (ISO 45001) on occupational health and safety management systems in mid-October, claiming that it is at odds with International Labour Organisation (ILO) occupational health and safety (OHS) conventions. The ITUC’s call was backed by Public Services International and other international trade union federations who had been critically monitoring the standard’s development and even questioned why there should be one.
The ITUC argued that the draft was designed to shift responsibility for any workplace safety and health incidents onto the workers when worker participation in OHS administration and management had been written out, and that adopting it could lead to “a blame-the-worker system”.
“Behavioural safety doesn’t resolve workplace health and safety problems, it buries them. It finds workforce scapegoats, not management solutions”, inveighed the ITUC in a press release
By contrast, the draft was particularly business-friendly. A July 2014 version omitted any reference to employer responsibility for OHS, something deeply unwelcome to the ILO which had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the ISO in August 2013 stating that the standard should not be inconsistent with ILO conventions which, like EU laws (the 1989 Framework Directive) require employers to ensure the health and safety of their employees.
The ITUC reports that only four of 83 experts involved in the working group hammering out the draft are from workers’ organisations.
The standard was initially expected to be adopted before the end of 2016.The unions have no plans to let up the pressure because this simply delays, not defeats, the standard.
While the early decades of the ISO’s existence were focused mainly on developing technical standards, the past thirty years have seen it venturing increasingly into other areas. In the late 1980s, the ISO adopted its first standards on quality management systems – the well-known ISO 9000 standards – followed by others on the environment, human resources management, etc., some of which are in direct competition with legislation, particularly in social matters. Standards of course are private instruments with no legally binding authority, but in fact, a growing number of laws do refer to them, sometimes leaving no option but to implement them – a trend condemned by the ETUI in an issue of its HesaMag health and safety at work magazine published in early 2013.
Read more:

Die Google-Übersetzung ins Deutsche ist natürlich mit Vorsicht zu genießen. In ihr taucht auch den Begriff “Gesundheitsmanagement” auf. Das ist tatsächlich als ein Nebenziel der Norm ISO 45001 in der Diskussion. Mit Blick auf Unternehmen, die in Deutschland mit einem eher verhaltensorientiert angelegten Gesundheitsmanagement den verhältnisorientierten Arbeitsschutz zu marginalisieren versuchen, könnte der Einbezug des Gesundheitsmanagements in eine ISO 45001 nicht so menschenfreundlich gemeint sein, wie das auf den ersten Blick aussieht.

KAN: a German trade union voice in standards

http://www.etui.org/en/Topics/Health-Safety/HesaMag/Standardization-what-roles-for-the-unions -> http://www.etui.org/content/download/9798/87904/file/HESAmag_07_EN_p24-27.pdf

spring-summer 2013/HesaMag #07
Special report 15/25
KAN: a German trade union voice in standards
Standards are developed by private standards organizations working very much to the agenda of manufacturers and much less in the interests of workers who use their products. Germany’s Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and Standardization (KAN) has been trying for nearly 20 years to put this situation right. It upholds the interests of various stakeholders in health and safety at work, and so also gives the unions a voice.
Ulrich Bamberg, Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and
Standardization (KAN) […]

Actually, “KAN: a German trade union voice in standards” is not quite true. Also the employers are represented in the KAN. But both are interested in a high quality of worker protection. In Germany, the OHS-laws are quite strict. Without an ambitious international OHS standards German employers would have a competitive disadvantage.
In close cooperation especially with their French partners, the KAN also participates in the developpment of ISO 45001. (Article in German)

ISO bid to ‘privatise’ safety standards

TUC – Risks 677- 25 October 2014
https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/health-and-safety/risks-newsletter/risks-2014/tuc-risks-677-25-october-2014

ISO bid to ‘privatise’ safety standards
A draft standard on safety management being prepared by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) could be seriously bad news for workers, unions have warned.
When ISO decided in 2013 to proceed with its own international standard for an Occupational Health and Safety Management System – ISO 45001 – both the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and unions were alarmed, and objected forcibly to ISO’s intrusion. Unions say ISO does not have an expert mandate in occupational health and safety, and unlike ILO doesn’t have to listen to those who have. The latest draft of the standard, being steered through by a working group chaired by the British Standards Institute (BSI), heightened concerns, with mentions of “workers” almost entirely removed and “worker participation” not part of the package.
TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson commented: “We need strong standards on health and safety but we have ones already. These were developed by the International Labour Organisation and agreed with unions, employers and governments worldwide. They put workers and worker involvement at the heart of any standards.” He warned: “The attempt by ISO, led by the British standards body BSI, to develop separate standards which were not wanted by either employers’ or workers’ representatives, amounts to the privatisation of health and safety regulation. The unelected standards bodies, most of which have no involvement of people who actually understand the world of work, are simply trying to develop a product that they can market and make large sums of money certifying.”
He added: “I do not see anything in the current proposals which will drive up standards. Instead they will undermine the existing standards, including the management standards the HSE has developed in the UK, which are far better.” Sharan Burrow, head of the global union federation ITUC, said: “ISO must be made painfully aware that a standard that ignores the critical role of affected parties in its design and implementation, which undermines ILO standards already in place and which could give an ISO stamp of approval to blame-the-worker systems just won’t work.” She added: “This isn’t about a piece of paper, it is about workers. ISO would do well to remember that.”

 


Update 2015-04-02: One major critizism was “unelected standards bodies”. This may be the reason that BSI again opened the discussion to the public in March 2015. However, voting started before that discussion is finished. This turns the discussion into a farce. Seemingly BSI wants to stick to the introduction timing intended for ISO 45001 by all means.
Also I am curious whether measures have been taken to secure the required two thirds vote for the 2nd committee draft. Almost any kind of interested party can participate in the committee. That looks “democratic” at the first glance, but participation requires ressources (e.g. time and money). This could give employers the opportunity to secure two thirds of the vote just by spending the money to send sufficiently more business and industry representatives into the committee. This is plutocraty, not democracy.

Absolute control combined with zero responsibility

http://www.ituc-csi.org/iso-is-failing-the-standard-test?lang=en

[…] Under ISO’s new standard, company management would have absolute control combined with zero responsibility. It is an approach at odds with modern safety laws and all accepted and effective occupational health and safety management practice. The experts advising ISO knew that. But forget consensus; ISO is acting as censor. […]

The proposed ISO 45001 is significantly different from OHSAS 18001

In a ISO TMB 09/2014 “policy issues” document of ISO/TMB N 12 (2014-01-06) it was mentioned that the “concept of the fast-track” had been discussed. There was the question why “in key cases such as the recent ISO 45001 (OHSAS 18001)” with its 3 year time frame the development of that standard was not put on fast track. It was recommended to clarify and promote the fast-track as it is not well known or understood. “It was however felt that it was not suitable for controversial subjects.”
Adctually, it is clear that ISO 45001 is controversial. However, the “ISO 45001 (OHSAS 18001)” could imply that there is no big difference between OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001. But the standards are quite different. Interestingly, some elements of OHSAs 18001 which are missing in ISO 45001 did not enter the controversy yet. Didn’t anybody notice that there is no definition like “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation” in the ISO 45001 Committee Draft anymore? And in the definition of “incident”, the “(regardless of severity)” in “ill health (regardless of severity)” is gone.
 
http://www.prlog.org/12297585-the-definitive-guide-to-iso-450012016-published-by-fms.html

[…] ISO 45001 is to be based upon the OHSAS 18001 standard. The current version – OHSAS 18001:2007 is used as the basis for occupational health and safety management systems in thousands of companies around the world. The proposed standard is significantly different from OHSAS 18001; the structure, format and terminology of the new standard will be substantially altered. […]

PS: There already was a The Definitive Guide to ISO 45001:2016 (Issue one – January 2014, £30.00, http://www.fedms.org/store/p158/Definitive_Guide_to_ISO_45001%3A2016_%28PDF%29.html). The guide still may be helpful to understand the history of the coming ISO 45001.
 


2015-03: The 2nd committee draft still is significantly different from OHSAS 18001:2007. The high level structure (HLS) may be seen by formalists as an improvement compared to what OHSAS 18001 offers. But from the employees’ point of view, the content gives them less enforcable protection.