September/October 2006
In the eight months since ReMA began the “Safely or Not at All” campaign, we’ve seen an overwhelming outpouring of support. Faced with the unacceptable human losses plaguing the industry, our members have joined the cry for change and demonstrably backed the movement to make the scrap recycling industry safer.
Given the lack of dissent, you might assume that support is unanimous. I hear only the right words, but I have to admit that it would take more guts than most of us can muster to stand up in a crowd and say, “This safety stuff is a bunch of bunk; there’s no way to make this industry safer.” I’m beginning to wonder, though, if many members are thinking just that.
Here’s why: In the six months since we started asking our members to sign the ReMA Safety Pledge, about a third of ISRI’s 1,400 members have taken that step. Our board of directors has soundly endorsed our improved safety efforts, but even some board members have not signed the pledge.
In most cases—certainly insofar as the board is concerned—I believe the failure to sign the pledge is simply an oversight, just one of those things that slipped through the cracks. (If that’s your case, you can stop reading this column and correct the oversight right now. Go to www.isri.org and click on Safety to download a copy of the pledge.)
But there are others, I know, who are purposely withholding their signatures. Those are the people who concern me. Though a few truly don’t care about their employees’ safety, others have some principled reasons for not signing, all of which, to me, seem misguided. The two objections I hear most frequently are nearly contradictory: one, that the pledge is powerful enough to create legal liability; and two, that it’s completely meaningless.
The most frequent objection I’ve heard is that the pledge creates additional liability for companies that sign it. While I am (somewhat proudly) not a lawyer, I do take issue with this logic.
Let’s review what the pledge actually states: “[Company] is committed to providing a safe and healthful workplace to our employees. As members of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc., we pledge to consider worker and customer safety in every decision we make. Our mission as a company is to serve customers and produce high-quality product safely.
If we cannot do it safely, then we will not do it at all.”
Sure, some smart lawyer might try to use the pledge to argue that industry acceptance of it creates a higher safety standard, but so what? By meeting that raised standard, you will improve the safety of your operation, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of your having to confront that smart lawyer in the first place. The good far outweighs the bad.
The pledge is a statement of basic values—a commitment to treat employees and customers as human beings and not merely as revenue streams. If you won’t agree to work “safely or not at all,” you’re saying it’s OK to expose people to unreasonable risk.
If a worker or customer suffers an injury at your facility, legal action is almost inevitable. Wouldn’t it be better to show the world an underlying commitment to safety—even if it was, perhaps, inadequate—than to show no commitment at all?
The second-most-common objection—that the pledge is just meaningless words—bugs me the most because it reflects the kind of cynicism that can kill even the most progressive cause.
The words mean no less than the inspiration that guides them. Pledging to put worker safety on the highest possible plane focuses attention on employers’ obligation to send their workers home whole and healthy. The pledge communicates a company’s commitment to a goal that historically has eluded this industry. But you have to articulate that goal before you can achieve it.
There’s also a practical side to signing the pledge. Our industry’s accident/injury/loss history is inescapable. If we don’t tackle this problem on our own, with a groundswell of support from within our membership, we can expect others to tackle it for us through legislation, regulation, and court rulings. Nobody wants that to happen.
The solution, then, is for ReMA and its members to get out in front of the problem and start making the hard decisions that result in tangible change. Signing the ReMA Safety Pledge is your mandate for us to take on the challenge. Refusing to sign the pledge—for whatever reason—is your vote to keep us on the bloody trail of the past.
— John Gilstrap, ReMA director of safety
In the eight months since ReMA began the “Safely or Not at All” campaign, we’ve seen an overwhelming outpouring of support. Faced with the unacceptable human losses plaguing the industry, our members have joined the cry for change and demonstrably backed the movement to make the scrap recycling industry safer.