Time to stop killing workers

How much time do you spend worrying about killer asteroids of the sort that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? The UK government was worried enough to set up a task force on the subject, which reported last month that we needed to take action now. If we see the asteroids in time, we might be able to deflect them, with some scientists saying nuclear weapons could do the trick.

And how likely are we to collide with one of these killer space objects? Asteroids 1 km in diameter, which would strike the earth with the force of 10 million Hiroshima bombs, can be expected every 100,000 years. But as Dr Harry Atkinson, a member of the government task force, said: “The risk is very small. But if that was the risk of an accident in a nuclear power station, we would spend a lot of money to reduce that risk.” The asteroid task force tells us a lot about attitudes to risk in modern, developed societies. However remote the risk, governments and scientists believe they should do something about it, even if the danger is one that ancient civilisations would have regarded as an act of God, or of fate.

Aviation: a stark contrast

And the public expects it too. Previous generations might have put death or disaster down to bad luck. But we, the current generation in the developed world, are a fortunate lot who know little of war or famine, and we expect governments, or someone, to protect us from ill-fortune. Any disaster is followed by an official inquiry, a list of recommendations and a promise that “it must never be allowed to happen again”.

Take the aviation industry. When, after 24 years of accident-free operation, an Air France Concorde crashed into a hotel outside Paris, killing 113 people, the French grounded the world’s most glamorous aircraft. It took British Airways three weeks to follow, and then only after safety regulators insisted. Many Concorde travellers think BA should have acted immediately. Whatever Concorde’s safety record, when 113 people die it is time for cessation of operations and a full investigation, they said.

The construction industry can, of course, ignore the carnage on building sites, but it does so at its peril. A company which does not care about its staff soon finds it has staff who do not care about the company.

This is in stark contrast to the record of the British construction industry. In the 12 months to 1 April this year, 86 workers died on British construction sites, a 20% rise on the previous year. The construction industry accounts for 40% of all Health and Safety Executive prosecutions. And since April there have been further horrors, including the death of three construction workers when a crane collapsed at Canary Wharf.

Why is the industry’s record so poor? There have been attempts to redress the situation, including recommendations by Sir John Egan and new efforts announced last month’s Labour Party conference to toughen up penalties for safety breaches. Kevin Myers, chief inspector of construction at the Health and Safety Executive, earlier this year put the industry’s dire safety performance down to the drive for profits. The quality of building and profit margins have increased, but these improvements had been made at the expense of health and safety.

Why is the construction business getting away with this level of fatalities? Few other industries would. Perhaps it is because, while construction employees are in ever greater danger, the general public is not. British buildings are generally safe places for their occupants. But for how much longer? With unemployment at the lowest level for a generation, there is a war for talent. From internet start-ups to the education service, companies and organisations are having to fight to attract the most able staff. The question for the construction industry is: who will want to work in a business where the risk of death and injury is so high? In the current labour market, only the least skilled, which will inevitably affect the quality of construction.

The carnage must cease