Confidentially It’s Insurance

By D. Stuart McCreadie

While real-life dramas often surpass fiction in intrigue, the day-to-day operations in many professions remain largely unnoticed due to their perceived mundanity. Insurance is typically viewed as one such field. However, it’s not without its exceptions. Among the conventional ranks, a handful of field specialists find themselves in thrilling, high-stakes situations across the globe, navigating the complex world of financial coverage and advice.

This book offers a biographical account of one such individual. With nearly four decades of experience, their career spans three of the Western world’s leading and most innovative financial institutions. Their journey is marked by challenges such as navigating hostilities in global hotspots, dealing with civil unrest, overcoming travel barriers imposed by border controls and local laws, all while operating under the constraints of the Official Secrets Act. This narrative sheds light on the unexpected adventures and critical roles played behind the scenes in the world of finance.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Austin Macauley Publishers
• Release date: Jun 21, 2024
• ISBN: 9781398449220

D. Stuart McCreadie

Further dramatic chronicles and personal opinions concerning the author’s four decades in loss control and risk management whilst employed in both the manufacturing and insurance industries. An insight into those activities associated with a largely unknown occupation with the aims and objectives being loss avoidance leading to profitability.

Book preview

About the Author

Further dramatic chronicles and personal opinions concerning the author’s four decades in loss control and risk management whilst employed in both the manufacturing and insurance industries. An insight into those activities associated with a largely unknown occupation with the aims and objectives being loss avoidance leading to profitability.

Copyright Information ©

D. Stuart McCreadie 2024

The right of D. Stuart McCreadie to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by the author in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

Any person who commits any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

All of the events in this memoir are true to the best of author’s memory. The views expressed in this memoir are solely those of the author.

A CIP catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

ISBN 9781398449206 (Paperback)

ISBN 9781398449213 (Hardback)

ISBN 9781398449220 (ePub e-book)

www.austinmacauley.com

First Published 2024

Austin Macauley Publishers Ltd®

1 Canada Square

Canary Wharf

London

E14 5AA

Acknowledgement

Liability Underwriters at Cornhill/Allianz Commercial Underwriters, Management & Directors at Independent Insurance, PCG @ AIG. Ford Motor Company Loss Control & Safety Engineering, European Ops.

Synopsis

It was no easy task putting these chronicles together due to there being so many tales to tell about a career spanning four decades that took off shortly following 9-years in HM Forces that began as a fifteen-year-old army apprentice. Very difficult to imagine that as an eighteen-year-old combatant in South Yemen the author would reach the pinnacle in a profession that entailed surveying and risk appraising in very nearly eighty countries Worldwide that included some sensitive investigatory cases, access to which proving to be no obstacle due to the author being bound by the Official Secrets Act.

This same person who was sufficiently motivated and ambitious to embark on a new career, pursued further education without the help and guidance of others who by being a self-starter worked his way up to group executive status in the financial sector. During that period met two heads of state, saw and conversed with Oscar nominees on film set, visited key point installations, was held and quizzed by state security officials in three countries and was a guest in the home of a foreign minister while surveying overseas. There being no substitute for experience it resulted in the author being employed by three of the World’s largest insurance groups retiring at the ripe old age of seventy-two, with many a tale to tell about a largely unknown occupation.

Introduction

The thought never occurred to me that I could summon up sufficient memories to write a sequel to ’Mundane Insurance’. However, occasionally, someone, particularly from the past, mentioned something that they recalled me speaking of while on other occasions me listening to an account of an occurrence or reading of a recent event resulting in my work memories being suddenly refreshed due to an almost identical occurrence or, more than likely, a loss with similarities. Nonetheless, cynically my initial reaction to compiling more accounts of my time in both loss control and insurance surveying had me thinking and questioning whether there would be insufficient of real interest to fill a postage stamp let alone a complete book.

It is true that I had further experiences to relate about my Ford Motor Company days; yet I stalled as to me, it would have been a case of going back over old ground and therefore possibly less interesting than certain events in my time within the insurance industry. However, because I investigated so many accidents at Ford and equally as important identified the daily battle that goes on in any workplace between employees and employer, one inevitably begins to appreciate that there are marked cultural differences, these raising their heads particularly when loss control and prevention are involved. To that end, from my very first working day, I encountered them; consequently, I believe those experiences are worth recalling. Hopefully, others will find interesting as facts are to my way of thinking more engrossing than fictitious stories.

However, prior to that, to recap on my expansive role in loss control and liability surveying, being a bit of a raconteur, I would wherever possible put a light-hearted slant on an account, that was intended to grab the group’s attention, particularly when I found myself presenting at a technically biased loss control seminar. Ironically it was at such a seminar that my very existence and function caught the imagination of several foreign delegates who craved for more. The reasons being that many of my reminiscences were certainly beyond what those delegates considered insofar as being more intriguing and wider than those of an insurance operative, field or otherwise.

Having referred to my memories being refreshed there was no more important a time than that of my first insurance role where not only was I assigned surveying but within just six-months training responsibilities for both surveying and underwriting staff, as strange as it may seem. This training needless to add that did not entail specific underwriting but how both surveying and underwriting worked in tandem. However, expanding somewhat there were certain strategies and procedures adopted by the insurer that to me made little to no sense, this as I became more conversant with the role and the industry. Those I seriously question involved liability surveying recruitment and some claims handling appointments and procedures. Why I asked myself was I both while at Ford and during my insurance days requested to accompany claims staff following up on a loss, particularly in the UK? Regarding claims to my way of thinking the process should have involved personnel akin to CID or scenes of crimes inspectors, in short attended by experienced investigators as opposed to any claims handler largely office bound. Further, in law enforcement those involved quite logically came in at the bottom and with experience several, but not all, made their way to the top understanding that not everyone is suited to conduct investigations. My analogy, all being said and done, the police only dispatch highly experienced CID officers to investigate a serious crime and not a bobby on the beat.

Being fully au fait with the workings of claims they engage loss adjusters and loss assessors and just occasionally external inspectors obviously I suspect due to costs, not overlooking that not all those reports turn out to be favourable to the insurers. While at Ford their liability insurer's claims manager, based at the Dagenham Plant, would often call on me to accompany him. In attendance would inevitably be a claimant's representative cum investigator whose purpose was to view the scene and measure the credibility of safety engineering’s investigations and findings. Rarely did the visit entail one claim but as many as five on one occasion the result being both claims and the claimant’s representative agreeing, resulting in four of the five being repudiated and the fifth accepted as legitimate resulting I presumed in a settlement.

As a consequence of Cornhill Insurance's recruitment policy regarding liability surveying, they only twice in my 14-years engaged health and safety or loss control engineers from manufacturing industries. The liability head openly admitted he was guided towards former local authority health and safety officers, EHO or HSE personnel because these were familiar with the statutes governing the workplace and usually ex-graduates thus fitted the profile. In a little under two-years this same manager as an upshot of having to deal with continuing broker and insured complaints admitted that their adopted policy and source of recruitment failed with those principal surveyors imperfections being their lack of knowledge of work processes in many of the heavier trades plus an absence of soft and negotiating skills.

Cornhill underwriting simply divided up the UK and the Irish Republic map into five designated surveying regions assigning each a lability surveyor. Regardless of experience these individuals were required to conduct risk surveying and assessing a very wide variety of trades involving metal fabricators, textile mills, foundries, mines and quarries, civil engineering and construction sites, hospitals and care homes, forestry working, ports and docks etc. Possessing, in many instances, very limited knowledge of the associated manufacturing processes it caused those surveyors to concentrate on the insured's statutory documentation that resulted unquestionably in excessive survey time in the insured’s office. The upshot of this adopted strategy was those surveyors wasted precious site time by not viewing the production areas which in my opinion failed the insured as a business partner and our underwriters.

In contrast to Cornhill’s recruitment policy a number of other casualty insurers steered away from those surveyors due to other problems arising with the most obvious being certain individuals lacked tact and limited business acumen. As for the tact it was apparent that several of these inspectors cum surveyors never expected their opinions to be challenged while on site, that clearly as was the case during their days when employed in enforcement. On a number of occasions, I was required to ‘build bridges’ following GM complaints, that arose during surveys, where the insured and occasionally the broker were in attendance. The surveyor imposed a requirement to eliminate a perceived hazard but when asked to provide a solution and the likely cost involved there was no response. Simply put, just get on with it was my analogy. Never once in over four decades did, I ever meet or hear of an insured who wasn’t interested in being advised of any safety or health shortfalls in their workplaces providing that a practical cost-effective solution followed.

Another glaring case of impropriety which went towards damaging relationships involved the offending surveyor having inadvertently divulged important business dealings to a competitor of the insured. However, undoubtedly the worst betrayal of insured confidentiality concerned a director of an insured contesting the view of the surveyor regarding the need to upgrade an extraction system on one of their manufacturing lines. The surveyor departing the risk contacted his friend and former colleague at the regional HSE office informing him of the situation he noted during his liability survey. Armed with the information this Factory Inspector visited the risk and as subtle as a brick went direct to the item of plant in question identified the problem and served a prohibition notice on the business. Obviously enraged the insured contacted his broker, who in turn, as instructed, immediately cancelled the insured's policies followed by the brokerage sending a complaint to the GM and at the same time informing him they were cancelling their book of business with the insurers.

Saving the best to last involved a commercial printers, a long-time policy holder without a claim, where the actions of our surveyor gave rise to one. During the accompanied tour of the factory the surveyor came upon a non-functional multi-6-colour off-set printer and uninvited switched on the power with the view to see the machines characteristic and the safeguards, due to him being unfamiliar with this large printing press. Suddenly there was a scream from below the machine that came from a trapped engineer working out of sight in the inspection pit accessing the press’s transmission. Immediately the machine was stopped by another employee who heard the cry from his colleague. You just couldn’t make it up; the safety surveyor from the insurers injuring an employee of the insured, accepting it takes some believing but it happened. Resulting again in the underwriting executive having me to travel to re-establish relationships with an extremely irate insured.

While at Independent Insurance we too had a number of surveying complaints from both insured and brokers however these rarely amounted to much albeit two resulted in dismissals, on my recommendations, one ironically involved a former HSE inspector, due as much as anything their lack of diplomacy and intransigence on site. Not understanding that surveyors do not impose requirements, but the underwriters most certainly can and do thus it should never entail the surveyor laying down the law. However, believing all ex-authority surveyors were unsuitable would be incorrect because four employed at Independent Insurance proved irreplaceable, these represented about 10% of our total surveyor team, that were amongst the cream regarding mines and quarries, offshore, health service establishments and power generation.

Nonetheless all things considered the failing in recruitment regarding loss control and prevention personnel rested with those making the appointments. The policy initially involved the applicant's CV being viewed by a regional survey manager where upon on being considered suitable the applicant would in turn be interviewed separately by personnel and underwriting with either group or regional surveying having the final word, technically speaking. The system worked well by reason of out of the total team of twenty-eight, in a decade only three were found unsuitable, one former HSE inspector ironically holding a PhD. As for the other two, regardless of being considered experienced, by way of coming from other insurers, they simply proved to be technically incompetent and tardy.

All the while, to me it was all very much run of the mill following on from my days in Ford Industrial Relations loss control that embraced health and safety. Insurance claims people, the loss adjusters or perhaps even some surveyors, their work experience is limited insofar as never actually viewing the scene of an incident whereas in my case, responding to several emergencies, the casualties were still present. Not overlooking the fact that rarely if ever during a shift there would not be an incident requiring some form of an investigation and report. Realistically, given the numbers of employees in the plant numbering 6,500 working three shifts the senior duty engineer was assigned external services involving road transport, the rail head and the jetty. Examples of the initiation for safety engineers involved a forklift truck driver seen trapped beneath his overturned vehicle, an employee pronounced dead at the scene after a fatal fall, an amputated hand or digit with the missing part still to be found, or an employee covered with corrosive liquid being stripped and drenched with water from a fire hose or the removal of a worker’s body that fell off a dockside into tidal water subsequently being recovered apparently lifeless from the river yet being given artificial respiration? All very much in keeping with traffic accident police officers, fire crash teams and ambulance staff, attending the scene where for the most part the evidence or at least the scene remains undisturbed.

These types of occurrences and subsequent claims while not being so uncommon still do from time to time raise their ugly heads which through actual on-site experiences gives the industrial loss control engineer an edge. It is not as easy in some cases where the scene is so horrific that all the training and procedures are forgotten resulting in the investigation stalling. Recalling the forklift truck driver being trapped beneath his overturned truck, I was accompanied by one such recently recruited safety engineer. The onlookers and operatives in the immediate area circled the scene; I instructed the engineer to mingle with the onlookers with the intent being to find any eyewitnesses, while I circled the throng in the opposite direction.

Looking about, as by this time suitable lifting plant had arrived at the scene, I noticed that my colleague safety engineer was still glued to the spot—wide-eyed and mouth agape. This resulting in me suggesting that he returns to the safety department to get our camera, in fact I couldn’t think of anything else to wake him from his malaise. The point being that in accident prevention and loss control, the surveyor or engineer needs to be totally focused on the task in front of them as this is part of a sharp learning curve for which there is absolutely no substitute. To that end I feel constrained to lay bare my experiences, initially in my Ford Engine Plant days, when I was transferred to loss control.

Once during my early loss control days, I was accused of being a cynic at the scene of an accident there while conducting the investigation. This accusation coming from a worker who was bearing witness that his colleague was hurt due to negligence on the part of Ford Motor Company’s management. I responded by suggesting that no one is bent on laying blame, on the contrary my task is to find the cause and take steps immediately, if possible, to prevent recurrence, irrespective of who was responsible whether that be Ford or his workmate. In a quiet moment, away from the scene, I contemplated me being cited as cynical with at that time no bias one way or another, just doing my job in wider interest of workplace safety.

Then on reflection I tried to see the other's point of view giving due consideration to injuries sustained whilst that employee was carrying out assigned activities. Bias never entered my thoughts only that the worker experienced injuries resulting in pain and suffering. Never at any time thinking that the individual would be facing the prospect of losing wages, by being out of work possibly extending to weeks, perhaps even months. Further, I pondered as to whether or not there had previously been near-miss incidents or injuries where any noted malpractices were not eradicated due to the desired preventive measures not being introduced, adopted and enforced?

Then the opposite thoughts struck me; what if the worker was performing the task against job training and instructions, perhaps not utilising safety apparel further, had the individual been counselled previously, if so, did disciplinary action follow? Then with that a final thought I considered Ford’s position insofar as us facing prosecution for breach of statutory duties. Not for one moment considering the question of compensation, that would denigrate the issue where possibly disciplinary action could be taken yes, all giving rise to my cynicism. Of course, in time becoming aware of all implications, legalities, the attitude of the shopfloor and the claims culture it resulted in several people's opinion of me being a super sceptic.

Like anyone else it is impossible to avoid having human traits which in my experience gives rise to becoming ultra-defensive which is where I almost became judge, jury and executioner. Where this all came from was clearly my upbringing where I would irrespective of how it looked to my father it was never my fault. On some occasions however it was truly not down to me but would still give rise to punishment therefore to strike a balance I relied on the fanciful, which rarely worked. Consequently, I was really suited to my chosen profession when dealing with the good, the bad and the ugly.

Industrial Life and Shop Floor Culture

Only once in my entire career following my time with the armed services was, I ever fazed by the prospects of going back to the place of my employment the next day. At the beginning, that is following my discharge from the army, the only period, lasting three days, was in my very first job in civilian life that whence employed by a small fabricators. There within those three days, in point of fact during my second day, I was totally demotivated due to boredom and more importantly me seeing no clear career path ahead. All the while, just two weeks later at Ford Motor Company following the first settling days I thought incessantly about all the possibilities the personnel officer and tooling superintendent spoke of save neither mentioned the trades union. However, in truth I never even gave the TU and it’s representatives a second thought thus I was never disconcerted with my lot in the metal stamping and body plant, in fact I embraced everything in the main due to me being technically aware, well qualified and confident in my own ability.

It was because of my state of mind those odd hiccups, I suppose one always has to encounter one or two when settling into a new job, I accepted as the norm all the while those around me, my new workmates, surprisingly always seemed to have something to carp about. I exclude the younger toolmakers serving their apprenticeships and those recently qualified artisans, who like me probably had no obligations or commitments to speak of outside of the workplace while other more mature toolmakers seemed to have them in abundance. There again was another pointer as to cultural differences that existed even on the shop floor between skilled artisans. It is only in those settings, even with highly skilled employees, that one begins to see and understand where workers’ thinking is at and the extent.

As a consequence, in this chapter my intention is to cite the best and most telling incidents and occasions I ever encountered principally during those Ford days thereby providing undeniable facts that could only have been established by way of personal participation over a protracted period involving numerous cases. Ignorance is bliss as the saying goes consequently at the outset of my civilian working life, having only to consider myself, I temporarily put my ambitions and employment prospects to one side, not wishing to get ahead of myself. Nonetheless the difference between that fabrication concern and Ford was immense in every conceivable way from the culture to the politics where depending on their situation the workers’ thinking and attitude were in general poles apart. Collectively however those Ford employees were as one regardless of personal persuasions because with such an employer and environment the trades unions believed they ruled, and it was in that regard I often found myself battling against their representatives’ blinkered views.

In essence I wasn’t seeing or experiencing most of my work colleagues’ motives because of my age, little to no responsibilities and commitments one way or another. However, I did feel confident in my own ability why, what and where their motives emanated from, I had no inklings of. This in the main given there were those who never seemed bothered about anything either within or outside their employment taking everything very much in their stride, a free spirit springs to mind. Those I admired and lauded that was up until I began to have those very same responsibilities and commitments, this in sharp contrast to my nine-years in the services where all was found, on call twenty-four seven, even when on leave.

Now being part of a labour force regardless of one's principles the individual will unwittingly to a degree quickly integrate with the group with the intention of becoming popular amongst their contemporaries or at least not seen to ‘rock the boat'. When speaking of management, it is not so much about certain individuals but an employer where irrespective of them providing the employment that simply is not enough in fact the culture appeared to be to extract as much as one possibly can. In some cases, to a number of employees there were no boundaries with all manner of unprincipled initiatives existing with not so much as chastisement from the TU in fact they knowingly turned a ’blind eye’.

Probably despite my poor upbringing I simply in a manner of speaking kept my head down not necessarily to keep up with my workmates that was unless it improved my standings where my labours were concerned. Not once during that period did I begin looking for angles or dodges, resulting in me receiving unexpected financial rewards. Once I was on a par with the other more experienced artisans my attitude began to change, and I began seeing things differently insofar as being competent and looking for security as by then I like my older contemporaries had begun taking on responsibilities outside of the workplace. What I desired was more answerability and in truth status which as I recall resulted in my supervisor’s negativity who was playing the part befitting the opinion of the vast majority of those who reported to him. There was my first taste of bias and opposition to hourly paid which roughly translated in many worker’s eye was the reason why there was a union and its low opinion of salaried staff existed.

It goes without stating the obvious that I never quite knew what to expect when enlisting in HM Forces nor when beginning work at Ford Dagenham Engine Plant or moving into loss control later in my career and it was as a result of my nativity it took me so long to really get started. However, while progress was initially very slow it gained momentum rapidly when I began differentiating between trivia and essentials in both manufacturing and finance. None more poignant when commencing my days at Ford where everything was thrown into the mix appreciating that which is important to one doesn't necessarily have the same level of prominence to another. Even a close colleague of mine, a prominent trades unionist, during my hourly paid time at Ford, opined that the workplace was a battleground where there were no 'time outs' with there always being 'them' and 'us'.

While not being wholly convinced by my friend’s views I soon found that I had to adjust my thinking insofar as there were no boundaries where the two side's, employed and employer, thinking was concerned therefore rarely will there be common ground and a few years later the same view was quoted at me, almost parrot fashion, by a TU safety representative while I was investigating an employee being treated for near fatal injuries. However, at that time, with that very thought spinning around in my head, I decided it was time to move on within Ford alternatively bid them farewell, so my first port of call was the plant’s hourly paid personnel office where I registered my interest in a position of more responsibility.

For the record at Ford there existed both hourly paid and staff personnel consequently even in industrial relations there existed demarcation. My motive, of course, was that I get to decide my own future as opposed to some left-wing communists that were commonplace in UK industry at the time. Accordingly, it became apparent where I needed to be which was not amongst the rank and file where the aims and objectives of those involved were extremely narrow at least where their employment prospects were concerned. Once I came to terms with the shop floor mentality, I began to see things far more clearly which later where accidents and incidents were concerned was priceless. If a person has never been there, that being amongst the manual or industrial workers, then rest assured their contribution to loss control and prevention would be average at the very, very best.

For all those sceptical types, during that time, one had to experience the attitudes and actions of some of those politically motivated individuals to fully understand. At that point I arranged an interview with hourly paid personnel, through my supervisor, not divulging what the matter concerned, only that it was personal. Now in the presences of the hourly paid personnel officer, the occasion being the first since my job interview, my attire was very conservative comprising my white Ford logo quality control dust coat. I introduced myself adding that I wished to be considered for a staff position that completely threw him. Gaining his composure, he looked me up and down thus obviously cutting an image but negatively suggested that I was possibly a little on the young side to be applying for supervisory staff position. Adding yet another apathetic comment that I was somewhat raw in industrial life given my length of service. Being at a loss regarding my age, I questioned him as to what would be an appropriate age? This response, of course baffled him, resulting in a shrug. Feeling somewhat put out by his pessimism I continued to add to this now somewhat indistinct personnel officer’s embarrassment, suggesting that if I was to wait for an unspecified time, the next I would probably hear was that I am too old.

Knowing my remark hit home, again without reply, the personnel officer slid across his desk a staff application form for me to complete. He sat all the while in silence while I completed the form and on handing it back, he perused it and told me I should hear something within four weeks, if not to contact him again. At that very moment in time, I experienced my first taste of pigeonholing and lethargy that I took forward into my days in both, industrial loss control and belatedly insurance, when conducting post loss liability surveys or claims investigations. I openly admit that I never understood those class or cultural differences at the time, having left the army where from top to bottom it involved teamwork and a common goal irrespective of rank.

As for the ‘wheels of industry turning slowly’, referring back to my staff application, why I asked myself, does it take four weeks to process a document in one of the World’s leading manufacturers given that delay could prove critical in some instances, again something that could, without question, have a telling affect in accident investigations. In fact, while studying the associated legalities of my future role, there were changes in the adopted approach by the courts involving both solicitors and lawyers in the UK, where a statutory limit for a response was introduced designed to speed up the process to combat the mounting legal costs.

So, here I was left to wait four weeks for an acknowledgement, where if that policy was applied to an accident it could prove to be counter-productive, leaving the process open to abuse, not overlooking for one moment that there might exist a hazard resulting in further accidents waiting to happen. Ironically my scepticism was justified and having heard nothing in the ensuing month; unsurprisingly, there was I, once again, knocking on the personnel officer’s door. Bidding me enter and presenting myself, I could tell immediately he didn’t recollect our previous meeting, so I tactfully reminded him. Without reply, he took a lever arch file from the shelf behind his head, full to the brim with what were clearly completed staff application forms. This I hasten to add without the slightest hint of degradation.

The personnel officer now began thumbing through the file and located my application, at least twenty-five down, I was obviously counting as he leafed though as I felt sure I was being taken through a ritual. In fact, I concluded that I should be cautious regarding any excuses as I was certain with that backlog, there would be some coming my way. The situation that I am attempting to convey was an early experience that I faced, and an example of the processes adopted by even those in an organisation whose sole purpose is industrial relations, so significant in the day-to-day operations, including accidents and subsequently claims. This inattention to detail with a legitimate procedure had me recognising the shortcomings of the individual this as opposed to a legitimate company practice and procedure. What about all those other one hundred or so applicants, I thought, why were they not dealt with, by way of being courteously informed that they were unsuitable, no fitting vacancies, agism, education and so on.

Further in my deliberations, I couldn’t be sure, but it would have been interesting to have learnt how many of those applicants were still employed by Ford insofar as; perhaps, they had long left the company’s employ, even retired, I cynically surmised. This attitude and approach suggested that even in a responsible position, there are incompetents alternatively the workload is too much. This situation of course resolved itself by my promotion to salaried staff within the following three weeks but only when staff personnel got involved in my case. Thus, on that very point, a little later, I will report on allegedly two toolroom accidents that perfectly illustrated the inefficiency of some staff members, particularly those in industrial relations.

Only after giving very careful thought to my early experiences my opinion never changed where industrial life and the shop floor culture was concerned as it was based on time spent on the shop floor recalling and relating to those occasions and incidents that broaden my thinking and were instrumental in my advancement. Just as in the case of behavioural science I was side-tracked to a degree during my studies and then following years in my profession I realised those assertions were just recycled theories. This view of mine being that anyone expressing an opinion on cultural differences and the extremes of it in the workplace, holds little to no creditability unless, of course, it was experienced close up, at a personal level and over a protracted period.

In fact, it turned out to be one of my very first lessons as a supervisor and safety engineer that even to begin understanding the workplace and the associated culture is a serious challenge. To that end, there are for example in the likes of mining communities and quite naturally a deep-rooted culture to match. Personally, outside of my employment, I recognised those differences in my uncles, aunt and cousins, employed and living in both mining and steel manufacturing communities where there existed that ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality with that extending beyond the workplace. Particularly hostile was my aunt Florence, who embraced the differences with a vengeance, ironically not being helped by her being a TU shop steward at none other than Ford Motor Company’s Swansea Plant and me, her nephew, being in industrial relations management based at Ford Powertrain, Dagenham.

As a result, I believe what makes my submissions more credible and markedly different is they are based on my period in loss control embracing accident investigations and later post loss surveying. In each and every case it involved being in the company of two or more people, most of whom held contrasting views and motives that left me having to make a judgement. That judgement based on my knowledge of the shop floor and the culture considering self-interest and not being politically motivated which I found more often than not put a totally different slant on the matter in hand. All the while for a number it didn't matter who was right or wrong it only mattered what could be gained, in a number of those instances 'testing the water' comes to mind because it was seemingly right to do so.

All the talk in the World will never be sufficient to prepare a person entering the likes of a large production foundry or entering a coal mine for the very first time. I am certain that countless numbers of others, who just like me, had no idea what they would experience when entering many a workplace for the very first time. Even far more disconcerting for those setting foot in a massive car manufacturing plant on commencing their employment, putting aside the likes of a foundry or coal mining momentarily. It is difficult to explain where my feelings and senses were at because reading, even seeing photographs and the like never gets close to the scene that greets you when you first enter those establishments. How do new starters get over this shock is largely by relying on their co-workers, unsurprisingly not the supervisor, who assigns the work or task with barely a thought beyond issuing, where required, the protective personal equipment and setting the productivity targets.

To that end regarding supervision, I experienced my most unnerving moment in the press shop at Dagenham due to the lackadaisical approach adopted by my supervisor who had assigned me urgently to attend to a draw die in a powered press, causing metal stamping production in the line coming to a halt. Responding I looked over the die in the press and noting the fault I slid in to tackle the problem. Lying prone in the press I found myself suddenly being physically dragged feet first out of that energised powered press by a passing TU safety representative, who dressed me down for my stupidity in front of a host of production operatives. Here is the crux, just ten or so yards away my supervisor was standing chatting to the production supervisor, both of whom witnessed the whole incident. When I reflect on that experience and other safety misdemeanours, I am sure I was guilty of although I was never once chastised as an hourly paid employee which is a perfect illustration of supervisor’s indifference.

As for a production foundry it is unique and perilous with noise, mechanical handling plant involving hazardous loads, some molten, heavy machinery, furnaces each creating fumes, heat, flashes and sparks from molten metal being poured etc taking all one’s undivided attention, leaving a lasting impression. Molten metal spillages and flying sparks from the pouring ladles would make a normal person jump panic stricken all the while sitting on a pile of reject casting adjacent one of the pouring lines and a large induction furnace were two pourers men nonchalantly eating sandwiches, with their flasks close by, without I would suggest, a care in the World. And there is the reality of it all insofar as workers blasé ignoring those workplace perils as was their supervisor?

Those molten metal splashes to the average person spells danger yet here were two employees talking about football or some other non-work-related subject. The reason for this were two-fold, the culture and the associated perils that these individuals work with for eight to ten hours every single day consequently they become oblivious never seeing those hazards as a layperson would, that is until suffering an injury. For certain those two operators knew that a splash of molten metal on their skin or on their heat retardant overalls will burn, after all the pouring temperature of molten metal was something in the order of 2,800 degrees F. Yet they would contest any criticism of their apparent disregard of those perils by stating that when pouring they would don their personal safety equipment but at that moment in time, they were taking a well-earned rest adding how does one expect them to eat and drink when wearing all that safety attire? That was always the challenge when cautioning any worker for an infringement as they would always have, to them at least, a logical excuse. Once again to reiterate that is until they sustain an injury or experience a 'near miss'.

As for the coal mine I witnessed on any number of occasions, when at the coal face, groups of four or more miners sitting in semi-darkness having a tea break with only their white teeth and the whites of their eyes being visible, the remainder of the person, from their miners helmet to their footwear, covered in coal dust. The point being these employees having overcome the initial shock, become accustomed to the conditions whereas there were those who when entering the like for the first time turned on their heels hastily making for the nearest exit for those were working conditions, they would never be able to come to terms with, hence a high turnover of labour. Also, not to be overlooked that some employees in those occupancies, reluctantly accepting their lot will still look to avoid those workplaces at every opportunity citing physical injuries or mental issues that can result in a number of recorded accidents and cases of ill-health.

Something I learned very early on was that the trade or occupancy while not as hazardous as a foundry or a coal mine etc can nonetheless sustain high numbers of accidents and subsequently poor claims experience. The likes of that car manufacturing plant experienced a large number of accidents, only to be expected given the headcount was in excess of six thousand, excluding staff, working continuous shifts. Never once in over the 350 loss time accidents and health related investigations I carried out was either stress or fatigue cases cited amongst the hourly paid. That was not the case where salaried staff were concerned as there were early retirements and paid sick leave which one just didn't question even though I was aware of the cause of those affected by ill health, by being informed of the circumstances, perhaps their superiors and the characters involved.

Salaried staff members in a number of cases were their own worst enemy surrendering to the pressures of the task that results in a mental illness that includes depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviours. That was a perfect example in the great cultural divide between hourly paid and salaried staff because when the hooter went to finish work the hourly paid employee departed the scene without a care irrespective of production targets being met or not. The production status of course was the exact opposite for supervisory staff where they would have to present a solid reason at the shift end. Thus, further lessons were to be learned not just on the shop floor but at junior management level that came to the fore when I decided I had enough of being told about my attitude to my work leading me to move on or out.

Whatever the persuasion, employer or employee, there is every chance they will only see the situation from their point of view irrespective of the facts being unquestionably in front of them, the reason being that each opines they are doing the other a service. For people such as me when shedding my supervisory coat and donning my suit, collar and tie being, employed in risk management, we have to make an honest judgement in every single case regardless of the extent of the damage or injuries with the challenge being our opinion occasionally questioned at management level. The shop floor on the other hand inevitably sees things differently thus considering a loss control or safety engineer as a mouthpiece of the employer therefore, prone to being swayed. I was faced with that stigma every single day while carrying out my duties in the plants which I have to confess I quickly became hardened to because previously I was hourly paid and then management. In point of fact, I never gave it a second thought whereas enforcing authorities and safety representatives did, no matter how they tried to spin it, by being prone to the slanted or biased views. For any doubters the exceptionally low figures regarding employee number of prosecutions by the enforcing authorities underpins my belief.

Yet again I would continue to plead that I was not intent on dismissing TU safety representation however, for me it had to work both ways, but it rarely did with on occasions even the most culpable were defended by those representatives. Acting on complaints of one employee against another, these not being as uncommon as some would have one believe, with the situation that immediately springs to mind, came about during my very early loss control days. I knew the employee from when I was his direct supervisor and because of his antics I had a low opinion of him which