Zero Logic

 

The safety side of everyone is seeking an injury free existence; a “zero injury” outcome.

 

Yet, it seems appropriate to many to challenge such a “zero injury” initiative on the grounds that such is an unrealistic expectation. The counter argument of proponents simply states that “zero” is an exact expression of everyone’s desire, so the question becomes “why not seek what is desired by all?”

 

Think about it. Personalized it sounds like the following statements.

 

I do not want to be injured! My family wishes me to be injury free in all that I do, especially in my vocation. My employer implores me to work injury free, if not from a relationship perspective at least from a practical perspective. To have an injury to an employee is an unwanted event if only purely from the cost of dealing with the aftermath of an injury. My supervision wishes me to perform my hours at work while using safely the tools provided. Informed investors in capital projects, sometimes called Owners, wish all to go well; for the work to be completed on schedule, and if for no other reason, since an injury is a work delaying event, desires the facility to be constructed with injury free effort. It is easy to see that injury laden work is always fraught with inefficiency and waste.

 

So there you have it; the practical reasons for a worker to be injury free, range from a purely family relational and humanitarian devotion; to an injury free breadwinner to reasons that are quite monetary in motive.

 

Given a thorough examination, the observer can readily see that the full range of “injury free worker” motives can be quite varied even in the family setting. Also given the Organized Labor situations existing in many places, the Union Business Agent and Union Officers wish for the workers represented to be injury free.

 

In the general sense humanitarian concerns for our fellowman causes all to wish a safe workday for all.