Division Breeds Danger: The Safety Standoff

Written By Paul Harrow

Workplace safety depends on collaboration, yet it is often hindered by a longstanding conflict as old as industry itself. Unions and management bear shared responsibility—each entrenched in their stance, pointing fingers, and widening a rift that jeopardizes the workers they both claim to safeguard. History acknowledges unions for driving critical reforms, such as OSHA and other safety laws born from tragedies like the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, where 146 workers perished behind locked doors (PBS, 2011). Management, meanwhile, has often prioritized profit over people, leaving a legacy of neglect. Neither side is wholly culpable nor entirely blameless; both have made indispensable contributions. Yet too frequently, they cling to hostility—unions to justify their relevance, management to preserve authority. This mutual stubbornness stalls progress, particularly on safety. Still, the remarkable turnaround of the GM Fremont plant demonstrates that these flaws can be overcome, and today, approaches like Design Thinking and UX design offer a promising way forward—if only both parties can let go of their deep-seated grudges.

Fremont's Fall: A Two-Sided Failure

Consider the Fremont, California, GM plant in the 1970s—a testament to mutual destruction. The United Auto Workers transformed it into a battleground: 20% absenteeism, workers sabotaging production with beer cans, and safety neglected amid the turmoil (Langfitt, 2010). Management responded in kind—ruling with an iron fist, ignoring complaints, and cutting corners to meet quotas. The outcome? GM's worst-performing factory, where defects and injuries multiplied equally (Glass, 2010). In 1984, Toyota's NUMMI venture changed everything. With the same union and workers, but new management that chose dialogue over dictates—implementing daily meetings and collaborative problem-solving—absenteeism plunged to 2%, quality soared, and safety incidents plummeted (Glass, 2010). The message was clear: both sides created the problem, and both had to participate in its solution.

Unions often rely on conflict—strikes, grievances, invoking past tragedies like Triangle—to demonstrate their importance. Management responds with inflexibility, treating workers as machinery rather than partners. A 2015 IZA study revealed that unionized workplaces face more safety violations when trust breaks down, while management's resistance to oversight worsens the risk (Sojourner & Yang, 2015). As both sides dig in, hazards persist—a dangerous scaffold becomes a negotiating point rather than an urgent repair. The National Safety Council's 2019 findings are telling: trust-based workplaces reduce incidents by 58% (NSC, 2019). Fremont's revival wasn't coincidental; it proved that safety improves when both sides abandon their defensive positions.

A Shared Legacy of Distrust

The numbers tell the story. OSHA's creation in 1970, championed by unions, reduced workplace deaths from 38 per 100,000 to 3.6 by 2022 (OSHA, 2023). Management initially resisted—fighting regulations and minimizing safety investments—until penalties forced action (DOL, 2022). Small operations avoid this dynamic: when a site supervisor spots a worn harness, they replace it immediately. But as organizations grow, so does the divide—executives retreat to boardrooms while unions take to picket lines. Both could change course: management could embrace transparency instead of resistance; unions could prioritize cooperation over confrontation. NUMMI demonstrated the potential—when distrust dissolved, both safety and profits improved.

Design Thinking: A Truce in Practice

Design Thinking and UX design offer a way to break this impasse. Design Thinking begins with empathy—workers and managers collaboratively identifying hazards and developing solutions like improved safety barriers, rather than assigning blame. UX transforms the approach: converting safety training from lectures to interactive apps—making it intuitive and enabling real-time risk tracking. Harvard's Jeanne Liedtka identifies user-centric design as a key performance driver (Liedtka, 2021). Imagine a refinery where both parties jointly design spill protocols, or a warehouse where UX-optimized signage reduces forklift accidents. This isn't theoretical—Australian safety experts are already using Design Thinking to reduce risks (AIHS, 2023). The challenge? Management must share control, and unions must end their siege mentality. Both resist change, yet both stand to gain—creating safer, more productive workplaces.

The Verdict

Management and unions jointly constructed this adversarial environment—negligence versus defiance, locked in a dangerous dance. Fremont's decline reflected their shared failure; its revival, their mutual success. Design Thinking and UX can forge a new partnership, but only if both sides acknowledge their role and move forward. Safety isn't a competition—it's a shared responsibility and it starts with caring.

Bibliography

Paul Harrow
Previous

Hazard Identification and Assessment: OSHA
Next

THE BOEING 737 MAX & NORMALIZATION OF DEVIANCE