Conflicting goals in occupational safety

There is a fire. Everyone has to get out, but no one is allowed in. Only the fire department is allowed in. Anyone who goes out should not be able to steal data and goods. And even when extinguishing the fire, caution is required - what if you destroy a centuries-old treasure in the process? There are several such conflicting goals in security. That's why security officers must always think and proceed pragmatically.

Burglary protection vs. escape routes and emergency exits

A classic example of such conflicting goals are the areas of burglary protection and escape routes. An escape route should always lead unhindered to a safe area and save people's lives in an emergency. Fortunately, such emergencies are rather rare. In very many companies, escape routes are therefore misused as temporary storage for fire loads and are blocked when they would be needed. The emergency exits, which must be freely accessible from the inside to the outside and also vice versa for the fire department as an escape route, are blocked by parked vehicles or are often even locked.

Because the danger of and the fear of a burglary is omnipresent. Anyone who has already been affected by a burglary then takes it even more closely. In a detailed reworking of the event, among other things, the windows are also provided with massive iron grids. However, this changes the overall concept. Because when fleeing people find escape routes blocked or cut off by heavy smoke, they try to get out of the building through the windows - in these cases, unfortunately, unsuccessfully.

Access control vs. intervention

It goes without saying that sensitive company areas require access control. Unwelcome visitors have no access here. However, the fire department or rescue service are very welcome in an emergency. So these company areas must also be accessible for intervention. But is security then still a given? Well-secured front doors, window grilles or safety glass can be dangerous, especially in combination with a concept that has not been discussed with professionals. Quick access without a key becomes much more difficult. Therefore, key tubes for intervention forces should also be installed to ensure access. And of course, the intervention forces must know these key tubes, so they must be instructed.

Evacuation vs. theft protection

Questions also arise about an evacuation of the building: Who may and should trigger this? Getting the affected people to safety is, of course, the absolute priority. So it would make sense if anyone who recognizes an incident can trigger the evacuation alarm. But is it always mandatory to evacuate the building, or could this even be abused to get out of the building unhindered and undetected with stolen data or goods? So what is more important, the safety of employees and guests or the protection against theft?

Occupational safety vs. investments

Especially in occupational safety, financial resources are often an issue. The lack of them, or quite simply the disproportionalities that inevitably arise here and there, must nevertheless not be circumvented. Of course it is disproportionate to purchase an elevating work platform in order to be able to change the bulb of one lamp twice a year. Of course, it is not proportionate to buy a forklift in order to be able to accept a brochure delivery every second year.

In many cases, however, after a close look at the processes and concrete planning, there is even the possibility of saving many financial resources and thus making them available for other things. Often a higher efficiency can be achieved, also with concrete communication. Indeed, the supplier of the brochures can be informed about what equipment is available or how to deliver the brochures so that their unloading does not pose a danger. And, by the way, there are working platforms for rent. Even if the organization of such things is often lost under time pressure, it is very useful. Of course, dealing with working platforms also requires explicit training and instruction, which can further drag out the problem solving.

Ergonomics vs. fire protection

In some companies, the concepts and thus the flows of people and the organization of work change when there is a change of ownership. This often happens when the first user moves into a new building. The building is simply not built for the use for which it is then needed. Emergency exits and escape routes no longer correspond to the original idea, fire doors are kept open with wooden wedges so that employees can pass through unhindered.

But in the event of a fire, a fire door must be closed. There are retention magnets for fire doors that make this possible and keep the door open during the day, but close it automatically in the event of a fire. However, these retaining magnets must be connected to the fire alarm system for this to work - and this fire alarm system must in turn be checked regularly according to the manufacturer's specifications, usually annually.

Fire protection vs. monument protection

If a fire breaks out in a museum, for example, you can't per se handle massive amounts of extinguishing liquids. Let's take the Abbey Library of the St. Gallen Monastery: In the event of a fire there, it is very important to protect the stored values. You can successfully extinguish fires with a sprinkler system, but the books may end up just as destroyed as if they had burned. What should be prioritized now?

Innovation vs. safety and rescue concept

Let's take the example of gastronomy: more and more often, restaurants have to come up with very special offers to attract guests. Innovative as they are, restaurants with a special clientele from certain regions of the world often rely on cooks, assistants and menus from these regions in the kitchen. This often means completely different cultures and also a completely different approach to safety. A simple training course will then by no means bring about the desired effect. So you have to do even more checks and improvements, which costs a lot of time and money.

Another innovative idea is adventure gastronomy. Today, there are overnight accommodations in igloos, in straw or on the mountain, often far away from infrastructures, only accessible on foot or by cable car. This makes a rescue concept quite difficult. If someone suffers a heart attack there and the cable car is not running because a storm is coming up, it takes a very long time for the rescue service to arrive on the scene - far too long. So there would need to be paramedics or at least trained first responders on site.

Conclusion

Safety does not really know any compromises. If you neglect safety at one point in order to make compromises, you are basically prepared to endanger human lives or accept monetary damage to the company. Nevertheless, due to the formulated conflicts of objectives, only pragmatic solutions are really successful. The first priority must always be the integrity of the human being. Facilities that require special attention must not be assessed only by an expert from one field.

They require overall concepts developed by experts from the fields of occupational safety, fire protection, emergency management, intrusion protection, access control and intervention. The hazards must be identified and analyzed. In addition, target-oriented measures must be implemented, for example according to the STOP principle (substitution, technical, organizational and personal measures). But how? Close cooperation with the authorities is often indispensable, especially in the case of larger infrastructures. And the realization applies: with professional planning, (consequential) costs of incidents, accidents or even fatalities can be prevented. Safety means saving lives, preventing tragedies and securing economic success.