Off-the-job safety

I once had a Senior VP who saw a poster at another organization titled “Why I Work Safe.” The poster showed employees alongside pictures of their families, dogs, motorcycles, and other personal motivators. The VP loved the idea and wanted us to do something similar. So, we did.

Did it make any difference? Not sure. Did it hurt? Probably not. Management felt it demonstrated that safety mattered and showed care for employees beyond work. Aside from that they didn’t have to do anything else. But when I asked some of the field workers what they thought and whether it influenced their off-the-job behavior they were  brutally honest. They said they didn’t think about it at all. Nice idea, but mostly safety theatre. My word, not theirs

Safety theatre?

There is also a lot of talk about safety theatre these days, and this kind of poster idea fits squarely within it. These initiatives usually sit under the banner of “off-the-job safety” and are often framed as motivational tools. The implication is that if someone won’t work safely for themselves, they’ll do it for their family or loved ones. That may sound compelling, but it rests on shaky assumptions about human behavior.

Off-the-job safety is often presented as a natural extension of an employer’s commitment to worker wellbeing. In principle, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it often overreaches and risks undermining credibility and trust. At worst, it comes across as paternalistic and preachy.

Once work ends, so does the employer’s ability to supervise, direct, or control behavior. Workers are no longer operating within a managed system of work. They are living their personal lives and free to do what they want, when they want, and how they want. Treating off-the-job activities as an extension of the workplace reflects a misunderstanding of both human behavior and the limits of organizational responsibility.

Most off-the-job safety initiatives rely on generic advice: drive carefully, use ladders properly, wear protective equipment during recreational activities, take extra care during holidays. While well intentioned, this guidance is neither new nor particularly effective. Adults already know these risks.

It can be argued that many off-the-job safety programs require little investment, no redesigning of work, and no challenge to production pressure or scheduling practices. Promoting “personal safety choices” outside work is far simpler than addressing fatigue, overtime dependency, long rotations, or demanding commute schedules—all of which sit firmly within the employer’s control and have well-documented spillover effects.

This matters because an employer’s legal and ethical duty of care is tied to work. Extending that duty into private life blurs boundaries. It can also create a “Big Brother” perception that erodes trust rather than strengthening safety culture.

That is not to say organizations should ignore learning opportunities from incidents that occur outside the workplace. However, there is a critical distinction between facilitating learning and prescribing personal behavior.

A more credible approach is to focus on what employers can genuinely influence:

• work design
• scheduling and fatigue management
• realistic workloads
• commuting risk created by work patterns
• psychological and physical recovery time

I’ve had conversations with safety professionals that bordered on evangelical outrage at my suggestion that these programs might not be as beneficial as claimed. Shoot the messenger? I’ll be blunt. My intent here is not to hug ribs but to poke them.

Off-the-job safety: When care becomes control

There is something quietly troubling about modern off-the-job safety campaigns. The employment relationship is not a guardianship. Once the shift ends, the employer’s legal, moral, and practical mandate ends with it. Extending safety messaging into workers’ private lives implies an unspoken belief: we know what’s best for you. That is paternalism in its classic form.

The language used in these campaigns is revealing. Workers are told to “make safe choices,” “avoid unnecessary risks,” and “think before you act,” as if adulthood evaporates when a safety department produces a poster. This is particularly ironic in high-hazard industries. Apparently, workers can manage a refinery startup or a power outage but not a weekend.

Don’t blur boundaries

Ethically, these campaigns can blur boundaries that should remain clear. Employers have defined legal duties at work. They have none at home. Yet off-the-job programs expand moral authority without expanding responsibility. If an employer claims a stake in how workers live, should they also be accountable for the consequences?  Of course not.

There may also be an underlying ideology at play: that risk itself is inherently bad and should be eliminated wherever possible. This is not safety; it is risk aversion masquerading as virtue. Real life involves voluntary risks- driving, sports, travel, hobbies, relationships. Adults manage these risks constantly using judgment and context.

This is not to say employers should be indifferent to worker wellbeing. Fatigue management, fitness for work, and recovery between shifts are legitimate intersections between work and non-work life. But these are boundary conditions, not moral crusades. They exist to ensure work is performed safely. Not to supervise how people live.

The uncomfortable truth is that many off-the-job safety campaigns may be less about protecting workers and more about protecting organizations from scrutiny, liability narratives, and confronting their own role in risk creation. Workers sense this. That’s why the posters get ignored. Adults don’t reject safety. They reject being treated like children.

If safety wants credibility, it must respect autonomy. Safety should focus on where the employer has control—at work—and trust workers where it does not. The moment safety tries to parent adults; it stops being safety at all. Advocate, but don’t dictate. It’s not a good look, and it’s rarely a senior management priority anyway. It’s for “them.”

Safety theatre looks busy but rarely makes people safer. And while I may be wrong, I remain unconvinced that off-the-job safety programs are as meaningful to workers as their advocates believe. They weren’t for me.

I’m reminded of Hitchens's razor: “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise. I just haven’t been convinced - yet.