6.5 Working Alone

It may seem strange to include working alone as a psycho-social hazard, given that it is a working condition that removes psycho-social interactions from the workplace. Yet it is precisely the absence of other people that makes working alone a significant psycho-social hazard. Working alone is a unique type of hazard in that, in and of itself, it may not be hazardous. Nevertheless, working alone exacerbates other hazards present in the workplace.

Working alone occurs when a worker is performing tasks out of contact with persons capable of offering assistance in case of emergency. If an incident were to occur (e.g., if the worker became unconscious) there would be no one available to respond, increasing the risks of harm to the worker. The key to working alone is that the worker is isolated in some fashion from co-workers or responsible individuals. A worker can be working alone even if there are other people present in the workplace. For example, a receptionist in the front room is working alone if others in the office cannot hear or see him.

A second key aspect of the concept is that the contact needs to be with someone capable of and responsible for responding. A worker can be working alone even if there are members of the public present (e.g., a crowded street). The public are not responsible for the worker and so may not respond (or even be aware of the need to respond) should something happen. Certain types of working alone situations come quickly to mind (e.g., the gas station attendants discussed in (Chapter 2), but there are many types of working alone that may not be as obvious.

Who works alone and why?

Many different kinds of workers can find themselves working alone. Consider these common examples:

• A barista opening up a coffee shop early in the morning
• A farm worker cleaning out a grain bin
• A homecare nurse visiting patients in their homes
• A custodian cleaning a school overnight
• A postal worker delivering mail
• A front receptionist greeting customers
• A truck driver transporting goods between cities
• A maintenance worker repairing a machine in a shut-down portion of a factory

How many of these jobs could be performed more safely if there were two workers present? Most of these jobs would have a lowered risk of incident or reduced consequences from an incident if a second worker were present. This raises the question as to why these jobs are routinely performed alone.

Usually employers cite economic efficiency as the reason for having workers work alone. It makes no sense (financially) to have two receptionists greeting customers or having a passenger with the truck driver. Nevertheless, in many cases, assigning two workers to perform a job has little effect on efficiency. For example, sending homecare workers in pairs adds safety, increases the quality of patient care, improves working conditions, and does not negatively affect the number of patients seen in a day.

Employers utilize working alone when it makes economic sense for them. Those considerations are valid, but for OHS practitioners, safety considerations must also be included in the calculation. How many jobs regularly performed alone really need to be structured in that fashion? And how much working alone is simply the result of habit and convention?

The risks associated with working alone are diverse. Common concerns include the possibility of theft, assault, or attack by an outside party or a worker’s client or patient. This risk is increased by the presence of money, drugs, or other valuables. Women are also more at risk of assault when working alone in these situations. Other risks include uncontrolled hazards causing harm to a worker without others noticing and taking action. For example, a worker working alone may pass out from gas exposure or fall on a slippery surface and have no one to come to their aid. Even injuries like heart attacks or other health issues can be made worse by the lack of immediate response.

There are two basic ways to control the hazard posed by working alone. The first approach is to eliminate it by ensuring workers are never in a situation where they are out of contact with other workers. Policies that require a minimum of two workers to be on shift at a time, or prohibiting late night overtime, can administratively control working alone. Prohibiting working alone is a central practice of emergency first responders (i.e., police, fire, ambulance). Keep in mind that eliminating working alone does not eliminate other hazards, which may require other controls. For example, two workers in a remote location will still require some communication strategy in case something happens to either or both of them.

The second approach to controlling working alone is to establish a two-step communication process with workers working alone. First, the worker needs a way to communicate to another person if they are in need. Radios, telephones, or panic buttons can all work as outgoing communication devices. Second, there needs to be incoming communication on a regular basis in case the worker is unable to communicate (e.g., they are unconscious). This incoming communication can take the form of a regular check-in to the worker or an automatic response if the worker fails to complete a periodic check-in. The frequency of check-ins is determined by the nature of the hazards to which the worker is exposed.

The choice between hazard elimination and communication controls is controversial. Employers argue that prohibiting working alone is too costly and inefficient. Some also argue that employing two workers is not necessarily safer than one worker (e.g., two workers can just as easily be rendered unconscious by hydrogen sulfide gas on a remote worksite as one). This latter argument confuses hazards associated with working alone (e.g., lack of assistance) with other hazards of the work (e.g., chemical hazards). Worker advocates, on the other hand, argue that communication devices, while useful, are not fail-safe and do not address all the risks associated with working alone. For example, there can be significant time delays between when an incident occurs and when the automatic response is triggered. Further, the automatic response may not result in immediate assistance being rendered.

There are times when prohibiting working alone is not practicable. Yet the bulk of the debate about working alone rests around issues of cost, efficiency, and employer control over the work process. Working alone is another example of how employer and worker interests may conflict around issues of health and safety.