From Forklift to Philosophy: Desai Link on Why Safety Needs Less Policing and More Respect

The Forklift Driver Who Became a Safety Revolutionary

Desai Link went from wearing a suit to the courtroom to wearing high-vis and safety boots on the back of a forklift. That dramatic career shift gave him a perspective most safety professionals never get—and it's one that could revolutionise how we approach workplace safety.

"The people that are doing those labour jobs, you know, the hardworking types, they're actually extremely intelligent," Desai told me during our recent Recognition Factor podcast. "I've got a huge amount of respect for their skill and work ethic."

This observation might seem obvious, yet it contradicts the fundamental assumption underlying most safety management systems: that workers need constant monitoring, correction, and compliance enforcement to stay safe. The evidence suggests Desai is right—and the traditional approach is catastrophically wrong.

The Compliance Illusion: When Paperwork Becomes Theatre

Recent data from Australian construction sites reveals a shocking disconnect between what's documented and what actually happens. During a 2021 NSW SafeWork audit, inspectors found that 46% of construction sites with documented Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) were not following the safety controls outlined in those statements (NSW SafeWork, 2021).

Think about that for a moment. Nearly half of all sites had done the paperwork, ticked the boxes, and created the documentation—then completely ignored it when doing the actual work.

This isn't an isolated finding. Queensland's 2024 construction compliance blitz found non-compliance at 59% of the 224 construction sites assessed, with 119 safety breaches so obvious they were fixed while inspectors were still on site (WorkSafe Queensland, 2024). The transport industry fares even worse, with Operation Melbourne Market finding over 70% of heavy vehicle drivers intercepted were non-compliant in some capacity (NHVR, 2024).

As Desai observed during our conversation, this represents what safety academics call the gap between "work as imagined and work as done." But there's a third element, borrowed from safety expert Greg Smith: "work as documented." The misalignment between these three realities doesn't just create safety risks—it creates legal risks and, more fundamentally, it proves our current approach simply doesn't work.

The Self-Determination Solution: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness

During our podcast, we explored Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as an alternative framework. This psychological theory identifies three basic human needs: autonomy (the need to feel volitional), competence (the need to feel effective), and relatedness (the need to feel connected to others).

Desai's approach of "humble inquiry"—genuinely asking workers about their work and showing interest—hits all three elements. "You're recognising their competence because you're asking them about something," I noted during our discussion. "They are deciding to share what they do... So the humble inquiry tool is beautiful in improving all three of those things."

The research backs this up powerfully. A 2024 study in Buildings journal found that autonomy-oriented support from project managers significantly activated autonomous motivation (β = 0.520, p < 0.001), which in turn positively affected safety performance (β = 0.231, p = 0.007) (Buildings, 2024). More impressively, organisations in the top quartile for employee engagement—strongly correlated with SDT satisfaction—showed approximately 70% fewer safety incidents compared to bottom-quartile performers (Sentrient, 2025).

The Christmas Termination: A Cautionary Tale of Rigid Systems

One story from our conversation perfectly encapsulates the failure of compliance-based approaches. Desai shared an incident where a bus driver, forced to take a corner too tightly due to oncoming traffic, clipped a barrier. Despite this being a minor incident with clear circumstances, the rigid application of a "just culture model" classified it as recklessness.

"The person was sent home not to return," Desai recounted. "That was a week before Christmas... That really stung and stuck with me."

The system demanded accountability but prevented understanding. As Desai explained, "There was no discretion for the person investigating... to use their judgement and determine, you know, that this person probably wasn't reckless."

I shared a contrasting story about an aerobatic pilot whose plane was fuelled incorrectly, causing a crash. When the same fuel attendant was still there for his next flight, the pilot insisted: "I want only you to be fuelling my plane." Why? Because that person had become the most qualified never to make that mistake again.

The Evidence for Participatory Approaches

The most compelling evidence for SDT-aligned approaches comes from a randomised controlled trial of Chinese construction workers. The study compared participatory training methods (emphasising worker autonomy and input) with traditional compliance training. The results were striking:

• Injury rates in the participatory group declined from 138.3 to 74.5 per 1,000 person-years—a 46.1% reduction
• Control groups using traditional methods showed no statistically significant improvements
• Workers in control groups had 1.78 times higher odds of accidental injury (Yu et al., Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 2017)

This isn't about abandoning all structure. As the research notes, traditional compliance measures remain necessary for establishing minimum standards and legal protection. But the evidence suggests the most effective approaches combine compliance structures with autonomy-supportive implementation.

Breaking the Safety Theatre: Practical Applications

Our conversation explored practical ways to move beyond safety theatre. At Scratchie, we've developed "Convo Cards"—a tool that exemplifies SDT principles in action. Instead of complex checklists and bureaucratic reporting systems, workers can quickly photograph a hazard, add a voice comment, and send it directly to their supervisor's phone for immediate action.

"People are paid a lot in the construction industry. They can make decisions," I argued during our discussion. "So give it to them."

This approach works because it respects all three SDT elements:

• Autonomy: Workers decide what's worth reporting
• Competence: Their judgement is trusted and valued
• Relatedness: Direct communication strengthens supervisor-worker relationships

The contrast with traditional systems is stark. As Desai noted about conventional hazard reporting: "There's this obsession with having to... turn it into a checklist so that the manager has to answer a checklist." But when you trust workers' intelligence, you don't need to micromanage their thinking.

The Cultural Shift: From Policing to Partnership

Research reveals the depth of cultural resistance to compliance-based safety. Safe Work Australia found that 25% of construction workers accepted risk-taking at work, while 22% of labourers admitted breaking safety rules to complete work on time (Safe Work Australia, 2023). In transport, the figures are even worse, with 23% breaking rules for productivity.

But here's the crucial insight: this isn't because workers don't care about safety. It's because the system treats them as problems to be managed rather than intelligent partners in creating safe workplaces. As Desai observed about his time driving forklifts: "It didn't matter who your dad was, who your uncle was... You either did the work or you didn't. And if you were willing to do that, then you got ahead and you were respected."

When safety systems fail to show that same respect, workers naturally resist. When they succeed in building genuine partnerships, the results speak for themselves. A manufacturing plant that shifted from pure compliance to proactive safety culture achieved a 50% reduction in incidents over two years, with increased near-miss reporting and improved morale (Manufacturing Case Study, 2024).

The Way Forward: Beyond Compliance Theatre

The evidence is clear: our traditional compliance-based approach to safety has created elaborate theatre that fails to protect workers. Nearly half of all construction sites ignore their own safety procedures. The majority of transport operators are non-compliant. Yet we continue investing in more rules, more documentation, more policing.

Desai's journey from lawyer to forklift driver to safety revolutionary offers a different path. By recognising worker intelligence, building genuine relationships, and supporting autonomy rather than enforcing compliance, we can create workplaces that are both safer and more human.

As I said during our conversation, it's ironic that we call them safety managers, not "unsafe managers"—yet they spend most of their time looking for what's unsafe rather than encouraging what's safe. It's time to flip that script.

The research proves what Desai discovered through experience: when you respect workers' intelligence and support their psychological needs, safety improves dramatically. The 46% injury reduction from participatory approaches isn't just a statistic—it represents thousands of workers going home uninjured because someone finally treated them as intelligent human beings rather than compliance problems.

That's not just good psychology. It's good business. And most importantly, it's the right thing to do.

‍