The Influence of Safety Commitment, Implementation of SOP, Supervision and Competency on Work Accidents At PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION
PT. Haleyora Power is a subsidiary of PT.PLN (Persero), which operates in the field of operation and maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution networks.PT.Haleyora Power is an outsourcing company from PLN, which is located in 104 cities in Indonesia.Haleyora Power Unit, Pekanbaru Service has a contract with PT.PLN Main Distribution Unit (UID) Riau and Riau Islands to manage distribution engineering and maintenance services in the PT Work Area.PLN Persero Customer Service Implementation Unit (UP3) Pekanbaru This type of work on mobile phones carries a high risk of electric shock from 220 volts to 20,000 kV and, of course, requires workers who have special competence in the field of electricity.The total workforce at PT Haleyora Power UL Pekanbaru is 458, including the technical services of 263 personnel.
In 2021, PT.Haleyora Power Implementing Unit 6 carried out the Initial Level SMK3 PP 50 of the 2012 External Audit and received an SMK3 certificate issued by the Minister of Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia with a score of 87.5% (satisfactory).It is hoped that the implementation of SMK3 and also achieving satisfactory scores can realize the target of "zero accidents".However, the satisfactory audit results are in fact inversely proportional to the work accidents that have continued to occur in the last 5 years.
To measure work accidents, there are several methods that can be used.One of them is incident rate (IR).IR is the total number of accidents that occur divided by the total workforce, then multiplied by 100%.The following is the incident rate that occurred at the Pekanbaru HP Service Unit in the last  In an effort to minimize work accidents with various safety training with the company's hope of achieving the goal of "zero accidents", however, based on the information that the author obtained in 2022, there have been work accidents that have caused deaths.So HP UL Pekanbaru was penalized with 5% of the invoice value, namely IDR 243,816,076.Due to work accidents, the company also receives a Sanki reprimand, which will result in the termination of the work contract if there is no improvement.
Based on information from HR at HP UL Pekanbaru, the company has a Key Performance Indicator for Electricity Compliance and Environmental Management Aspects, where the formula for this indicator is the sum of the subtracted values for elements of electricity safety and environmental management compliance.The maximum deduction value for the KPI weight is minus 8.An accident in 2021 resulted in a reduction in the organizational performance value (NKO) of -2 (minus 2) so that the NKO, which was originally 98.74, became 96.74.An accident in 2022 will cause a reduction in the organizational performance value (NKO) of -3 (minus 3) so that the NKO, which was originally 92.90, becomes 89.90.
Of course, concrete strategies are needed to reduce the number of work accidents so that companies can continue to be sustainable.Strategic management, namely managerial efforts to develop the company's strengths to exploit emerging business opportunities in order to achieve the company's stated goals in accordance with the predetermined mission (Suwarsono, 1996), Implementing safety is basically an investment that can help companies avoid high costs due to work accidents and injuries.In the long term, the costs incurred for implementing safety are much lower than the costs incurred to treat injuries or repair machine damage resulting from work accidents ("Cost-Benefit Analysis," Frank E. Bird Jr. (1971)).
According to Arini T. Seomohadiwidjojo (2015:90), Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), also known as "Procedure", is a clearer and more detailed document to describe the methods used to implement policies in an organization as stated in the guidelines.
According to Kadarisman in Jufrizen (2016), "supervision is an uninterrupted process to ensure that the implementation of duties, functions, and authority does not deviate from the rules that have been established in order to achieve organizational goals." Based on the information that the author obtained, HP Pekanbaru has held an internal meeting between management, team leader safety, operations team leader, field coordinator, and field implementation officers in order to discuss a focus group discussion (FGD) using the 5 Whys method to find out the causes of work accidents in detail.The results obtained are: • Lack of safety commitment.
• Not yet implemented SOP • There is no strict supervision yet.
• No competence yet.
Based on the problems that occurred above, it can be concluded that the form of work accident prevention efforts carried out by PT.Haleyora Power Unit Pekanbaru Service is currently not producing maximum results.Based on the results of the FGD that the author obtained from the results of internal meetings, the author will conduct research at HP UL Pekanbaru by looking at whether safety commitment, implementation of SOPs, supervision, and competence really have an effect on the level of work accidents at HP Pekanbaru and what suggestions are made for future improvements.Apart from that, the results of this research are also supported by the results of research conducted by Alfa Baetin (2020), whose research results found that work accidents can still be minimized by improving the K3 work program in the company.The K3 work program includes: improving the quality of PPE, increasing K3 discipline, applying substitution methods for tools that have the potential to cause danger.

Second Literature
The results of research conducted by Sukma Ayu (2019) show that the implementation of SOPs is a factor related to work accidents where the results of the chi square test obtained a value of X² Count = 17.694 > ), then the implementation of SOP is a risk factor for work accidents for employees at PT. PLN (Persero) Kendari Customer Service Implementation Unit.This means that employees who do not implement SOPs will be 6,020 times more likely to experience work accidents compared to employees who implement SOPs.
Apart from that, the results of this research are also in line with the results of previous research conducted by Putri, Suroto, & Wahyuni (2017) which stated that there was a significant relationship between SOP compliance and accidents.This shows that the more disobedient the respondents are, the higher the work accidents will be and vice versa, the more obedient the respondents are, the lower the work accidents will be.
Other research that also supports the results of this research is research conducted by Ningrum (2020) which suggests that there is an influence between the implementation of SOPs on the level of work accidents, where the higher the implementation of standard operational procedures, the more it reduces the level of work accidents among employees.

Third Literature
The results of research conducted by Triyanto et.,al (2020) state that there is a significant influence between supervision of work accidents on Jepara Class II Port ship crews, where effective supervision makes the implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Program (K3) more effective.Apart from that, the results of this research are also in line with research conducted by Ashari in 2019 which showed that there was a relationship between supervision and work accidents, where work accidents occurred more frequently with poor supervision than good supervision.Research conducted by Gatra Wira Andika, (2018) also examined the influence of supervision, discipline and work environment on the occupational safety and health of employees at PT. Bumi Mulia Perkasa Dumai also shows results that supervision has a significant and positive influence on occupational safety and health.

Fourth Literature
The results of research conducted by Aisy Haikal (2022) found that there was a positive relationship between Occupational Safety and Health (K3) and the performance of PT employees.PLN (PERSERO) UIT JBB UPT Durikosambi.Apart from that, the results of this research are also in line with research conducted by Palapa A (2021) which stated that competency has a negative and significant effect on work accidents.Apart from that, research was conducted by Dwi Maulidina et.,al, (2021) in which his research was about the factors in implementing the K3 program that influence the performance of construction projects, where worker competency was one of the factors that was ranked highest.

METHODS
The type of research used in this study is quantitative descriptive analysis research.This research aims to measure and analyze the relationship between the variables involved in the research using an objective approach and measurable data.According to Sugiyono (2016: 85), the saturated sample determination method, or total sampling, is a sample determination technique when all members of the population are used as samples.The samples taken for this research were all 263 technical service officers at the Haleyora Pekanbaru Service Unit.The reason for using the entire population as a sample is to obtain research results with high accuracy.
The method used for data collection is a questionnaire.This method involves the use of a questionnaire containing structured questions addressed to respondents, namely technical service officers at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.Questionnaires can be sent online via email or an online survey platform (Google Form).
This research uses SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solution) software version 26 to test the hypotheses that have been formulated.This study uses a quantitative approach.This analysis technique is used to explain the relationship and how much influence the independent variables, namely safety commitment, application of SOPs, supervision, and competence, have on the dependent variable, namely work accidents.To be able to carry out multiple linear regression analysis, data quality testing and classical assumption testing are required, with the following steps:

Descriptive Statistics
According to Sugiyono (2015:74), the formula used to determine the respondent's level of achievement is as follows: Average score = (5.A) + ( 4 Validity testing in this research uses Pearson correlation, namely by calculating the correlation between the values obtained from the questions.If the Pearson correlation obtained has a significance value below 0.05 or sig.< 0.05, the data obtained is valid, and if the correlation between the score of each question item and the total score has a significance level above 0.05 or sig.> 0.05, then the data obtained is invalid (Ghozali, 2011).

Reliability Test
Instrument reliability testing can be done by looking at Cronbach's alpha.A reliable instrument means that if it is used several times to measure the same object, it will produce the same data.A variable can be said to be reliable if it provides a Cronbach's alpha value > 0.70 (Ghozali, 2011).A reliable instrument is not necessarily valid, and a valid instrument is not necessarily reliable, so instrument reliability is a requirement for testing instrument validity (Sugiyono, 2011).

Normality Test
The normality test aims to test whether, in the regression model, the confounding or residual variables have a normal distribution (Ghozali, 2011).Normality testing can be carried out using the One Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, with a significance level of 0.05 or 5%.If the resulting significance is > 0.05, then the data distribution is said to be normal.Conversely, if the resulting significance is < 0.05, then the data is not normally distributed.

Multicollinearity Test
According to Ghozali (2011), the multicollinearity test aims to test whether the regression model finds a correlation between the independent variables.A good regression model should have no correlation between independent variables.One way to detect whether there is multicollinearity in a regression model can be seen from the tolerance.
value and its opposite, the variance inflation factor (VIF).VIF = 1 / tolerance.A low tolerance value is the same as a high VIF value.If the VIF value is ≤ 10 and the tolerance value is ≥ 0.10, it indicates that there is no mucticolinearity in the study (Ghozali, 2011).

Heteroscedasticity Test
The heteroscedasticity test aims to test whether in the regression model there is an inequality of variance from the residuals of one observation to another.If the variance from the residual from one observation to another is constant, it is called homoscedasticity, and if it is different, it is called heteroscedasticity.Thus, a good linear regression is a regression whose residual variance is homoscedastic (Ghozali, 2011).

Multiple Linear Regression Test
To reveal the influence of the hypothesized variables in this research, regression model analysis was carried out.The multiple regression equation model is To get how much the independent variable can explain the dependent variable, you need to know the coefficient of determination (Adjust R Square).If the Adjusted R Square is 1, it means that the fluctuations in the dependent variable can be entirely explained by the independent variable and there are no other factors that cause the dependent fluctuations.The Adjusted R Square value ranges from almost 1, meaning the stronger the ability of the independent variable to explain the dependent variable.On the other hand, if the Adjusted R Square value is closer to 0, it means that the independent variable's ability to explain fluctuations in the dependent variable is weaker (Ghozali, 2011).

Partial Test (t Test)
The t statistical test basically shows how far the influence of an explanatory/independent variable individually is in explaining variations in the dependent variable (Ghozali, 2011).With a significance level of 5%, the testing criteria are as follows: If the significant value of t < 0.05 then Ho is rejected, meaning that there is a significant influence between one independent variable on the dependent variable.If the significant value of t > 0.05 then Ho is accepted, meaning that there is no significant influence between one independent variable on the dependent variable.
2.40 Information : k : independent variable (X) n : number of samples Based on the calculations in table 4.15 that have been obtained, it can be seen that the calculated F from the F test results has a value that is greater than the value of the f table that has been tested.The calculated f value is 7.727 while the f table value obtained is 2.40 and the significance value obtained is 0.000 which indicates a value smaller than 0.05 so it can be concluded that this research model is feasible or can be used to predict the Effect of Safety commitment.Implementation of SOP, Supervision and Competency for Work Accidents at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.This means that the Safety commitment, SOP Implementation, Supervision and Competency variables simultaneously (together) influence work accidents in this research.

Effect of Safety Commitment on Work Accidents
From the results of adding up the respondents' answers, there are two lowest indicator values, namely the Awareness of the Risk of Negligence and Carelessness indicator with an average score of 3.92 and the Knowledge of Safety Regulations and Procedures indicator with an average score of 3.95.
The low indicator of awareness of the risk of negligence and carelessness is reflected in the questionnaire answers regarding "I do not ignore the slightest factor" with a score of 3.76 and "momentary negligence can cause work accidents" with a score of 4.07.The author can conclude that there are still officers who are negligent in small ways when on duty, but because they are used to working in an unsafe manner, this is considered normal.The facts in the field are that there are still some officers who are negligent in safety factors.Especially in terms of implementing SOPs and using PPE.This can be caused by work habits that do not comply with procedures, so that negligence and carelessness are considered normal.For example, there are still many people who do not use work gloves when working.PLN, as the employer, has also carried out inspections and found that officers were not using PPE.A warning letter was also sent by the employer (PLN) so that the provider (HP) would commit and respond every time there was an officer's negligence by reprimanding the officer concerned.
Furthermore, the low indicator of knowledge of safety regulations and procedures is reflected in the questionnaire answers related to "I know the methods for dealing with safety accidents" with a score of 3.75 and "I know the protective equipment needed for the job" with a score of 3.94.From the answers to this questionnaire, it can be concluded that many officers actually do not know the function of personal protective equipment or how to prevent work accidents.The fact in the field is that there are still officers who do not understand the use of personal protective equipment.This could be caused by officers' lack of knowledge, so they ignore safety risks.For example, if they are going to work operating a 20,000-volt medium-voltage network, the officer still uses 1000-volt gloves or does not even use appropriate work gloves.Another factor that causes personal protective equipment (PPE) and work tools (Alker) not to be used as intended is their availability in vehicles.It is often found that, due to officer negligence, PPE is lost.Therefore, the Field Coordinator is obliged to check and report the condition of the officers' PPE and Alker every shift and report it to the Team Leader HSSE so that compliance can be followed up.

Effects of SOP Implementation on Work Accidents
From the results of adding up the respondents' answers, there are two lowest indicator values, namely the worker involvement indicator in implementing SOPs with a score of 3.25 and the worker compliance indicator with SOPs of 3.54.
The low indicator of worker involvement in implementing SOPs is reflected in the questionnaire answers regarding "SOPs make work more structured" with a score of 2.97 and "I already understand the SOPs that apply in the company" with a score of 3.52.The author can conclude that there are still many officers who think that implementing SOPs makes work more unstructured or slower, and there are also many officers who do not understand how to work according to SOPs.
Facts in the field found that there were still many incidents of work being carried out not in accordance with the SOP.This is because officers think that working according to standards will slow down completion time.Another reason is due to the company's high targets, so work must be completed quickly.For example, officers do not install a grounding cluster when working on a 20,000-volt network.Installing a grounding cluster is very important to prevent sudden electrical voltage from coming from customers or maneuver errors that can save the lives of officers.This process is often bypassed by officers, so that the SOP becomes unstructured.Apart from that, it is necessary to carry out a joint evaluation between representatives of officers and management so that the SOP is always updated.so that officers also feel involved in preparing the SOP.
Furthermore, the low indicator of worker compliance with SOPs is reflected in the questionnaire answers related to "There is no need to skip one or more SOP steps to shorten work time" with a score of 3.40, "I report to the leadership if there are colleagues who work not according to the SOP" with a score of 3.52, and "I have never experienced misunderstandings when working due to a lack of clarity in work procedures and instructions" with a score of 3.52.From the answers to this questionnaire, it can be concluded that officers still miss several steps in the soup, officers still do not have the courage to report to the leadership if there are colleagues who do not work according to the soup, and in the field there is still misunderstanding or communication when working due to the lack of clarity in work procedures and instructions.
The fact is that in the field, there are still SOPs that officers follow when working.Example: when working on a low-voltage network of 220/380 volts.Officers should test whether there is voltage or not using a voltage detector.Officers often bypass this by just going straight to work.Apart from that, it was also found that officers protected each other when their colleagues did not work according to standards.Officers do not dare to report their colleagues' negligence if they do not work according to the SOP.This can be caused by fear or because they think it is normal to do this because they are not being supervised.There are also often misunderstandings between colleagues, especially when operating the electricity network.This is very dangerous for the safety of individual officers and the public if they work without paying attention to safety.

Effect of Supervision on Work Accidents
From the results of adding up the respondents' answers, there are two lowest indicator values, namely Communication Style and Relationships with Workers with an average score of 3.29 and the Corrective Action and Improvement indicator with an average score of 3.72.The low indicator of communication style and relationships with workers is reflected in the questionnaire answers regarding "Supervisors are friendly and pleasant," with a score of 3.39, and "Supervisors reprimand if workers do their work incorrectly" with a score of 3.19.The author can conclude that supervisors are less friendly or do not embrace officers and do not reprimand them if officers do not work correctly.
Facts in the field found that supervisors must be neutral towards officers.If you are too friendly, officers will sometimes not listen to what the supervisor says.Supervisors are also not always at one point of work due to the large area of work.Sometimes, because supervisors are busy moving from location to location, many supervisors just let it go or don't reprimand workers for work that doesn't comply with the SOP.This certainly does not have a good impact on reducing work accidents.
Furthermore, the low level of Corrective Action and Improvement indicators is reflected in the questionnaire answers regarding "Supervisors make corrections to deviations that occur" with a score of 3.79 and "Supervisors always remind them to use complete PPE" with a score of 3.65.The author can conclude that the supervisory function is not fully in line with expectations.
The facts in the field were found to be that supervisors still tolerated officers making procedural errors.This is because supervisors want work to be completed quickly to reduce complaints from employers.For example, when repairing a cable that broke out of the network, the supervisor just let the officers work without wearing complete PPE.Another reason is that supervisors do not dare to reprimand more senior workers.Supervisors should have more power than officers.

Effect of Competency on Work Accidents
From the results of adding up the respondents' answers, there are two lowest indicator values, namely skills with an average score of 4.04 and knowledge with an average score of 4.06.
The low skills indicator is reflected in the questionnaire answers "I have skills according to the expertise I have" with a score of 4.04 and "I am able to carry out work plans so that my work runs smoothly" with a score of 4.03.The author can conclude that officers are not yet fully confident in their abilities and are also not smooth in implementing work plans.
Furthermore, the low knowledge indicator is reflected in the questionnaire answers related to "I can understand concepts related to job objectives" with a score of 3.99, and "I have an adequate level of knowledge in the field of work I do" with a score of 4.05.The author can conclude that officers fully understand the concept of work, which is also supported by an insufficient level of knowledge.
Facts in the field found that not all officers were skilled at work.This is due to the officers' insufficient knowledge base.For example, when the initial admission requirement is a minimum of a high school graduate or equivalent.Considering that engineering services work in the electrical sector, of course vocational schools majoring in electricity are more competent in terms of science and practice.Training to increase competency by companies is also very rarely carried out to equalize the knowledge of officers.The impression is that officers are skilled based on their experience while working, and this experience does not necessarily mean good safety procedures.Another factor, the lack of skills, is also caused by the individual officers' own willingness to learn from their colleagues to be competent.

Effect of safety commitment, implementation of SOPs, supervision, and competence simultaneously on work accidents
From the results of adding up the respondents' answers, there are 2 lowest indicator values for the work accident variable, namely Use of PPE and Alker with an average score of 3.93 and indicators of Awareness of SOP and Safety with an average score of 4.01.
The low indicator of the use of PPE and safety equipment is reflected in the answers to the questionnaire regarding "The use of PPE influences the prevention of work accidents" with a score of 3.71 and "I carry out maintenance on the tools used at work routinely to reduce work accidents" with a score of 3.94.The author can conclude that officers are not completely confident that the use of PPE can prevent work accidents, and maintenance of PPE and work equipment (alker) is not routinely carried out.
The facts in the field are that the use of complete PPE has not been fully implemented by all officers.This is caused by the habit of officers working without complete PPE because they feel uncomfortable using it for long periods.For example, it is often found that work gloves are not worn when working on electrical networks.After investigating, this was caused by workers who were uncomfortable or not used to using it.Apart from that, it was also found that routine maintenance of PPE and Alker was not carried out routinely by officers and was only carried out if requested by the supervisor.This is due to being busy carrying out work in the field.This lack of awareness of maintaining PPE and protective equipment means that the lifespan of PPE and equipment is shorter or damaged more quickly.
Furthermore, the low indicator of awareness of SOP and safety is reflected in the questionnaire answers related to "I am aware that my workplace has the potential for work accidents" with a score of 3.93 and "I am aware of the importance of implementing SOP and safety in carrying out work to cause work accidents" with a score of 4.05.The author can conclude that officers are not yet fully aware that their workplace is potentially dangerous, and officers also do not fully consider the implementation of SOP and safety important in their work.
Facts in the field found that not all officers were aware that their work was high-risk.This is due to work habits that have been carried out for years.Habits that do not comply with SOP implementation are very dangerous.For example, using a rope as a pole climbing tool This has been prohibited because there are already stairs.The implementation of SOPs and safety is also often ignored because the work wants to be completed quickly.

Research Instrument Test 3.1.1 Validity Test
The validity test is intended to measure the extent to which the variables used actually measure what they are supposed to measure.

Table 4 .
1 Number of workers by age In the table, it can be seen that the most dominant age of workers is 26-30 years with a percentage of 28% or 73 out of 263 workers.Meanwhile, the age of at least 4% is in the 51-55 year range, 11 of the 263 workers The following is the number of workers based on their work experience Table 4. 2 Number of Workers based on Work Experience

table 3 . 4 Table 4 .
Validity TestIf the calculation results for each variable produce r count > r table then it can be said that the data obtained is valid, and vice versa if r count < r table then the data obtained is invalid.We can find the value of r in the table from calculating the degree of freedom (df), namely with the formula for the number of samples minus 2 or (n -2).The number of samples in this study was 263 respondents, so df = 263-2 = 261, with a significance level of 0.05, so based on the statistical table, the r table in this study was 0.1210.The following is a summary of the validity test table for variables Y and X.

Table 4 .
8 Test of the validity of monitoring variables

.2 Multicollinearity Test The
multicollinearity test aims to test whether in the regression model there is intercorrelation between the independent variables.Detection of multicollinearity in the regression model in this study was detected based on the Tolerance and Variant Inflation Factor (VIF) values.The regression model is declared free from multicollinearity if the Tolerance value is ≥ 0.1 and the VIF value is ≤ 10.The results of the multicollinearity test in this study can be seen in table4.11

.
If the calculated F value is greater than F table or the significance value is smaller than 0.05.then the multiple linear regression model can be continued or accepted.Calculation of the F table value can be done as follows: 1. Safety commitment influences work accidents at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.This shows that the increasing commitment to occupational safety and health implemented by workers in carrying out their work will increasingly minimize the risk of work accidents.2. Implementation of SOPs affects work accidents at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.This shows that the implementation of SOPs where employees are required to obey and be guided by the SOPs determined at work can minimize the risk of work accidents at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.3. Supervision influences work accidents at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.This shows that the greater the level of supervision or control carried out on work safety and health, the more carelessness at work will be minimized, which will have an impact on work safety.4. Competence influences work accidents at PT. Haleyora Power Unit Service Pekanbaru.This shows that the better the competence of workers regarding training and knowledge of work safety procedures, the greater the risk of work accidents occurring.Based on the discussion of this research, there are several suggestions for companies to increase their safety commitment, implementation of SOPs, supervision, and competence in order to reduce work accidents, including 1. Make a safety commitment in the form of a written policy that is clear, easy to understand, and known to all workers.2. Provide Training and Education: 3. Socialize the importance of safety in work to officers every day and take firm action against officers who do not carry out their work according to safety rules.4. Provide strict sanctions for violators of safety regulations and officers who are