Safety - say it like it is...

[Mat]

“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” Mark Twain.

 

The truth is the father , son and employer were wreckless ,their employer had failed in his duty to maintain the kit and log accidents. They should have also fined the "adequately trained workers" for using sub standard and dangerous kit, they knew the guards were off. Good job done by the HSE.

 

Bob

 

As an employer, would you supply "dangerous kit with the guards off"?

 

As an employer, would you employ (and I quote) a "father and son who were reckless"?

 

If the answer is no, how tolerant are you of employers who do?

 

Are you not bothered that they may get a temporary advantage over 'good' organisations? Would the world of business not be a little better for you if some of these unlevel playing fields were leveled out a bit?

 

Do you not fear that you organisation is having to carry the dodgy ones who increase insurance premiums, tax, red tape, etc,etc,etc?

[aspenarb]

As an employer, would you supply "dangerous kit with the guards off"?

 

1.As an employer, would you employ (and I quote) a "father and son who were reckless"?

 

If the answer is no, how tolerant are you of employers who do?

 

2.Are you not bothered that they may get a temporary advantage over 'good' organisations? Would the world of business not be a little better for you if some of these unlevel playing fields were leveled out a bit?

 

3.Do you not fear that you organisation is having to carry the dodgy ones who increase insurance premiums, tax, red tape, etc,etc,etc?

 

Kinell Mat your are fire today

 

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

 

But its the way of the world.

 

Bob

[Mat]

Kinell Mat your are fire today

 

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

 

But its the way of the world.

 

Bob

 

Careful or Safey Steve will bring you over to the dark side

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The whole thread seems to have deteriorated into a H&S bashing exercise which I don't think was the point of the question in post ±1.

 

It's only my take on it, but I'd summarise:

 

Big companies have bods that sit on their harris and produce paperwork.

Smaller companies get by as best they can.

Big companies have grand policy statements.

The smaller the company, probably the less grand the statement.

Sometimes smaller outfits cut corners and get caught out by suits because they haven't got a suit shining a desk chair.

 

You can't fix stupid - if the weakest link in the chain is the chimp with the tools, no amount of policy statements or risk assessments are going to fix stupid.

 

 

Here's the opening passage from an Arb Assc Approved large commercial outfit:

 

The company recognises its statutory duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 and the accompanying legislation to provide and maintain, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and healthy working conditions and to ensure that any work undertaken by the Company does not adversely affect the Health and Safety of those employees or other persons that may be affected by their Acts or Omissions.

 

We take Health and Safety extremely seriously and have a dedicated full-time H&S Manager to ensure that we comply with or exceed all relevant statutory and "industry best practice" requirements including:-

 

All AFAG Safety Guidelines

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation 1992

LOLER Regulations

PUWER 98 Regulations

RIDDOR 98 Reporting

BS 3998, 5837 and current best practice

XXXXX maintain a number of Health & Safety accreditations including:-

CHAS

UVDB Verify

SMAS

 

You'd think they's be all over it wouldn't you?

 

What could possibly go wrong with a full time suit and all those accreditations?

 

The weakest link:

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[difflock]

^ This I like ^

[Richard 1234]

I think that if you want to be a h and s person then you should at least have formal training and at least 5 years working experience in whatever field you want to judge on.

I don't see how a one size fits all approach can work without the consultant just p******* people off.

[Safety Steve]

Okay - I reckon the audience have had enough so thanks for all who contributed. If you do OSH yourself then do use the free stuff the HSE provide on managing safely - it is probably what I would use anyway. If you need advice then there is a register of qualified and insured people you can use called OSHCR.

 

In closing please do me one favour - understand we work with you, not against you. If you get crap advice think, did I; a) ask the right person or b) ask for the right thing.

 

We people in OSH come from varied backgrounds - if I came from the same place as you I'd have no added value to your business. What's the point of paying someone for knowledge you already have? But we do have an understanding of how to get yourself and your team on track and using OSH to your business advantage. This isn't always about safety when aloft - it might be as mundane as the clip above. The problem here is deep seated and lack of respect for the employers (your) business protection. These guys may have lost or caused cancellation of 4 potential contracts in the cars that passed by alone. That is your money - lost from poor OSH. And if one fell and cracked his head open....?

 

Thanks for the debate - time to let the animals free and bury the casualties of conversation.....

[broonie]

Exactly!!

Will "the organisation" listen to such reasonable arguments.

Answer NO!

they rather spend others tax dollars on "laying-off" the risk on an outside organization, as opposed to making safe reasoned pragmatic decisions themselves.

That would imply they were actually responsible for goodness sake.

 

sounds like our LA, with the " it is a nationally accredited/recognised training scheme" line , only problem is they miss out the most important parts....

[gensetsteve]

Well, strangely this is a misconception by many businesses.

 

Following an accident, the business would need to demonstrate that equipment was suitably checked.

 

Just a filled in check sheet won't cut much mustard.

 

As I said, all that proves is that a form was completed.

 

The business will have the ultimate responsibility to demonstrate adequate systems of work.

 

Take my Heinz hand amputation example - it was Heinz wot got done, not an individual!

 

 

Again common sense should tell people a missing guard these days is a big no no, if it was not needed it would not have been fitted at production.

 

I have said in the past I would rather use a new lifting sling that was a year out of ticket than one that just passed its test but abused for the last 3 months.

[Hobbsurf]

Okay - I reckon the audience have had enough so thanks for all who contributed. If you do OSH yourself then do use the free stuff the HSE provide on managing safely - it is probably what I would use anyway. If you need advice then there is a register of qualified and insured people you can use called OSHCR.

 

In closing please do me one favour - understand we work with you, not against you. If you get crap advice think, did I; a) ask the right person or b) ask for the right thing.

 

We people in OSH come from varied backgrounds - if I came from the same place as you I'd have no added value to your business. What's the point of paying someone for knowledge you already have? But we do have an understanding of how to get yourself and your team on track and using OSH to your business advantage. This isn't always about safety when aloft - it might be as mundane as the clip above. The problem here is deep seated and lack of respect for the employers (your) business protection. These guys may have lost or caused cancellation of 4 potential contracts in the cars that passed by alone. That is your money - lost from poor OSH. And if one fell and cracked his head open....?

 

Thanks for the debate - time to let the animals free and bury the casualties of conversation.....

 

Bit of a tumbleweed post tbh fella.......................

 

Time & place etc.

 

Russ