Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 25 September 2003 14:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paula Kennedy
Can anyone enlighten me as to the official meaning of safety manager, safety officer, safety advisor etc. I am of the impression that safety reps are now more valued on site than safety officers.Recently at a safety meeting a scaffolder was asked "who covers safety in your company" to which he replied "I am the safety person". His answer needless to say was accepted. Safety Person does not equate to safety officer who has some standard of training. People are being given roles and titles of "safety" without any trainig. People are being given safety officer positions oncompletion of a mere 10 week course. Does anyone know if there are plans to make the role of Safety Officer / Manager into a recognised profession with a minimum academic standard of diploma / degree.
Paula Kennedy.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 25 September 2003 16:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Craythorne
Have I been dreaming for the last 14 years???

I thought I was already working in a recognised profession with standard qualifications.

Must be going daft in my old age!!!

Paul Craythorne
Admin  
#3 Posted : 25 September 2003 16:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch
Paula,

There is a building site around the corner from my office with a big sign at the entrance remarking

"The person on this site responsible for your site health and safety is !"

above a mirror.

This sends out the message of eg Revitalising Construction that we need H&S issues to be owned at all levels.

However, in particular line managers need to take ownership as an integral part of their management function.

Giving the H&S professional a title such as "Manager" or "Officer" helps to perpetuate the all too common concept that H&S is down to the Safety Man, who visits say once a month, gives the management a shopping list, and then goes away. Hence noone appears responsible for the other 29 days of the month. [Wish I had had a fiver for every time I have had to have similar conversations with contracts managers, site agents and supervisory staff]

We use the term Adviser. If the line manager weighs up the advice taking into account their other priorities and decides not to take it in full, then so be it, but with the emphasis being on it being their responsibility to manage ALL aspects of the site.

As regards Paul's comments there are of course well recognised qualifications etc for H&S professionals, although there is often debate about the difference between qualifications and competence [not least on this forum!!]

Regards, Peter
Admin  
#4 Posted : 25 September 2003 16:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser
Paula,

You have a legitimate question there - the answer is, companies are allowed to do as they see fit. However, I qualify that answer in that the law requires that the person assigned the position as "competent person" to support management of H*S at work is just that - competent. What is competent though? Well, that's been debated often on this hallowed forum and the answer is never straightforward. Although we believe we are a recognised field with established qualifications we are sadly kidding ourselves - we are only recognised by those who wish to recognise us. And before there is an explosion, I'll provide an example.

I have a disease - the symptoms are recognisable by my friend and family (missing "s" is deliberate!!) but I still need to consult someone who knows about these things. I go to a doctor - now what do I assume? I assume they have done many years of medical training and study to degree level at least, standardised across the country and perhaps even supported by further recognised qualifications at post-graduate level, although the latter is not essential. Maybe even some experience, but that's not essential either. I am assured they are experts, and I automatically place my trust in them. What if I find they were struck off? Or even unqualified altogether? I would be severely disappointed. And that person would be up for probable prosecution.

Now I have a safety problem - I need advice. Who do I see? Any number of people, depending on your company in terms of size, activities, industry, corporate culture, management structure, unionisation, company of origin and reach, any number of things. So if I see our "safety manager", what do I assume? They have spent a number of years training and studying the subject to degree level and perhaps beyond? Coupled with experience? Or just experience? Can we even assume that? No, we can't. But there is no strong demand by industry or government to necessarily change that. And if I find out that person just talks a good game instead, what are the consequences in a legal sense? Not much.

Although I have medical knowledge, I can never presume to be a doctor. No one else will assume that of me either, no matter how knowledgeable I sound. But if I sound knowledgeable about safety, the same doesn't apply - I could just as easily call myself an 'expert' and be believed.

But what do we drum into the workforce? Who is responsible for safety - you are! So what am I then? An expert? A counsellor? An advisor? OR am I the "safety person" who does all the work? And what do ‘I’ contribute to the whole thing?

In the end, what is the top priority of the doctor AND the safety 'person' (for want of a better word)? "First, do no harm . . .". A good philosophy for us all to live by, regardless of qualifications, don't you think?

Light blue touch paper and stand well back . . .
Admin  
#5 Posted : 25 September 2003 17:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
Peter

Reminded me of a conversation when I worked for a local authority (not for long I might add).

I'd managed to change the title from H&S Officer to H&S Advisor (with CE backing) and refused to do risk assessments for the departments (with the exception of special risks outside their expertise). This was on the grounds they were responsible, they had all been taught how to do risk assessments and I was on hand to help if they met problems.

One Department Head said to me 'Well if you won't do them, we'll get in a 'proper' Safety Officer who will'.

And after I left they did. So all back to square one with the perception H&S is the H&S Officers responsibility.

I find this particularly hypocritical when you consider LAs are enforcing authorities.

Geoff
Admin  
#6 Posted : 25 September 2003 17:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
Sean

A number of people in the past on this forum have compared H&S professionals with doctors - I'm not sure this is a valid comparison considering the qualifications needed to get into the medical profession and the time spent studying it.

Many successful H&S practitioners do not have high qualifications - but they do have a lot of good sense and a practical mind.


Geoff


Admin  
#7 Posted : 25 September 2003 17:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson
Good for you, Geoff, you stuck to your guns. I take more of the attitude that ultimately I do what I'm told, as long as my advice is on record. I usually get my own way eventually, but not every time. But I admire people who stick to their principles no matter what.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 25 September 2003 17:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson
Yet again I didn't actually answer the question. There's no clear answer in any profession. The minimum qualification to be THE safety adviser/officer/manager for an organisation is the NEBOSH Diploma or equivalent (eg NVQ, DipSM etc). That still doesn't really mean competence, because experience helps.

A serious organisation recruiting a adviser/manager looks for corporate MIOSH or equivalent, or preferably Registered Safety Practitioner, because that shows CPD.

That said, I started out with the NEBOSH Certificate and I was then the safety officer for that company. I wouldn't support that now, but I might not have ended up where I am today otherwise. And wouldn't that be a shame? Hmm...
Admin  
#9 Posted : 25 September 2003 19:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By PAUL UNWIN
Paula,
I am only a humble certificate holder, but have come through the university of life with a variety of grass roots positions under my belt. Not I hasten to add as H*S Officer/manager/advisor. No I became involved in H*S as a H*S representative.

I have no university degree / Dipsm because with a home and family and basic income of £9500 / annum the costs of such qualifications are beyond me.

What I am blessed with is common sense and the ability to assess a situation quickly.

I have seen people appointed to positions, not because they have any knowledge of the work, but simply because they possess a piece of paper.

If the person who designed a lorry had to drive that lorry for 8 hours a day for a few months, I can assure you he would look at the design in a totally different way next time round.

The same applies to Health and Safety, a person experienced in a field can spot the problems t the same as the person with a degree / diploma. However, they may not be quite as eloquent with their response.

What is essential for the role is an over riding desire to make the workplace a safer and more cost effective unit.

Paul.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 25 September 2003 20:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould
Paul Im with you on this one.

I have done the certificate and luckily managed to find the expence for at least the Dip 1.

I have not joined IOSH yet which is my own fault.

I have what I would like to call a variety of experience in different workplaces.
I have now backed this up with the above health and safety qualifications etc.

Would I class myself competent?,

Well others seem to think I should be going for Jobs or setting myself up as a trainer/advisor/manager/person.
They have good jobs and even state themselves that in some circumstances my opinion would be of more benefit than theirs.

Why dont I go for these jobs yet and why not a advisor/consultant etc.

Well what I have learned upto now, is that in my opinion it is better to get the best amount of theory behind me that is on the market and is within my reach. After that piont I will seek more experiance within the field.
I remember after the completion of the certificate course I felt great, It was my first qualification. But then I embarked on the Diploma which was a big eye opener as to the diversity in which is required for the role.

I still feel incomplete untill I get the dip 2 as im sure this will be even more informative.

Maybe a degree later or specialise in a subject i.e. chemicals etc.

What I am saying is exactly what the course providers state.

The certificate covers the Breadth of health and safety in brief.

The Dip 1 covers the depth in brief.

The dip 2 covers the breadth and depth and adds for your own theory behind the reasons.

And finnally experiance gives you the skills to best put to use the above.

IOSH do somthing called CPP (from what I gather)(will have to join soon).

To put this long posting short.

When I had the certificate I may have been useful at the workplace but now feel that I may have made questionable judgments or made assumptions that could make the proffesion look idiotic.

The dip 1 Helped me in a safey job but still their were gaps that I felt I should have known.

Got to agree with Geoff that only time, experiance and the neccessary training probably would have led Geoff to the desision not to do those assessments. Where as I feel If I had the certificate knowledge I may have Wrongly accepted to do them. And this can become dangerous.

One thing at least I do know its a very wide covering role. As long as the safety advisor/manager is aware of his limitations and he is prepared to listen to the workfore and managemnt but still have the guts to stand by his guns when he knows something is being abused. Then accidents will be prevented and cost will be reduced and people will work for longer and have a better life.

(we have a long way to go)

Admin  
#11 Posted : 26 September 2003 07:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Hilary Charlton
I have long been an advocate of experience and knowledge rather than paper qualifications as I am sure everyone on this site will know, however ....

I recently found a report entitled "Benchmarking Competence in the Engineering and Manufacturing Sectors" which was published by the HSE earlier this year. This is my sector so, obviously I had an interest in it and I have not pursued whether this sort of report is available in other sectors. However, amidst all the gumph and blah blah (and there are several pages of it I can assure you), there is a statement that says that an NVQ4 or equivalent is suitable for an H&S Practitioner in a High Risk Environment.

It is very possibly that owing to this type of debate on IOSH and in general, the HSE have decided to come up, via these reports, with some kind of definitive statement on "what is competent". There is also a test case in the report about an occupational health nurse with a NEBOSH Certificate who was looking after H&S for a manufacturing organisation when there was an accident with a forklift. The Company were found liable of not appointing "competent" health and safety assistance under the Management Regs because her qualifications were regarded as insufficient to advise on forklifts. I'm not saying the courts were right or wrong on this one, but it sets a precedent.

Perhaps you could see if there are any benchmarking reports for your sector and see what the competence levels in these are.

Hilary



Admin  
#12 Posted : 26 September 2003 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson
Just one little addition to the argument. Although common sense is important in spotting and dealing with risks, it isn't all about common sense.

Reg3 of MHSWR requires risk assessment "for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions".

In other words, the stated aim of risk assessment is to see what you have to do to comply with the rest of H&S law. You won't achieve this only through common sense. It helps alot, but really you need to know the law and what is currently seen as good practice.

For example, does common sense tell you which dangerous parts of a machine need access prevented? This is an absolute requirement.

This still doesn't prove that a piece of paper means anything, because someone with the Certificate may be quite capable of staying up to date with the law. But it's no accident that the Diploma is quite difficult (at least I found it hard).

It's a fallacy that as long as an advisor knows where to look something up, that's good enough. You can't do a risk assessment or audit really well if you don't carry around alot of the requirements and good practice in your head.

This is not meant as a dig at anyone, I just think there's not enough said about knowledge and being up too date.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 26 September 2003 10:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
I take that point Neil, it's a good one and one I agree with.

But of course you don't need to be highly qualified to keep up to date. And the interpretation of the law is where the practical element comes into it.

Guarding all moving parts is not absolute in the real world.

Let me give you an example - a dimension saw or bench saw. It is impossible to physically guard all of the rotating blade and there will always be an element of risk.

It's how that remaining risk is dealt with in the practical (not theoretical) world that matters. No amount of qualifications can compensate for good sense and a practical approach.

Geoff
Admin  
#14 Posted : 26 September 2003 12:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson
Geoff - I wouldn't argue with anything you said there. Just wanted to balance the books in this argument. We need a balance of common sense, knowledge, experience and keeping up to date.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 26 September 2003 15:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Lee
The trouble is with common sense is that its not very common.

Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor with minimal qualifications but school of life.

Competence = sufficient training, experience or knowledge or other qualities.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 26 September 2003 15:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karen Todd
Hello Paula,


It might also be interesting to search HSEs database for improvement notices served for breaches of Regulation 7 of HASAWA.


Note in particular improvement notice F090002148 served against Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust on 09/05/2001 for (amongst other things) having insufficient competent persons and insufficient training of competent persons.


Regards,

Karen Todd

Admin  
#17 Posted : 26 September 2003 16:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
Why on earth do you keep comparing doctors with H&S practitioners - it just isn't a valid comparison.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 26 September 2003 18:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould
No matter what qualifications you have.

No matter How many years experiance you have.

There is going to be good safety officers and bad safety officers.

(sorry Geoff this you are going to hate)

I have had the pleasure over the past 18 months to see a phycatrist.
(post tramatic stress due to attack blah blah.)

Due to pressure of the systems in place (so im told) eg I have never seen the same shrink twice.
5 appointments in all.

Im not going to go into great detail but to put it shortley heres the following run down.

1st shrink (you need a therapy group Mr Gould to help come to terms with what has happened)I will arrange this.

2nd shrink (you need a good chat with me)

3rd shrink (you need medication for the depression)

4th shrink (you have come to terms with the event Im gona see you one more time then no more)

5th shrink this morning in fact 18 months later after the event. (you should come back in two months and in the mean time im going to arrange therapy group.


Swear down its a different face each time.
I get 10 min to tell how I feel about waking up in river with Fractured skull, smashed orbital bone, the look of Dr evil i.e. scars. Scar accross tounge as it was hanging off and finally Hypophermia.

No suspect caught- Random attack.

Thinking about it Im going to need a shrink and counsilling about seeing shrinks.

Alas lets hope shrink number 5 has the neccessary paperwork behind him and the experiance to know what to do. He did ask do I feel people are working against me, at that point I was carefull not to laugh in case I was commited.

Dont worry I have thick skin (core essential skill required of any safety officer)

At the end of the day its upto the employer to satisfy himself that he has suitable Health & Safety assistance whever he trust qualifcations or experiance or a combi of both.
As it is upto me to decide whether shrinks are any good.

One thing they have in common is that both proffessions mean well and both flaw for the same reasons.



Admin  
#19 Posted : 26 September 2003 19:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson
I think Paul's analogy is very valid. In both cases someone is looking for a professional on whom they can rely, because it is a specialist subject they don't know enough about themselves.

If you have a choice, you try to identify someone with more competence. Qualifications are an easy first step to measuring competence. Experience and knowledge are much harder to measure. So you want to be operated on by an MD, not and First Aider.
Admin  
#20 Posted : 26 September 2003 21:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Sedgwick
Some mentioned earlier "understanding or knowing ones limitations" and plays a big part in "competence"

Would we appoint some as a Mine Safety Manager who had never worked in a mine? S/He may be a very competent Safety Manager of a chemical company or LA, but certainly not competent in a mine.

Common sense only becomes common to those who understand the environment they are in and there are many different environments.

The HSE are challenging more and more the competence of Company Safety Practioners, we will see more of this debate.

Steve
Admin  
#21 Posted : 27 September 2003 09:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
I have no problems with checking a persons competence against the task they are being asked to do but to continually compare H&S practitioners against highly trained surgeons or even GPs goes against the grain and, in my opinion, common sense.

We can't ride on the backs of people who have spent years being trained in their jobs and who need a high level of entry qualification to get there, against a 30 day Diploma course with no entry level needed.

We don't need crutches if we are indeed professional enough in our own job. We can stand on our own two feet.

It isn't qualifications that gain respect - it is how we do our job.
Admin  
#22 Posted : 27 September 2003 13:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson
But qualifications help us do our job, because we learn alot studying for them. We are forced to learn stuff that we might otherwise avoid.

I once put a stop (around 1998 I think) to a consultant/trainer who was providing training to all staff in a company. We was teaching them about the Factories Act, and hadn't even heard of PUWER, even though the second version of it had just come out.

But he commanded alot of respect. People thought he was doing a great job, but how could they know better? Charisma and confidence carry you a long way in a profession in which you may be only person around how knows anything about the subject.

How you do your job is the way you earn respect, but that doesn't mean you are really doing a good job.

I would still prefer to hire a qualified occupational health practitioner for health surveillance, than a GP who talks a good talk. I would still prefer to be operated on by an MD than a first aider.
Admin  
#23 Posted : 27 September 2003 13:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch
Steve

If you mean the role as defined in Mines and Quarries Act, then obviously extensive mines experience is essential.#

Conversely, if you mean a mine H&S adviser, then someone with experience in the chemical sector might bring new ideas to bear and question custom and practice.

One of the problems with H&S advice in various sectors is their unwillingness to consider candidates who do not have front line experience in their sector.

This helps to perpetuate reliance on past practice, and restricts the talent available to the employer (hence artificially affecting the price of H&S advice)in circumstances when a fresh approach might be exactly what is needed.

We apply the strategy of providing our clients with a mix of advisers, ie those with experience of the sector, and, deliberately (and stated up front) staff who do not have such experience. Sometimes the latter offer more added value than the former!

Regards, Peter
Admin  
#24 Posted : 27 September 2003 19:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt
Of course they do Neil - but an office environment doesn't need an RSP to do a good job. It all depends on the industry and the risk and the qualifications should be variable to suit this - along with open minds.

My point is this frequent comparison with the medical profession is not valid - and nowhere have I said that first aiders compare with surgeons - have I? But if you are going to compare first aiders as certificate holder and doctors with diploma holder, then I rest my case.

Geoff
Users browsing this topic
Guest (7)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.