Posted By Baz Broomhead
Can anyone point me to any prosecutions/ prohibition notices issued to a scaffold company for not ensuring its employees were working harnessed on whilst unprotected above 4 Metres. I've looked at the HSE website wih no luck
There is an issue at the place I'm working where the scaffolders seem to know better than the SG4 guidance and their MD doesnt seem interested in enforcing it, saying they cant work properly whilst on a lanyard.
I've quoted the relevent Regs etc, but would also like to hit him from the possible financial aspects of failing to comply.


Cheers Baz

Posted By Des Daly
Baz,

As a member of the NASC's Health and Safety Committee and a member of the SG4:00 Working Group ( currently reviewing SG4:00) I find your comments disturbing.

Is the scaffolding company an NASC member? If they are, a call to the NASC could have a dramatic effecton their performance.

It is simply unacceptable for them to work in the same old ( unsafe) way.

It's a tough call to make, but I think that their work should be stopped until such time a safe system of work is in place ( did they submit a Method Statement/ Risk Assessment - have you seen it?)

The HSE would also be concerned and a prohibition notice could be served on them/ the site for serious breaches of health and safety legislation.

SG4:00 has been heavily criticised since it's publication for being unworkable, however, in the absence of antyhing else the key principles would ensure safe working.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Regards,

Des Daly

Posted By Gerry Marchant
Baz,

I have the same proble, whether or not the scaff org is a member of the NASC. The guys putting up the scaff usually think they are above the H&S rules/Law.

Bottom line is - do you want these people working for you if they are not prepared to follow basic safety rules regarding fall from height protection.

We now follow the zero tolerance rule - no hat, no boots, no harness, no job.

Its my neck and my MD on the line!

Gerry

Posted By Jason Gould
Hi Baz

Speak to who ever authorised these contactors and your company secretary (contract advisor)(tender etc)

Im sure you have enough justification to stop the job but make sure your backed up to the hilt. When I say speak I mean in writing with forwarding to your boss etc.

Im no expert here but I think you def need to check from warning I had in past.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I have raised the following comments in order to open up the debate and to try and look at the wider issues that this problem raises.

Sending scaffolders away because they will not wear harnesses does not necessarily work and could have a much greater impact on safety than if you do permit them to continue to work.

For example if you send scaffolders away they almost certainly won’t turn up the next day and you are lucky if they return the day after that. By that stage the bricklayers who where due to be working on that scaffolding lift have been laid off and before long there could be up to a ten day delay in the project. To recover the time lost there is tendency to crowd more trades onto a project resulting in further hazards and risk to that project.

Unfortunately, in the real world the majority of scaffolding operatives still do not wear harnesses let alone actually work to the process laid out in SG4:00.

For some reason scaffolders appear to be reluctant to wear a harnesses even to the point that a recent TV add for a large high street bank showed actors clearly portrayed as scaffolders without harnesses.

Unfortunately the management of this issue is not a black and white one.

Posted By Sean Fraser
Compliance with anything is based on trust, not enforcement. This applies to laws as well as company policies and procedures. If everyone stands up and says "we're not going to do it" then the inevitable result is contradiction - what we say is not what we do. There are only two ways to address this - remove the requirement and simply accept the situation as it stands, or take action in the short and long term. Short term means enforcement, but long terms means changing attitudes and behaviours. There are only so many jails, so many inspectors, so many resources in terms of time and money. Punitive measures are not the most effective means of encouraging compliance and as we know threats of prosecution are worthless when we know the reality of it is actually quite slim - as do the transgressors. There needs to be a general acknowledgement of the principles involved and effective means of implementing them, otherwise you will be struggling form the start and it will enver get better. And lip service is worse than no service at all.

This is a moral issue as well as a business one - are we willing to just accept "the real world" or do we endorse our quoted principles through leadership by example? If we say that our contractors must work safely, what do we do about it? Do we audit them? Do we carry out inspections? Or do we engage them and then leave them to it? No wonder construction is one of the least safe industries - some (people may claim most) don't seem to want to take effective action and we (the clients) don't seem to want to challenge them. Generalised statement I know - does anyone want to object?

There ARE good construction companies out there who operate to safe standards - they are the ones who understand that good health and safety is good business and improves the bottom line overall. These are the ones we should encourage by engaging them as preferred bidders and attitude to safety should be given the highest weighting in any contract review process - attitudes that are reinforced through demonstrable action. If you find otherwise - chuck them out. If your contract is any good, you can avoid recompense due to a material breach - and sue them in turn for wasting your time and delaying your project as a result! This is where a good legal team becomes worth their salt when designing contract terms. If you don't specify high safety performance standards by default - get it added for future contracts.

If you have established good safety principles in your contract (which they have agreed to) then you can enforce it. A good project, well designed and well planned will take as long as it was pitched for - and WILL take as long as it was pitched for barring the unforeseeable. Bad design and bad planning will end up over-running every time - dealing with accidents takes time, especially when replacements need to be found for LTIs, so the argument that "following safety rules takes longer" is a cop out for the lazy and shoddy characters who are driven by greed alone.

Take a stand - but don't be surprised when now it has come to the crunch, those who proclaimed that safety was highest on their agenda are suddenly unwilling to prove it by action. At least then you will know the actual corporate culture and attitude over what is in print and frequently spouted.

There should be no compromise on safety principles. It might take time to turn attitudes around, and the only real way to do this is to walk the talk - to do otherwise will make you complicit in any accidents that follow. It is not a question of if, only when.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I have experienced the situation where scaffolders would rather walk off site rather than wear a harness even though their method statement clearly identifies that they will wear them.

If you do an audit type trail on this issue, the underlying problem is probably a cultural one. Unfortunately I have not seen any research, but I believe that many scaffolders take up the trade because they are most comfortable with working with the (dangerous) type of risk that this trade historically has. Unfortunately when we now come along and try and reduce this risk, we are possibly seen as a significant threat to their livelihood and credibility are taking away their heritage and therefore they feel less safe.

Personally putting a harness on and working with one is not difficult issue (I have done it), but when a whole trade works considerably harder to avoid using these we need to identify the real underlying cause of the problem.

Posted By ian mcnally
Hi Baz,

Firstly I sympathise with your position. I don’t have any actual listed enforcement action taken against scaffolders although I have seen the odd press cuttings. Like you, I would find it useful to outline possible outcomes to individuals but feel such affects would have limited value. As regards to scaffolders knowing SG4 ……I doubt it.

Scaffolding issues are very close to my heart as I have been lecturing on scaffolding at the Construction Health and Safety Group in Chertsey for a number of years now and needless to say part of the course includes the principles of SG4. When SG4 was finally produced I must confess I was initially a little sceptical on the practical application. Having erected scaffolding as part of a course at the CITB some years earlier I do have a feel for what we are expecting scaffolders to do. No doubt you have heard all the arguments about the lanyard impeding progress and creating an unsafe environment etc etc.

When you analyse what we are actually asking them to do it’s not so draconian. Wear a harness at all times but essentially only clip on when exposed to a fall over 4.0m.

I report to a director who I have a great deal of respect for, not because he will do anything to ensure the company manages its’ risk in line with current legislation and best practice, but because he demands to be advised on just what current best practice is. He will then apply a logical thought process before he agrees or disagrees on any commercially viable policy solutions /actions for the company.

Some time ago our site managers were finding it difficult to enforce the harness rule and I’m not naive enough to think we’re 100% now but one particular action had a huge impact. The action was largely due to a director taking a tough line, zero tolerance on the wearing of safety harnesses. He rang 90% of our core scaffold contractors and asked the MD or senior partner of the scaffold contractors whether they had any problems with complying with the harness rule in SG4….guess what, not one contractor said they had a problem and from then on I had a very clear mandate to relay to all contracts and site managers.

It’s fair to say that in most cases whoever signs the policy statement or has been made directly responsible for H & S will not want to be complicit with any unsafe work practices. When safety inspections flag up a common theme of unsafe practices I would suggest the individual would want to be able to demonstrate that plenty of firm action had been taken and in a writing.

If you have identified a reluctance by a contractor or contractors to ignore best practice you have little choice but to take action. I no longer give warnings to scaffolders for failing to wear harnesses at 4m or more they are just asked politely to leave site (I am only 11st 5’ 9” and am still living proof you can do it) I will then have a conversation with the site manager and scaffolder contractor director. It works honest!. All the stories I used to hear about not being able to get men to work on site have proved unfounded.

It helps to make it clear at a pre start meeting what you require and get them to agree to this. Any good site management that have been given a clear mandate by their line managers / directors should have no problem to enforce that mandate.

Monitoring!

This is where it might get uncomfortable, I have spoken to many safety advisors who fear that written internal communication to their superiors may not be such a good career move. If this is a problem you may be well advised to look for an employer who values your advice, after all that’s what they pay you for.

I wish you every success with your quest, and as for getting scaffolders to follow SG4 practice, I think I could write a book, it would never sell a copy though.


Ian McNally

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
The frustrating thing is that if SG4:00 had worked properly; three years later we should not even be discuss this matter on this forum.

As the scaffolding industry has chosen to work with the procedures laid out in SG4:00, it should be firmly enforcing the changes itself.

What I find most frustrating is that we are still simply discussing some of the most basic issues of supervision which is the responsibility of the scaffolding contractor themselves and not the principal contractor. I simply do not see that it is now the job of a principal contractor to be asking scaffolders to put harnesses and tell them how to put up scaffolding in line with the guidance in SG4:00

I know that I discussed the cultural issue earlier, however I believe this matter now needs to be firmly tackled by the scaffolding industry itself as a matter of urgency.

Posted By Jim Walker
This will probuably breach forum rules but here goes.

Open HSE prosecutions search "deborah", you'll come up with 3 or 4.