Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Although a proponent of the satirical magazine "Private Eye" which I find highly enjoyable and entertaining, I was disappointed to read the following article in their current edition (No. 1091, 17th to 30th October):
"NANNY STATE
Safety planners are already preparing for Christmas and a host of potential hazards. According to the BUPA Care Services Health and Safety Manual: 'To ensure that Christmas passes safely, a risk Assessment (HS.F13) must be carried out for the erection/removal of Christmas trees and decorations'. Not only that but a 'manual handling risk assessment must be carried out on the handling of "large" trees. Please note that appropriate golves and eye protection should be worn when handling the tree ... For working at height, please ensure you carry out a risk assessment .... Guidance is available in the Working at Height Policy HS.45 ...".
Discuss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeff Manion
It appears to be over the top for the Christmas trees.
under MHSWR 1999 and the acop 13 (a) insignificant risks can usually be ignored.
Under MHSWR 1999 and the acop 9 to assess the risks to workers and others who may be affected by their business.
Not sure if decorating Christmas trees and work or business for the organisation.
Surely it should be considered under "suitable and sufficient" taks about the "potential hazards" and then take action.
Does the worker put the Christmas decorations at home? Are they at risk in the home environment.
The general statement gives safety bad press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jerry Sanderson
Is it over the top though. What if an employee erecting the tree at the employers behest is poked in the eye by a branch?What if they fall from steps say 3 metres sticking a decoration on the top?what if they are electocuted by the dodgy untested single insulated lights that are brought out from the back of the cupboard once a year? Then to cap it all they put the tree which they don't water right next to a final escape route so it becomes tinder dry(cue the dodgy lights again).
Lets face it we are always likely to be ridiculed by the uneducated in these matters.Its a consequence of having to think for them. Funny how they ridicule issues like this but are the first to come running for help when something goes wrong.
Bah humbug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Jeff,
My thoughts were along the same lines - an RA needs to be proportionate to the level and number of hazards involved to be justified. However, it might be that the care provider has records of a disproportionately high number of accidents around this period and installing / decorating / removing trees were frequently cited, hence the reaction.
We've had this discussion before and we have bemoaned the way that safety is (mis)represented in the press - articles like this only reinforce the negative image of over-bureaucratic nit-picking busy-bodies that we seem to be burdened with. Without making any contextual comment, readers are left to draw their own conclusions. Sadly, I would suspect a large number would laugh at the safety profession as a whole as a result of this, rather then wryly smiling at what appears to be an isolated over-reaction.
As for the issue to hand, I believe that a timely awareness campaign of the dangers of the festive period (especially over consumption of food and alcohol) would be more appropriate than forcing additional paperwork burdens onto already hassled and harried staff - but I'm making assumptions here and there might be a good case for it the way it is. However, we should all be looking at our management systems and consider if the plethora of paperwork we produce is absolutely necessary and of any real benefit to the organisation and society as a whole.
I was tempted to write to the editor but I think we need a more positive counter to such articles than simply complaining - once more reinforcing the negative image of ourselves. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I suspect the procedure was probably written as a back covering exercise under instruction from some beaurocrat rather than out of genuine concern for safety.
As such it is 'the system' (whatever that is) that is being ridiculed rather than health & safety per se.
Call me cynical if you will - but I have seen it with my own eyes.
Nonetheless, the person who has written the document seems to have done a good job in highlighting the key hazards.
Sean, please, please, please think twice before crossing pens with Mr Hislop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
I believe that there is a genuine risk here. I'm not talking about the trees that most of us put up in the offices or reception of our buildings but what about the big trees that are installed in towns in the festive season, I know in Eastbourne we have 30ft trees on several rounabouts in the town. Erecting and decorating these will be a health and safety issue, again, look at the huge tree in Trafalgar Square - you would need scaffolding, a crane, procedures for working at height - if you are going to respond then this is probably the best example of Christmas Tree erection in the UK that there is and it has very real health and safety issues.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.