Posted By Jamie Walsh
As a Environmental and occupational health tech in the Army, I am constantly amazed by the costs of CPD packages, seminars, courses and anything that has a 'Health and Safety' tag. Much as I would like to attend some of these meetings etc my employer currently cannot afford to renew civil servants contracts or mount exercises overseas, yet alone pay £300 for me to attend a seminar. I think IOSH is as guilty as anyone, and for lowly TechSPs such as myself there is little incentive in becoming involved.

Posted By Sean Fraser
A good point John - doing the right things for the wrong reasons and wrong intention. Seeking to limit liability is simply not acknowledging the source of the potential claim and therefore will not eliminate that entirely (or ALARP), so that there is no (or little) possibility of a claim in the first place. Just by trining someone, doesn't mean they understood it or retained it sufficiently for later use. And because most courses are generic, they don't take enough account of different working environments and may provide a false impression that their approach to a particular legislative requirement must be the one and only way to do it - so when the trainee returns and finds that the organisation doesn't do it that way (or even do it at all) then they decide that their company is deficient in it's approach to safety and another example of the bosses exploiting the workers. As the song say, it ain't necessarily so but you might find it difficult to persuade them otherwise. I have had direct experience of the maxim " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" in this way and this is a concern. They thnk they know, but they haven't actually understood.

I think Jamie is right to raise this point - the cost of courses can be a burden and many companies are torn between saving money by not sending people on courses they know aren't necessarily valuable, and limiting their liability in case of a claim (or the more unlikely event that they'll get an HSE inspection and possible prosecution). The problem is not the course providers though - it is the short-term thinking of our finance driven market economy which is now pervading our public sector, and the increasing fear of nebulous litigation.

Cheap is not always best, but wasteful carte blanche spending is not effective either. What is needed is a balance, appropriate to the level and complexity of risk. Competence (a subject routinely debated on this forum) is the key - training is only a part, it is the understanding and practical application of the training that justifies the expenditure.

To me, the most effective thing to teach employees [& employers] (apart form hazard awareness and the concept of proportional risk) is effective planning - planning of the workspace, planning of the work process and planning of arrangements to make things happen. Time and again it is the claim that "I wasn't thinking" that is used to excuse human error, which contributes to over 80% of all accidents. Just thinking about it first prepares one for possible problems and to ahve contingencies to hand should they be needed.

I should have thought of the fact that a safety harness would help prevent injury should I fall off the scaffold BEFORE I started the work, not once I've started the long fall down!

Posted By Bob Youel
We recently cut the costs of CDM, Vibration and Noise "Competency" training by 50% by going directly to the presenters of the courses and cutting out the middlemen

Posted By Dave Wilson
Jamie,

As an ex RN EHO who did the EHA training with the RAMC at Keogh way back in the distant past (80's), My advice get on the 'Gobs' course mate and get a BSc in Env Health then branch into H&S after that if you so wish.

Things still havent changed then, the Military do not put 'uniformed' people on civillian courses or pay professional fees etc.

Read the Articles on EH in IRAQ (Jan EHJ)very interesting and see that the way of doing things still hasn't changed.

Capt 'Rat' Moore still there then? Say Hi 4 me.