Posted By David J. Hi, Whilst I do not agree with the extent of the measures applied here, particularly the use of CCTV as I feel this is a gross intrusion and smacks of big brother spying. Additionally how far is CCTV going to go in “checking” on employees in this company? For example will it measure (no pun intended) the number of visits away from a machine to the toilet or having a passing word with a co-worker. I do however sometimes get frustrated (I work for a LA) at the constant failure of managers etc (all the way to the top), to even consider disciplinary action for breaches of H&S generaly for example in instances were supervisors continually put staff at risk by taking short cuts, not applying measures identified in risk assessments etc. The culture is such that a supervisor that was £5.00 short in his/her petty cash would be more likely to get an earful from a manager than one that exposed staff to avoidable and considerable risk on a daily basis. Whilst I do feel that the carrot should always be bigger than the stick. I think to completely remove the stick is folly. Of course I could be wrong?

Posted By peter gotch Mark, You have not answered some of the questions raised in responses to your posting. In particular: 1. Why 70dB(A)? This figure is one thirtieth of the current 1st Action Level of 85dB(A) LEP,d, and about one tenth of the 80dB(A) level set in new EU Directive. There is a good chance that if you have a car, the sound level when you are driving exceeds 70dB(A) whether or not you have the radio or music on. 2. What industry are you in ? There might be some sense in your approach where noise levels fluctuate markedly, eg in metal fabrication, so that you define a zone where the levels are consistently above 70dB(A) but where there is significant risk of exposure to much higher LEP,d doses. Conversely, if you are looking at eg consistent levels from production machinery, then there are probably much greater HSW priorities than worrying about getting personnel to wear ear protection when their exposure does not exceed 80dB(A) LEP,d. 3. Interesting lack of response to comments re Data Protection Act. 4. Surely you offer personnel a choice of ear protectors (particularly at the potential exposure levels implied in your posting) ? eg to include EAR or similar plugs. I defy your CCTV to be conclusive as to whether workers are wearing plugs in various locations v/v your camera location(s), angles etc. 5. Rewarding positive behaviours has general international consensus as being good management practice whether in relation to H&S or any other aspect of performance. "Now Peter, it is time for your annual appraisal. I am not going to comment on what you have done well, but beat you around the head for the mistakes you have occasionally made in the year." "Thanks, boss. I think I'll check out alternative employment opportunities cos you have just throroughly demotivated me." Of course there is role for discipline to enforce appropriate behaviours, but encouraging the positive is much more likely to achieve lasting results. Why don't your workers want to wear ear protection ? Regards, Peter

Posted By Kieran J Duignan The original question at the head of this thread ended as follows: 'I wondered if it should be included as a recommendation in a HSE publication'. There is fairly clear guidance on this matter. Perhaps there may be a political party which might vigorously Mark's style - and Mark as a parliamentary candidate?

Posted By Hilary Charlton Mark, Like others I thought this was a wind up, but after seeing your last response I realise that, no, I was sadly mistaken and you are definitely for real. Have you tried culture change? I'm in mechanical engineering, another one of those "I've been doing this for 30 years without an accident .. blah, blah" industries which I know everyone will be able to associate with and yet, everyone in my place uses guards, wears shoes and glasses and ear defenders where appropriate because we trained them, listened to what they wanted, let them choose their machine guards and basically, got them on side. Your approach will only last for so long before everyone gets thorough cheesed off and you have a revolt - the "softlee, softlee catchee monkey" approach is kinder and staff appreciate being listened to and have their recommendations taken on board after all, they are the ones working in that environment, not you. I would love to be a fly on the wall in your place when you speak to a member of staff - I guess you have sent all your staff on a sign language course so you can converse properly without the need to remove your ear defenders. You seem to wield your health and safety power like the sword of Damocles hanging over your employees heads; remember, "power corrupts and asbolute power corrupts absolutely". Good luck with any other initiatives - perhaps you can do an environmental one where all employees use both sides of the paper - think about it! Hilary

Posted By David J. As an aside, and I don't necessarily agree with this policy but.. A factory near Glasgow owned by the American company Caterpillar manufacturing parts had a policy on eye protection. Employees found not wearing them were given 1 warning and then dismissed. They never had a serious eye injury. Does make you think. cheers all.

Posted By Mike Craven I very nearly have a sense of humour, but doesn't this, the posting about First Aid equipment theft, and the fact that the most popular recent topics by far were about "conkers" and "songs for swinging safety officers" compromise the professional standing of IOSH? Or do we, as someone has previously suggested, need a separate forum where people can have a more light-hearted outlook on things? Mike

Posted By Mike Craven And, Adam, if you had bothered to read my posting properly before making so many offensive personal comments, you would see that I have suggested that there can be a place for humour and light-heartedness via a separate forum, thus allowing those looking for professional assistance, advice, debate, etc to get on with it. Who knows, I might even contribute to the humour and light-heartedness myself. If I can get away from being the over-reactive busy-body, archetypal safety killjoy and job-obsessed herbert that I clearly am - at least by not getting out much I can find time!!!!!!!!!!

Posted By Ian Stone Can we put this post to bed now? Its obvious its all been a wind up from the start and Mark is sat back laughing his head off at everyone who are still posting on the subject! In a minute he will own up that its all been a joke and hes really a nice guy :o) Wish I had never posted earlier response saying people should be helping rather than criticising!! Ian

Posted By Chris Black to Steve Ashton I liked the referrence to the trolls bulletin. the following behaviours; 1. gaining credence for false and invidious ideas 2. gaining attention that they cannot get using their real personalities could easily applied to a mutual acquaintance who, incidentally, wouldn't look at all out of place hanging out under any sort of bridge

Posted By Ian P Lynch Hi All I've been a member for a few years now but only just got around to looking in on the forum. That Mark ..............he's a one and no mistake!! What a lark, Mark!! It's easily the best thread on here, by a mile - just look at the responses - nothing like getting the blood up is there?? And they all fell for it...... Lynchy