Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mike Turner
do they work or is it time to change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Crump
No and yes.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Turner
thanks for the reply.....was kinda hoping for a little enlargment on your answers...why do u think yes and why do you think no...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Mike
I think the SRSC regs are on the the whole working very much as intended. Sure they are not perfect and perhaps in a few areas they could do with updating.
Most of the problems emanate from ambiguous wording. I seem to have mislaid my copy, but from memory the provision for reps to investigate accidents in the workplace is subject to a 'reportable incident.' Whereas I suspect the original intention was or should have been any unsafe act or condition.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Timothy Capner
Hi
I do think the regs work and work well, but only if the safety rep(s) and management work in conjunction with one another.
The biggest problem that I had as a rep was being kept in the loop. A rep can only investigate an incident if the rep is made aware of it - whether it's reportable or not.
Many employers are still unaware of the requirement to consult with their employees, and a pervasive culture of 'us and them' still exists in many organisations - however enlightened they may believe they are.
The HSE/TUC worker safety advisors (WSA) and the provisional improvement notice (PIN) projects highlight the need for a TU perspective in the workplace and also highlighted the unco-operative attitude faced by many TU reps.
In closing, I don't think we need to change the regs, just the attitude of many employers. A positive safety culture should take its lead from the top.
Regards
Tim C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Bywater
I think they work when there are Reps who want to use their rights in the correct way. When I was a rep it gave me greater pleasure dealing with safety issues above "table banging" about increased wages etc.
Unfortunately there are too many reps out there that just want time away from the working environment and do not see their status as a tool to improve safety conditions in the workplace in conjunction with management.
I know there are some excellent reps in a variety of workplaces but my current and recent experience tells me that some are in it for an easy ride and the free bar at the Xmas bash.
In short - the Regs are OK but unless the people who can use them to their advantage, know how to use them, they are fairly useless. I must say I have to drag some reps kicking and screaming to H&S committee meetings and stop them short when they attempt to hijack it with TU issues.
On the whole I am slowly but surely educating them, including their rights under SRSC Regs, which most of them are unaware of.
A final thought - Whose job is it to inform them of the regs? Mine or the relevant TU that appointed them?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Timothy Capner
Hi
I read Mark's response with dismay. Although I have witnessed the same attempts to hijack a meeting, you can't exclusively blame the TU rep.
Harking back to my posting - there still exists an 'us and them' culture, reinforced by both parties.
However, I'm reassured that Mark's persistance will prevail.
In closing, the TU that appointed the H&S rep should ensure that the rep is prepared for his/her role as a safety rep. All part and parcel of their qualification to act on behalf of the TU and its membership.
Regards
Tim C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Turner
Thankyou all so far for your reponses, as a TU Rep myself I often feel the brunt and the then lack of communication from my employer, but in the same line I can also be just as hard nosed when the need arises.
But it is the regs I return back to, they are in my opinion still a suitable tool for implementation of a safety plan and safety system when applied fairly and through considerable understanding from both sides.
There are however a few things I would love to change in them and that they are the addition of PIN's or UIN's with all the legality of the Australian system and the fact that Britain is still holding back on allowing their reps access to the investigation system when an outside body comes in, this is particularly frustrating when it is the TU rep that has instigated the call-out.
But as I have said they do work but they do require tweaking as technological advances and new procedures are implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Regarding some of the previous comments I think it 'takes two to Tango.' The nature of h&S will often find that there are areas on conflict. And in an ideal world you should not need the SRSC regs. So what does this say about health and safety management?
Of course there are those reps who just go along for a ride. Just as there are some pretty useless managers. It is a fact of life! If those whom they are supposed to support vote for them, then they get what they deserve.
In my company we have a COP which is a comprehensive manual transposing the SRSC regs into best practice procedures for dealing with h&s issues. Many issues that are either not covered by the regs or not covered sufficiently are explcitly dealt with. Okay, problems still arise, but as a rule they are due to a conflict of personalities rather than the COP.
Regards
Ray (ASLEF H&S Rep)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.