Posted By Richie Following the BBC strike this morning the Today-Show (R4) featured an interview with two persons from opposite ends of the discussion - Management and Unions. During the discussion with a Union Representative the interviewer suggested that the BBC had too many H&S Advisers, implying that they should be high on the agenda where redundancies are required. Needless to say that the Unions and Management rebuffed this, however I did detect a genuinely held oppinion from a very senior journalist/presenter that Safety was a nicety which should be dispensed with in times of want. The attitude will have done no favours to the trade because many "movers and Shakers" out there listen to this show. Did anyone else hear the interview? if so, what did you think?

Posted By Ian Bennett Yes I heard the programme and my opinion was the same as yourself. A rather flippant comment by Mr Humphreys who obviously lost a days pay when he was told not to attend yesterday (perhaps his safety could not have been guaranteed)

Posted By Paul Costelloe After last weeks performance in the U.S. senate, I think we should get George Galloway on our side - he'll be a match for Clarkson anyday !

Posted By Robert K Lewis In fairness to John Humphries, but only a bit, some of the people he has to interview really are beyond the limit. Did you listen also to the tone of the failed labour candidate - unable to defend a 19000 majority. She barely gave a space for questions and was determined to declare how wrong the electorate had been in not voting for her, and that the system was absolutely fine. Not that I always like JH but some people do need to be pushed from their cosy cliched statements, the NUJ, I think, representative was being over the top in some ways. What has happened by the way to the idea that managers must take ownership of safety, I felt that this message really was lost this morning. We must be careful that we don't end up in the trap that the safety person does all the safety round here. Bob

Posted By Adam Jackson Also, in fairness, on a more general point, when a smallish company is fighting for survival I do think there are times when h&s has to be cut. If its a case of stripping budgets right down to the 'make it and sell it' minimum to ensure survival I personally would support a company in doing that. I would rather they remain in business, get back on their feet and then re-engage with a driven health and safety programme than try to hang onto their 'critical' health and safety people. (And for that matter I would include all other non-core occupations in that as well such as human resources, IT, etc.) As much as we know health and safety is important, its still behind making stuff and selling stuff - if a company's budgets have got to the point that they can't do that then there's no point in their being a leader in safety if its going to mean its more likely to shut. We do an important job in h&s but we're not at the top of the tree when it comes to importance, nor should we be and we should remember that. I also don't believe that without H&S most businesses would then re-build themselves on the broken bodies of their remaining employees, casting all safety aside. There is often a hysteria in the H&S community that without us business would be back to the days of the cotton mills and sending boys into moving machinery, but sadly I think that's a large case of self-aggrandising. We cry out about how beneficial health and safety is for businesses financially, and it is true, but only if the core principles of making and selling the product are working, and if safety is jeapordising a recovery and is not cut then priorities are getting badly wrong. As a proviso - I'm only talking about smallish companies (<200 or so people) and right where its a survive or go under choice, not where belts are just getting a bit tight as is the situation at the BBC.

Posted By Jez Corfield Adam, Interesting point, but I would suggest you are wrong, small firms dont just 'stop' doing H&S to save money - they might stop using an external trainer or consultant to save money - but if any small business has any sense, they shouldnt routinely be hiring in expensive services anyway, i.e. they should be doing them in house, so that H&S costs them a minimal amount. The point I am making is that H&S is, or should be cheap! Most accident prevention work is in addressing unsafe behaviour, not spending loads of money on equipment or plant. And as most firms dont have the option about these physical measures anyway as they are a legal requirement; this money is going to be spent at some point, regardless. Small firms are often doing H&S by getting a small group (or possibly 1) of supervisors or managers to do safety alongside the day job. This costs some time, but shouldnt affect the bottom line - it really is too simplistic (even in the short term) to suggest that 'safety costs us money - so we dont need to bother if we want to save some of that money'. As for the great John Humphrey's, hes a journalist, and apparently they sometimes dont like 'authority', so his comments are almost predictable. Jez

Posted By Philosophical I think his comments should be taken in the context they were made. I don't believe he was attempting to be another critic of H&S, but was just trying to establish from the union man where the buck should stop! Indeed, I was quite impressed with how much air time "health and safety" got. I wish people would stop bleating about what an endangered species we are and get on with proving the cynics wrong. That can only be done by being effective professionals, not self publicising moaners.

Posted By Daniel Stonehouse if a company is well run and management are doing their job then there should not be an occassion where people say 'oh no, we are struggling and need to save some money fast - let's lay off some non productive people' in organisations that exist from day to day with no strategic plan, then anagement will not be as proactive as they could be, and thus opportunities will be missed for H and S to save them money- it all comes down to management. ( well, thats what i think!)

Posted By Ian Bennett Richie, I once heard the following qoute " It take about three minutes for the Receptionist to be missed and after three months the Company realises the Safety professional has retired". ( and nobody had a collection for them). Thus proving the company pecking order.

Posted By Alias Knowing this industry almost too well, I can pretty much say Safety Advisors are the only ones who give two hoots about safety. The turnaround and emphasis placed on "the show must go on" mean drastic safety compromises are made and safety professionals need to be on hand to ensure the risks are managed as well as possible under the circumstances. Without them, this industry can be a scary place. We are the experts in our fields, we can empower others to manage safety, but most won't be able to manage risk with the same fervour and effectiveness as us. To that end, we are dispenseable, our numbers need to be tailored to the number of tasks and size of the risks. If the BBC can afford to slash half it's safety staff that's fine provided we don't witness the human cost rise as a result.