Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Debbie S
I have just read the thread about the article in The Sun about the use of garden trowels and WRULD's etc. In the Daily Mirror on Saturday was an interesting article about a young lad who dreamt of working in Air traffic Control - he passed his entry exam with flying colours, sat a tough interview, was offered the job - then someone in Health & Safety carried out a Risk Assessment on him and the job offer was withdrawn. WHY - because he was 6'10" and he's too tall and they where worried about back probelms etc at a later date from being at a desk that only designed for people of less than 6'2". They could have brought a self adjusting desk by all accounts - but didn't. The young lad is now suing them for discrimination.
The World has gone Mad!! Let me Off!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MichaelM
Could he safely play conkers at the desk though if it was adjusted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TBC
I would imagine that given the circumstances (his height) and equipment available, the workstation would not be suitable.
The story had a happy ending though - he got a job in Luxembourg. Hants or Luxembourg difficult decision - flip a coin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DavidHaddon
You wouldn't have thought that Luxembourg was big enough!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Donaldson
I have a good deal of sympathy for the person who is making the claim. One of our technicians is approaching that height and we have made some very simple adaptations to enable him to work comfortably.
I might add he has become quite adapt, over the years, at ducking as he walks through doorways. Not much we can do about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
All it would probably have needed was a set of four of those blocks used to raise chair heights for older and disabled people (to be added to the desk legs) - just a few pounds -or the maintenance department could have made some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Hammond
Did you see that programme a couple of weekends ago about the differences of the sexes. They did various scientific tests in a speed-dating situation and the one common theme that attracted women to men was not looks or money. It was height - all the tall men got chosen - even the really ugly ones.
So as far as I am concerned anyone who is 6'10" deserves a bit of bad luck!
Regards
Nigel (5'7")
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Just think of all the head-banging they have to endure, Nigel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MichaelM
Ken
You might want to re-phrase that last offering!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Derek J Golding
I was an Ergonomics Research Officer for a short while and I found that there were many situations where it would be impossible to fit the task to the worker. Some accommodation could be made within limits but you cannot redesign a built-for-purpose equipment station that was limited by the space available to fit that equipment. Some designs take 20 years, or more, to reach operational capability and can only take in population norms with a degree of latitude for evolution but the bottom line, especially for deeply specialist equipment, which is unlikely to reach end-of-life and replacement in the near future, is "fit the worker to the task". Imagine a submarine, fighter plane or ship where the design criteria is principally to be capable of fighting, accommodating the crew becomes a lesser consideration. Nowadays it is easier to miniaturise equipment and make its configuration more adjustable but the cost of backfitting cannot always be justified. I am only 196cms and 115 kgs but I won't go potholing nor buy a small car but I made very adequate second row forward! Horses for courses has to have its place at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.