Posted By Charles
Safety … there is a dearth of legislation governing our every move and setting forth the minimum requirements permitted by law. The safety maze is a complex matrix of integrating pieces of legislation from many sources of law and statutory regulations. From a highly intelligent safety strategy point of view would it not be best practice to have all pieces of safety law and regulations consolidated into ONE.?

Posted By Lance Morgan
Don't you mean Plethora?
Dearth means scarcity.

Posted By Charles
Hi Lance

Perhaps I should qualify the context of the word ...

Safety … there is a dearth (serious lack of insight into the problem) of legislation governing our every move and setting forth the minimum requirements permitted by law. The safety maze is a complex matrix of integrating pieces of legislation from many sources of law and statutory regulations. From a highly intelligent safety strategy point of view would it not be best practice to have all pieces of safety law and regulations consolidated into ONE.?

Posted By Charles
Hi Johnathan

Yes duplication and red tape does indeed kill growth and empowerment. The KISS formula is always the best solution.

If it is not too much trouble would you part with a copy of your motivation.

Warmest regards

Charles

Posted By Charles
Hi Jonathan

Whether its stripes or stars or stars and stripes for that matter it doesn't matter but if we understand that the law of significance states that one is too small a number to achieve greatness ... hoping that the consensus of minds of this forum would change and simplify our governing rules!!

Have a Happy New Year.

Charles

Posted By Charles
Hi John

I am alluding to the fact also that self regulation is the best business process where the CEO can look at his/her operation and by questioning an aspect thereof with reference to one piece of legislation it will tell him/her what to do to comply safely. Management by Self-Audit is progress.

Regards

Charles

Posted By John Murgatroyd
"where the CEO can look at his/her operation and by questioning an aspect thereof with reference to one piece of legislation it will tell him/her what to do to comply safely."

For CEO read DIRECTOR/S.

Ok, I'll look at the H&S costs.
Cost of H&S consultant.
Cost of PPE.
Cost of constant risk assessment for each separate contract, and parts of.
Costs of various safety inspections of various machines and slings/chains etc.
= cost of complying with regulations.
Much easier to go:
Don't need it, no laws just advice.
If the guys won't do as I tell them then they'd better look for new jobs.
PLEASE don't tell me it won't be that way...it IS that way NOW !
"less red tape and regulation" is gov-speak for saying "we can't compete with the third world labour costs so we have to reduce ours to theirs"

Posted By Charles
Hi John

Sorry another point ... the argument of 3rd world vs 1st world is irrelevant as far as I am concerend. Outsoursing is a Directors perocative as it will reduce his overhead costs but as long as quality (safety) is not impeded. Imagine again if the Director/s take this avenue and because of not assessing the outsourcing market correctly their poor quality goods or services will cripple their company. The resultant loss of brand, trust etc. will certainly knock the business out of the global market maybe for good.

Regards

Charles

Posted By John Murgatroyd
You're right about quality v sales etc.
And about the high expense of poor h&s (eventually).
Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of people presently going through a slow process of dying because of poor h&s, and that's just the asbestosis victims. And there are still employers EVEN WITH THE KNOWN RISKS that expect their workers to deal with asbestos without ppe. I know of one company whose policy towards reportable incidents is to not report them, in one case giving a worker a week off, with pay, to stay quiet. Where there is one, there are more. These employers are not impressed, or even interested, by the present legislation....they will be very impressed by the [no] new laws.
I'll repeat this: the drive behind less red tape is not the cost of complying but the cost of h%s itself. Less is best. Bear in mind the relatively short life of many small firms.
Oh, and a read of this:
http://www.fsb.org.uk/do...e/downloadfilefromdb.asp
will acquaint you with what small and medium companies consider to be uneccessary legislation. H&S comes well down the list, which leads me to wonder why the [increasingly] vociferous complaints ?
Sorry if the url breaches guidelines.

Posted By R Joe
A couple of simple tests provide in my view a clear steer as to whether or not there is too much H&S legislation and a lack of understanding of the issue......

1) how may organisations of whatever type and size (never mind SMEs) can say with full confidence that they comply with ALL H&S law (despite what they sign off in their Statements of Internal Control)? NONE that I’ve met, but I'd be very interested to hear otherwise - any takers?

2) why doesn't the HSC under its statutory duty in HSW section 11(2)(c) ensure that employers and others are provided with the surely the most fundamental H&S information they need (particularly when Corporate Manslaughter based essentially on a test of 'legal compliance' is being touted as the answer to all our H&S problems) ie a FULL and CURRENT listing of ALL H&S legislation? Is this too much to ask? Or, what would our average SME, and come to that our average MP, and our average newspaper, make of such a list I wonder? Indeed, would we as H&S professionals feel at all uncomfortable standing behind and defending such a list as the basis of good health and safety and the best approach we can come up with………?

This is NOT a reactionary stance, and certainly not a call for a lowering of standards, just a reflection of a growing recognition that we really DO have a problem in this area as the thread suggests.

Regards RJ

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Dear all,
Like most I have read the fsb document, all I can say in a nut shell is this.
They want to trade, fine, they want to make a profit fine, they want to employ staff fine, but what they dont want is all the legislation that goes with it, sorry, the law is not an ass, long winded yes, red tape yes, if SME can not be bothered with the basics then, tough luck. Life stinks, but as a safety advisor I am sick of reading about small companies only being found guilty with a small fine, it makes our job harder. Call me old fashion, but if you want the money then you must take the responsibility that goes with it.
This is a ageist statement I will use.
People who started work back in the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's where not brought up with health and safety, therefore they do not care about H&S, today, however, management can see H&S for the assesst it is, and not used as a weapon, unlike unions, who use it as a weapon when they want to.
People are used to H&S now, SMEs are very slowly getting the message, but to the person who has been doing the job for over 20 years what can you teach me? you have been lucky for the last 20 years.
Off my soap box.

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
The one thing I have always found funny at a Company Induction or any induction, is the fact that Section 7&8 of the 74 Act always get a mention, but never Section 2 or Reg 3, ever wondered why?

Posted By John Murgatroyd
It's not bad employers versus anybody.
Employers try to keep costs down to maximise profit.
Some see H&S costs as a total loss, others see any problems arising from a faulty H&S regime as a cost to be avoided. Again, some see accidents from the human viewpoint, others only the financial aspect.
The views become polarised depending on which side of the fence you are.
And it's not more legislation [better]
or
Less legislation [better]

it doesn't matter how much you have if it's so complex that nobody understands it, or so little that it's of no use.

I don't see a voluntary regime working. Large employers have more to save than small or medium emplyers, but small employers are more likely to ignore it anyway, no matter how little it is.

A case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
It's always going to be an overhead. Whether it's seen as something else as well depends on the various policies the company adopts. Looking at the increasing amounts awarded against companies as fines, you may think that even the most recalcitrant management would get the message. Along with the large amounts awarded as compensation etc.
However, I also note the clamour to "do something" about the "compensation culture"............... So, maybe the message is getting a bit blurred ?

Anyway, the parties seem to be getting increasingly polarised in their attitudes. The managers regarding legislation as an affront to their abilities, and the unions (most of who represent their members and don't play politics, much) regarding any attempt to "water-down" law as a way of introducing "third world" conditions into the country.

I sometimes pity government. A bit like walking a tightrope with people at each end shaking it about.