Posted By Ashley Williams
What exactly are you looking for and why? Unless im wrong its a simple system of making sure that all safety information is communicated to them in their own language if they are unable to read and understand english.

Ash

Posted By AJM
Sorry for my ignorance but I would like a better understanding of this subject for future reference it is one I have thought of before.

Are you saying that even if you don't employ foreign workers but may do in future you have to have the systems of safety in their language. Like the disability changes, where you have to have your company set up to employ disabled workers, in case you ever have an employee with a disability. So in effect you are not denying them the right to work there in the first instance.

Secondly if you did employ foreign labour are you saying you can not look to employ foreign people with a clear understanding of safety procedures and signs etc. That would be inherently safer in that environment. as opposed to someone who didn't.

Hopefully thats as clear as mud

Posted By Salus
I think everyone is for ensuring no harm to any worker,but this is again the type of legislation that does no good (I have heard some real horror stories concerning the DDA)the problem is who foots the bill and common sense does not seem to come into it.
this type of worker will have invariably not paid any UK taxes, yet they can use up valuable recourses by occupying a hospital bed or attending an A & E department.
I have heard good(brilliant workers) and bad (controlling by violence others who may wish to work on a site / exhorting money from people before allowing them to work on site)stories about migrant workers. The liability issues are horrendous, as always the UK gold plates legislation and then enforces it to the letter of the law

Posted By Salus
John, did you read my comments? who said anything about not giving them a job.
Untill the time comes when I can go to any none english speaking EU country and get the same privlidges (work/signage/induction/benefits/money/ accomodation, all provided by an interpreter at no cost to the worker) as the UK gives others then I will have a genuine greivance.

Posted By Salus
Andy we are going of the beaten track a bit,last post, John, "we" do not get the same as "them" when in "their"country.
I do not know about stringent hurdles, but do know about jumping over border fences

Posted By Frank Hallett
I think that you've all missed the fundamental point - although Salus was quite close with his accurate observations about not getting a job in most countries if you cannor communicate at [varying] levels required.

At its most basic - if a person cannot communicate in the language of the site then how do you warn them that they're about to have their head caved in by a rigger or tell them that they're running the wrong way in an emergency?

How do they do the same for you if they spot the problem?

Going to find the interpretor could put people at unnecesary risk and what happens if it's the interpreter who gets hurt?

It's nothing to do with discrimination - it's all about ensuring a common level of communication which is required by the MHSW.

Frank Hallett

Posted By kanta
The HSE provide guidance notes in various languages on various subjects in various languages.I'm sure if you contact your local branch,they would be happy to help.
Provided your employer has no objection to you contacting the HSE on this matter.

Posted By Frank Hallett
My apologies to kanta - my stubby little finger hit the wrong key [z].

I still don't know why we have people who continue to be allowed to use obvious pseudonyms - it's supposed to be against the AUG's!

Frank Hallett

Posted By alancoll
Andy

I don't profess to be an expert in these matters and I haven't been on any crash courses or anything. However the problems connected with NES workers should be viewed in the same way as those connected with other workers with 'different or particular' needs, always bearing in mind the general and specific duties of employers to all workers.

The Campaign for Racial Equality (CRE) has an Employment Code of Practise in which they recommend taking steps that are "reasonably practicable"in communicating health and safety matters. They also have a Statutory Code of Practise on Racial Equality in Employment that states that "reasonable" steps should be taken.
The law on this is no more a "minefield" than many other areas of English law. (Although I'm not sure if the CREs reasonably practicable and practicable have the same meanings as they do in the HASAWA)
There are legal requirements and guidelines relating to advertising and recruitment that are similar to those relating to sex discrimination etc.

It's a case of practicalities, if you employ a lot of foreign workers and you have the resources then it might be reasonably practicable for you to translate all your written material and provide interpreters. There are now many agricultural (and other) employers who have a policy of recruiting solelyfrom eastern EU countries, and the good ones do this .
If you're a small employer with few resources the burden would not be so great, but you would still have the general duties.
The standardisation of safety signage across the EU is a help, and you could be resourceful and translate some of your H&S info into picture form. I once worked with a construction company whos H7S manager did this quite effectively. It should be relatively easy to convey emergency and evacuation procedures at least.

I realise that most of this may not be of much practical help but I do hope it was better than some of the previous racist rantings and veiled sarcasm from respondents some of whom would be better to adopt "curious nom de plumes".

Posted By Frank Hallett
Good morning "alancoll"

I too thought that your offering was most helpful, evenly presented and contributed to the general and specifics of the debate; until the last bit that is.

That statement was ill-focussed; and far too general and sweeping except for the last part which gave me the distinct impression that it was aimed specifically at me - and I am definitely not racist!

Please either identify that it was not aimed at me or substantiate your comment in public!

Frank Hallett

Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,

Agree that there are safety implications about employing people who don't communicate easily in English, and I don't believe that it's necessary to be racist in order to want to raise these. Some of the posts in the thread (and no Frank, I'm certainly not talking about you!) do come from a position of sweeping generalisations about people from other cultures, which is not helpful. However, consider this, it's not just people from other countries who have problems with communication; we can also include people with dyslexia, people with learning difficulties, deaf people, journalists and members of any government in this category. What percentage of adults born and raised in this country have difficulty reading and writing for example? So as usual we come back to the Act; effective communication is the requirement, and there are many ways of achieving it,

John

Posted By alancoll
Dear Frank

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about this however I agree that you deserve a response, I will also post it on the IOSH site as you want me to go 'public'.
I do not feel that my final comment was ill focused, it was relevant to several contributions, and it was as general as most of the other
contributions.
To deal with the "specifics" the original question was;

Good Afternoon All does anyone have any information on NES workers or maybeeven a policy that I could have a look at,it would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

In my opinion the first few responses were pretty relevant but then "salus" took it to a different dimension with this;

I think everyone is for ensuring no harm to any worker,but this is again the type of legislation that does no good (I have heard some real horror stories concerning the DDA)the problem is who foots the bill and common sense does not seem to come into it. this type of worker will have invariably not paid any UK taxes, yet they can use up valuable recourses by occupying a hospital bed or attending an A & E department. I have heard good(brilliant workers)and bad (controlling by violence others who may wish to work on a site /
exhorting money from people before allowing them to work on site)stories about migrant workers. The liability issues are horrendous, as always the UK gold plates legislation and then enforces it to the letter of the law

and then this;

John, did you read my comments? who said anything about not giving them a job. Untill the time comes when I can go to any none english speaking EU country and get the same privlidges(work/signage/induction/benefits/money/ accomodation, all provided by an interpreter at no cost to the worker) as the UK gives others then I will have a genuine greivance.

and this;

Andy we are going of the beaten track a bit,last post, John, "we" do not get the same as "them" when in "their"country. I do not know about stringent hurdles, but do know about jumping over border fences

I consider the comments by "salus" to have racist overtones, and completely uninformed. However you obviously don't because your opening position was;

I think that you've all missed the fundamental point - although Salus was quite close with his accurate observations about not getting a job in most countries if you cannor communicate at [varying] levels required.

When you're talking about not being " too general and sweeping" could you please provide the evidence on which both salus and yourself have based your observations (I assume you are aware of his because you've agreed with him and believe them to be accurate), i.e. what are the countries, what are the[varying] levels required etc etc.

With regards to the "curious nom de plume", how do you know its a nom de plume? What if its the persons name? Whatever it is there was no need to make the comment at all. As for the rest of that contribution I could only view it as totally sarcastic.

I hope I've explained myself adequately and that you can see why I, and many others, might be offended by some of the things said particularly as Ibelieve that they cannot be substantiated at all.

Posted By IT
I contacted the HSE on the Non English Speaking worker ,who is legally here and permited to work as I felt disheartend that the only reason given was that the person could not speak English and could not alert others around him,nor could he alert any person who may have been placed at immediate risk.

We have provided all tool box talks ,risk assessments and method statements in his language and he has done the CSCS test and passed,he has direct contact with his manager who speaks both english and his native tounge and can YELL Fire in ENGLISH loudly and point.

yet No one can tell me why he can't go to site.

The HSE can not see any reason why he can not work on a site ,where to now .

I am avoiding the other debate going on in this post .No Offence

Posted By IT
Thank you Frank,

I am learning fast about this issue and NOW after discussing the issue with a Director of the Company and advising the HSE Inspectorates view and documentation we have ,the Non English Speaking Worker is permitted to go to site.

Provided I undertake a risk Assessment on him !!!!

I have never done a risk assessment on a person before has anyone ?

What a learning curve this has been.

Posted By J Knight
Impacts, I meant impacts, not iplacts, we almost never need to consider iplacts, (now who has comms problems)

Jon

Posted By Frank Hallett
IT

On the basis that there are no questions with regard to competence and related issues; I would base my RA exclusively on the need for the individual to be acceptably safe whilst on site.

This will, of necessity, introduce the [obviously contentious] issues of determining whether certain communication needs must be specified and then what the essential minimum standards should be.

All standards must be objective rather than subjective and must be capable of being demonstrably essential as opposed to socially desirable. For instance, Someone working in a high-risk activity where the majority of communication is safety related will require a greater cognitive and linguistic ability than someone in an activity that is less safety critical.

And, as John Knight quite rightly identified, other barriers to communication must also be considered if relevant.

What is really strange is that it appears that these criteria are not automatically applied to all those on site.

Frank Hallett

Frank Hallett

Posted By Neal Clark
This thread has been temporarily locked whilst the moderating team discuss the contents of a number of postings.

Many thanks for your patience,

Neal Clark,
Web Assistant.