Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 24 February 2006 10:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anne Smart This year’s IOSH conference and exhibition, entitled ‘Health and safety: fit for business’, launches at ExCel in London on March 13. In the weeks leading up to this event we will be polling for your views on topics addressed by the difference tracks within the main programme. Today the subject is workplace health and fatigue. In the UK, finding someone who works only their contracted hours is a difficult task - according to the popular media. Lunch breaks are ignored, the day starts earlier and ends far later, and the office is always accessible via the telephone, internet and fax machine. Do employers need to do more to tackle this issue? Are health and safety professionals fighting a losing battle against workplace fatigue and the workaholic culture? Are you able to set the example to staff and maintain a good work/life balance yourself? Over to you ... Anne Smart, IOSH media and marketing assistant
Admin  
#2 Posted : 24 February 2006 10:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Anne - I shall reserve my comments as by the implication of the wording you have only addressed the employed and excluded those who are self- employed. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#3 Posted : 24 February 2006 10:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By The toecap People are there worst own enemies. You have to have the morale toughness to get up and walk out when 'the bell rings'. Although, employers ask for people to be flexible. Perhaps an employee needs to ask how flexible the employer is. There needs to be a bit of give and take on both sides. I recall working as a delivery driver about ten years ago. I arrived at the drop off point, having travelled from Liverpool to Leeds. It was after 1700 hrs. The warehouse man stated that he finished at 1700hrs and was about to close. I asked him to call my boss to let him know. He did. But the after a short while put the phne down and said, 'okay lets get it off'. It only took 15 mins and i went back to Lpool. When i asked my boss what he had said to hime to make him stay was simple. He'd stated that the warehouseman was okay to pinch a little time and go early from time to time but would he be prepared to guve a little time. This obviously struck a chord and we got a result. I believe this to be true in most levels. We don't mind going early but to stay a little longer can be out of the question sometimes.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 24 February 2006 10:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TBC It is simply the world we live in. Technology has a lot of good points and a lot of bad points. Look around at what's going on - simple things (or maybe not so simple) like the mobile phone and laptops. Stop in at a service station and what do you see people walking about seemingly talking to themselves with little dangly bits hanging out or stuck in their ears cyber beings or is it a body abduction (sci-fi) ? - no chatting to bosses contacts etc. Others drinking coffee (to keep them going) and working/playing on their laptops at the same time. Perhaps we could do with a timer switch on ourselves that won't let you work until you've had that break. We are all guilty - I was standing next to another guy in the gents when a phone began the ring in one of the cubicles and the guy was in there having a conversation whilst 'doing the business' we both commented on it - when my phone began the ring before I was finished. I now switch off at service stations and take that short break. If I'm the offices I go for a cuppa in another dept (networking!) and I always carry some papers or a folder - looks good.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 24 February 2006 11:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TBC Just read over the above and found a few mistakes = see what rushing does for you !!!!!!!!!!!
Admin  
#6 Posted : 24 February 2006 11:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anne Smart Frank, Comments from anyone who is self-employed are welcome. Please don't feel restricted by the questions, as they are intended to get people talking about the general subject. Anne Smart IOSH media and marketing assistant
Admin  
#7 Posted : 24 February 2006 11:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Thank you for the response Anne. The drivers for the self-employed are generally very different to those that pressurise the employed. For the self-employed; that bane of employment sanity - presentism - simply doesn't arise. For the employed, unless on a "call-out" rota; once away from the workplace, they are away from work; the self-employed are never really away from work if they wish to retain and maintain their business. The employer is required to manage many of the workplace issues that would help to mitigate the apparently high levels of hours in the workplace; but the culture of the society in which they live has huge unrecognised influences upon both the employer and the employee. This should really be an article for the SHP not a post on the Forum - the subject is far too large for here. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#8 Posted : 24 February 2006 11:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Joe Ridley Hi there, Interesting, my role is currently going though a restructure and part of that has included an 'open' condition to be available 7 days a week between the hours of 7am - 11pm to meet the needs of the company. This would not be the norm, so I have been told. I have not agreed to this yet. But what sort of example does this set? I accept my role involves health and safety and occasionally I may be required to work hours outwith 9 - 5, but I certainly don't need it as a condition of employment. I think agreeing to this would would endorse the work till whenever scenario. Joe
Admin  
#9 Posted : 24 February 2006 13:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gilly Margrave Just a reminder that today is the TUC's "Work Your Proper Hours Day". http://www.worksmart.org.../workyourproperhoursday/ Gilly
Admin  
#10 Posted : 24 February 2006 13:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TBC Maybe we should have something that enforces us to record the hours we work. I know let's call it the 'Working Time Directive'. Think it will work?
Admin  
#11 Posted : 24 February 2006 14:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Eyup, Can I talk about driving? No? Well, I'm going to anyway. We have a notional 37.5 hour week for salaried bods, which is one of the factors. We have also just had an occupational road risk assessment and I've written a policy on it as a result, that's the other factor. One of the sticking points is different meanings of work-time in terms of H&S law, and in terms of WTR. My boss has an ACAS guide to WTR which states quite clearly that time spent travelling to a place of work is not work time, even if it is not your usual place of work. I'm dead sure that for H&S purposes I am at work when travelling provided it is not to my usual place of work. So when that's sorted out I want the Charity to adopt a clear policy that says that any driving on Charity business must take place between stated times (we're currently arguing about what those times should be); I want this for two clear H&S reasons. One is work-life balance and stress management, the other is because of the accident peaks late at night and early in the morning. What I want to say to people, almmost all of whom will be salaried managers of reasonable seniority 'When it gets to x o'clock at night find a hotel and go to sleep'; or even, perish the thought, 'plan your day so that by the time it gets to x o'clock you're already at home'. But I know they won't. They will leave home at 5 in the morning to get to a pointless meeting by 9 and then spend four hours chewing the fat before leaving for home at 5 and getting in at 9; and that's a short day. In other words, when it comes to driving, and the pull of your own bed, employers are running up a very steep hill trying to make people stick to a reasonable working day, John
Admin  
#12 Posted : 26 February 2006 18:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Talbot We are all working hard towards being recognised as a profession of professionals. What that means in reality is that we have to be responsible and responsive. A response of "I finish at five" to a request for help by those still at work on the late shift is repulsive. A response of "This is my weekend" to a call that a serious accident has occurred is likely to result in a P45 (rightly). So what is so different between me taking that stance, and a director working past five on some account she needs to win? Or a manager doing the employee reviews over the weekend? To balance, if I work excessive hours, my director acknowledges that and I take some back to achieve the balance ... Working the lunchtime is usually a personal choice taken out of wanting to take it a little easier at other times. I have never been told to work my lunch. I have never heard my colleagues being told to work lunch. Maybe someone needs to better understand the office dynamics, let's not leave it to the media to report what we are doing (no-one is going to tell the reporter "oh yeah, I work my lunch, but I slope off to the shops three times a week, I surf the 'net for three hours a day, I chat about the TV every hour, on the hour...") Anne - isn't it really up to us to research this properly and then report to the media a definitive account? Oh, and sorry but why do you think we should be fighting to restrict people to agreed hours? What is so magic about 9-5 restrictions? Part of the balance is self determination and control (see HSE's stress management ideas) so if I want to get there early and leave late, who should have the right to stop me? Flexi-time is great, unless you are trying to arrange a meeting/training for ten people, eh? In my experience frustration at not being allowed to do our jobs is far more of a problem than the extra few hours a week we spend trying.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 27 February 2006 07:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Had to go back to Anne's original posting to see if I had anything relevant to say. Yeah, why not. My "working/life" balance over the past week has been as follows : Sunday : drove 6 hours to get to the hotel in time for dinner. Monday : 8am on site for a working session with the safety team 2pm presented audit report to management. 7pm back to hotel Tuesday : drove 6hrs back home. Kissed wife, stroked cats, checked e-mails and sent out invoice to client. Wednesday : down to town for the papers (tuesday's Times) and a coffee. Cleaned out the cat box. Thursday : started prep for next week's trip. (one-day BBS train-the-trainer session, 30 participants, 2 trainers) Friday : continued above Saturday : completed above, printed 30 sets of documents Sunday : collated all docs, put together two trainer kits. Dug up and replanted 4 apple trees. Put the dinner on (6-hr lamb). Had dinner and then fell asleep during olympic closing ceremony (the boring bit where they were all hanging upside down on ribbons) (or maybe it was the beaujolais) Monday (10 minutes ago) remembered I hadn't booked hotel rooms for tomorrow's trip. Done that, free to check e-mails and so on. Work/life balance ? it's what you want to make it. But then I would say that, wouldn't I ? Right. I'm off down the town for the Sunday Times and a coffee. Have a nice day Merv
Admin  
#14 Posted : 27 February 2006 08:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight If I'm not talking about driving, I would say that I try and keep within my hours, as I feel that I should set an example in this, but like Merv I don't, especially when I'm away from home, John
Admin  
#15 Posted : 27 February 2006 09:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Benjamin Nicholson Just a quick comment relating to working hours and driving. Would I be correct in saying that a company car can be construed as 'work equipment' and therefore should the risk assessment process take account of the operator? If so shouldn’t tiredness be a contributing factor when assessing the risks?? Ben
Admin  
#16 Posted : 27 February 2006 14:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman We limit driving time to about 6hrs per day, breaks about every 100 miles. Working day, including any driving time, should not excede 10hrs. OK, monday was almost 11hrs with the client (doesn't time fly when you're having fun !) but that included a decent lunch (no alcohol, save that for dinner when driving and work are finished for the day) So, after a long day's work, don't drive home. Relax in the hotel and have a shower and a decent meal. (quite often billed to the client anyway)
Admin  
#17 Posted : 27 February 2006 15:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Hi Ben, You could tackle it from that angle. There's also just the general MHSR requirement to assess all work activities; the problem we have is that some people will take Merv's very sensible view; others will take the view that 'it's all down to the driver in the end', John
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.