Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Simon Davies
Came across a rather perplexing comment recently. I would like to know what individuals think, if they have encountered similar and hence welcome their comments.
I was with a fairly high ranking individual from an enforcing authority, you know seminar/conference event, and during our discussion in the interval the individual stated something that I hadn’t heard/thought/come across before. In a nutshell the individual said that they, and some of the individuals’ colleagues, would like to see a change away from what they experience. In that, so many within ‘our’ industry appear to be legislatively driven and previously employed as ex-forces personnel. The individual went on to say that, in their experience, ‘they’ are very rule bound always quoting legislation, asking about increasing legislation constantly ‘banging the drum’ on Corporate Killing and very rarely displaying or wanting to apply, a pragmatic approach to H&S. The individual continued that in the their experience, such people appear to only want to tell ‘workers’ that they must do this and that, because legislation says this or the law is such or its against the rules or the rules say this and that.
I was taken aback and therefore struggling with a response as I said that I was unaware that so many were ex-forces but bowed to the individuals’ obviously superior knowledge, networking and contact opportunities. However I did mention that in my experience I was encountering a lot of young people entering the industry, (I am currently mentoring someone) and these forums have evidence of such youthful interest.
So what do individuals out there think? Is the individual correct? Are there a lot of ex-forces in the industry and if so why? And why does this person think they are rule bound etc and not pragmatic?
Please, ex-forces personnel – don’t shoot the messenger. I would be interested to understand why this individual feels the way they do and/or has encountered such situations.
Personally I thought the comments curious – coming from someone who enforces legislation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MetalMan
As an ex RAF Engineer with many years experience and I find this persons comments very hard to justify. By the very nature of their job members of the armed forces are taught not to get bogged down in details and to be very dynamic, scratching your head and quoting rules and regs in a dangerous high pressure environment is likely to get you killed, or at the very least a mouthful of abuse.
What you tend to get when you employ an ex member of the armed forces is a person with a "can do" attitude that can produce high quality work and does does complain at the slightest thing. From what I have seen it is usually people with no hands on experience, or real life experience that hide behind rules and regs, hence "Bonkers conkers" articles in the papers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
the person you were with is very out of touch - its rare - in my experience [>25 years in many industries] that a preacher of law / rules is found - as usual only the poor practice types are quoted - its sad that an enforcer thinks this way
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
I think the general point being made about too much focus on legislation does apply to many in the h&s world. Things do seem to be changing but I do still come across many (especially training organisations) who cannot get away from putting the emphasis on legislation rather that how to manage h&s).
Where the comment is wrong IMHO is in linking it with 'ex-services' personnel. In my experience having worked with quite a few who come under that heading, they seem generally to be at the more enlightened end of the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Longhurst
What a curious notion and one that seems to stem from an archetype oft used in British films of the 50/60s (I'm alright Jack etc)
I am wondering why any company would employ someone who displayed such a rigid approach in a managerial post?
Quite how this stereotype has managed to survive in this day is puzzling - perhaps it is a function of the compliance culture of many employers - it must be done but it ain't sexy so let's just do what we must. A shame as most these days understand the very real commercial benefits of an active H&S policy.
Regards
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Without wishing to make myself a target by association [oh, so what!], it could be that the legislator mentioned has identified a submerged prejudice about their "adversaries" in the workplace in that they may actually know what the law really requires and are able to argue that approach in a convincing manner; thus refuting some of the proposed enforcement initiatives!
After all, if the Company H,S,F&E Advisor/Officer/Consultant doesn't know, understand and apply the underlying law what use are they?
I entirely agree that a pragmatic approach to the management of H&S etc is essential at all levels - but for such a statement to be made by an institutionally paranoid organisation [HSE as primarily enforcer but also supplier of advice and as public mentor] with opposing standards and approaches is surreal.
Also, "pragmatic" is rather like so-called "common sense"; everyone uses the term but it has as many different connotations as there are people using it yet everyone assumes that it means the same to all.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ME
Don't assume highly placed individuals within the enforcing authority know what they are talking about. The HSE generally does not like H&S consultants....maybe that's because so many of them are disgruntled ex-inspectors. By the way, the HSE has it's own fair share of ex-forces inspectors, so it's not in a position to comment. Sounds like this high-ranking bod from within the HSE is talking out of their backside...nothing new there then!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeffrey Watt
Simon
In my experience it's lack of experience and/or lack of senior guidance that keeps some people as rule quoters. I don't really agree with the ex-forces observation as any ex-forces I've worked with were safety focused and always willing to listen to you before piling in, a rare enough gift.
I started off as a rule quoter but luckily I got intercepted by a smart boss when still relatively new to the profession and taught that we are allowed to be active players in the game not just the referee.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Ron,
For some reason I can't send you an email through your listed address? I was hoping to ask you to send me the clips you mentioned. I'm sure others would like them as well, but that's the risk you run when mentioning goodies! Happy to swap for anything I have that may help you.
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Alan,
I do believe you have posted you message in the wrong letterbox.
Only to be expected I suppose ;-)))
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Sorry about that - finger trouble!
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AJM
Speaking from a purely personal point of view, I will use the quote of what is law and what we must do but only as a last resort. To be honest i feel as if i have failed if i cant get a valid point across without resorting to the stick as we call it. I like to think I am a hearts and minds person and have found it much more beneficial and rewarding using good rationale behind what i try and implement, that includes both the accident costs of not doing something or the monetary cost in fines etc.
After all if i cant convince myself what chance have i got of convincing someone else.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Longhurst
AJM
Good point, well made.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By anon1234
In both in H&S and engineering roles I've come across numerous ex-services people and in some cases I would definetly agree with the comment made by the HSE person - I've also found the same problem with ex-union safety reps - however, these are not the only groups within which I've found this, but in my experience it has been more prevelant in these areas.
BUT - I've also come across some very good pragmatic and customer focussed individuals (from these groups) which don't constantly refer back to the rule book. I think it is probably that age old problem of generalising about groups of people based on relatively small sample sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Davies
Thanks for all your responses, both to the forum and direct - interesting - spoke to the individual since and I believe there is 'something' within their organisation as opposed to personal. The person is not saying anymore on the matter and now wants to stay 'mum'. Oh well, the individual should have said nothing in the first place if they couldn't justify and support the statement. I'm a bit concerned that that is the 'feeling' with some of those within the enforcing authorities. It makes you wonder what they think about ex-engineers, ex-sales persons, etc etc in our industry.
I think I'll treat it as a throwaway statement.
Ex-engineer - pragmatic and not rule bound
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
An ex-sales person in H&S ? I'll go for that : somone who can motivate others to buy the product. Yeah. But how would you work out their commission ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Walker
Hmmm,
As ex forces and an ex union safety rep (plus many other things) the last thing I consider myself as is rulebound.
Yes sometimes when all other reasoning fails then the pointing out of penalties for non compliaince does win the day, but these instances are few and far between. Persuasion and communication are far better tools along with a good dose of common sense.
Pehaps this particular individual had a bad experience in his national service days?
Note to self "Must try Sergeant Major approach"
Get those earplugs in lovely boy
Andrew W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Simon
I think it is a bit 'rich' that a senior HSE advisor should be accusing h&s practitioners, ex-armed forces or not, of being too prescriptive or whatever. After all, it is the HSE who keep producing a plethora of h&s legislation, are too reactive and will prosecute those (after an incident) for failing to comply with the law, and when asked for advice they very often 'sit on the fence'!
The notion that the HSE try to engender a goal-setting ethos is only myth, promulgated by the HSE of course. If the HSE would really like to move away from prescriptive h&s management, then I would suggest the following:
Provide free of charge ACOPs and Guidance Notes to all bonifide h&s practitioners and TU h&s reps;
Concentrate more effort on inspections rather than investigations and prosecutions;
Provide better and more unequivocal advice;
Reduce the plethora of h&s documentation, particularly in the construction industry, by actively encouraging the 'less is more' philosophy; and;
Persuading those who enforce unreasonable policies and practices (middle and senior managers) to allow h&s practitioners to decide their own h&s management strategies and policies.
Mantra over!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.