Rank: Guest
|
Posted By rb
Picture the scene- I am sat in the beer garden of a lovely country public house on saturday afternoon, just enjoying the sunshine and a cooling pint of their finest whilst reading the newspaper when a gust of wind caught the parasol of the table next me and up-ended the table!
Poor bloke sat there with his good lady, now both covered in food and wine! Now, the parasols don't have the sand/ water filled bases as the landlord is too tight to buy them (I know him very well and he has told me as much!!). After replacing the food and drink for his now damp and stained customers he sends out the duty manager to take down ALL the parasols (from the 20-30 tables) quoting health and safety as the reason for them having to be taken down! two things occurred to me-
1. No, you tight-wad it's not a H&S issue, it's a short arms, deep pockets issue!
2. The lack of parasols created another potential hazard and exposed his customers to UV rays from the burning sun. Everyone was left without shelter from the suns rays. Now it doesn't really bother me sat in the sun and I continued to do so quite happily until I had finished the Suduko in the paper, but others left quite sharpish!
Need to spoil people's enjoyment?
Need to find a reason?
Use Health and Safety.
Rant over!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Always wear a cycle helmet. I was talking to a man with a horse on a pub forecourt in Stanhope, Northumberland, when the wind picked up one of these shade parasol things, spun it, and sent it with an audible crack harp end first on to the top of my head; it was solid at the base as well, not tubular (the pole, not my head). Now, at the time I had cycled over from Bishop Auckland so I had my cycle helmet on, and I was therefore unmoved by the whole experience. So the moral is, always wera a cycle helmet, even when not cycling ;-).
I agree with rb's statements entirely; its short thinking like that that gives us a bad name,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmes1979
Dare i respond to this with a big brother point.......
Did you see the episode last week where the Welsh lad was told by big brother that 'For Health and safety reasons, you cannot eat the out of date black pudding and you must leave it in the diary room!' Very funny i thought, would it come under section 7 that all employees must take care of themselves and are contestants employees or volunteers i wonder :-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graeme
I think the manager took the correct immediate action.
Removing them prevented further cost of replacing foods, prevents further costs from compensation for damaged clothing, prevents cost from damaged property in general, prevents further cost from potential injury claims should one happen to take someones eye out.
The removal of them should however be on a temp basis until suitable means of securing them with weights or some other means of support is established to prevent a re-occurence.
Spoiling enjoyment for 1 or 2 days is the safest option in this case, should they never be replaced then yes....Stupid.... but i should imagine that wont be the case.
Graeme
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gary IMD(UK)
Has someone missed the point of rb's thread?!
Take care!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Hayward
On a similar theme, I was in a pub the other day and a sign of the bar said "due to health and safety regulations the childrens play area is shut untill further notice" When I asked the barman - what regulations are these then? he said " I dunno - a guy from head office turned up last week and put black and yellow tape all over it" Another case of claims avoidance mentality again?
Mick
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graeme
Removing the risk to remove liklihood of injury!!
The best option in most cases on a temp basis, proactive rather than reactive.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graeme
QOUTE
Has someone missed the point of rb's thread?!
Take care!
UNQOUTE
I just got the point of the thread, I assume the point was that using the "its for H&S reasons" arguement whether it is actually for that reason or not, associates H&S with ruining peoples enjoyment.
Rather than saying we are taking them for H&S reasons, a better explanation would have perhaps been, "we are removing them for your own good on a temp basis until we can secure them properly to avoid taking your eye out when they blow away.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi,
Yes, that's it exactly; instead of saying 'it's H&S' we should give an explanation - an actual reason. At Sheffield's Hallamshire hospital by the multi-storey on A Road (for some reason the student's always nick the road signs for this one...) there's a sign on some railings that says 'For H&S reasons don't park bicycles against the fence'. What H&S reasons? As far as I'm concerned this is no explanation, and its simply not open to argument in most people's eyes. So if there are valid H&S reasons we have to be prepared to state clearly what they are,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Breezy
I have just amended an internal document for exactly the same reasons.
So "In the interests of H&S..." becomes "To ensure appropriate staffing levels..."
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Mitchell
Totally in agreement with the last couple of posts. If we are to tackle the 'elfnsafety' culture we should offer explanations and reasoning. Most people, if faced with the actual facts behind the decision, adopt a more understanding attitude. Bunging things under H+S becuse nobody else wants it, or letting unqualified people in the public realm make H+S decisions undermines any chance of improving our image.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackdaw
Agree totally that an explanation should be given - not just for health and safety reasons.
Similarly, I think it would be better if people stopped stating that things should be done because the law says so, or the such-and-such regulations state that it should be done.
Give a reason - why are the regulations there?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kelvin
Can you see managment of any organisation saying that you cant do this or this has been changed because we are to cheap to pay for the appropriate controls.
Chris Moyles told the nation that they couldnt have a garden/leisure area on the roof because of H&S. Ive never come across legislation that says you cant, though i have seen legislation that may make it a touch more expensive.
Kelvin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
I can picture it in the future. The next thing you know beer will have a health warning Stating: WARNING MAY CAUSE HEADACHES AND DROWSINESS. DO NOT OPERATE MACHINERY OR DRIVE WHILST TAKING DOSES OF THIS SUBSTANCE
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graeme
I assume you havnt read the packaging on a crate of beer recentlty, white writing, black box, WARNING consumption of this entire crate is hazardous to health.....seen it on a few brands now or words to those effect HA
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Drinking beer isn't a work activity; or if it is, I'm in the wrong job, cos I'm not allowed...
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert S Woods
The Landlords long pockets are costing him money if customers walk out because of the lack of brolleys. Serves him right the short sighted (erm asterisks aren't allowed) person.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Breezy,
shouldn't it be "to avoid unforeseen but foreseeable reductions in staffing levels ..."
Merv
H&S is not used (often) as an excuse to spoil enjoyment. It is (often) used as an excuse.
Easy targets, aint we ?
Merv
|
|
|
|
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.