Posted By sagalout I offer this thread as a debate. The Safety Movement is the title of a well thumbed, 40 page, paper A5 booklet given to me by my Grandfather. It was published by the North British Railway Company somewhere around 1900-1910. It says on the front cover that it was given to each of their 30,000 employees. The opening paragraph reads: “Human lives are cheap. Dirt cheap. Men risk them for nothing. They will sell them like old crocks. They do, really. Men will take their lives in their hands to save few yards walk or to save waiting a minute or two. They’ll even do it for fun.” The following 40 pages contain lots of good stuff with examples of good/bad etc and to implore "men" to work safely. I looked at this booklet the other day whilst contributing to the thread on no blame cultures and this got me to thinking about just how far safety has moved in the last 100 years. So my suggestion for debate is: “How much have we actually changed safety in the workplace in the last 100 years?” We may understand more science and have better regulation as result. We have accidents and case law that have become reference points for changes. The protection of the law in the workplace is now given to many more than it was in 1906. But at the coal face or the lineside? In my booklet, we appear to have a company that is making its workers totally responsible for their own safety and the consequences of failure. And in truth they were. However, the railway environment has always been highly regulated with volumes of operating codes and rules so one can understand a view that everything has been done that can be done by the employer. In addition, employees were, generally, very well trained; even if they did have to do it through mutual improvement classes in their own time! Furthermore, most railway companies were considered, by the standards of the time, to be responsible employers with a sense of care for their employees. I am not saying we have failed or criticising any of the players. Just pondering why we have been trying to knock the wall down for at least 100 years and it doesn't want to fall down. (or maybe, for the optimists, I should say building a wall and it keeps getting knocked down.)

Posted By Richard Altoft Sorry just realised I had not given an opinion on the question as you asked it. I suspect workers attitudes have not really changed - they do as little "safety" or as much "safety" as they think is appropriate to satisfy their immediate boss (not the Co, or the policy or the system just the person who sees they get the next job).That has not changed.Have bosses attitudes changed - Yes I think they have because the pressures have changed and law incl civil law has become more of a pressure and of course many bosses are now employees which in 1900 they were not as they had their own money invested often. How do we know we make a difference? Only by the numbers I guess which is hard to compare as methods of counting have changed and did not exist in 1900.In 1950 a power station of 360MW was built and cost 5 lives, I demolished it in 1992 and built a 1400MW new station on teh same spot with no lost of life. I like to think I and others made a difference. R

Posted By Gilles27 Have they IS? If they have why do you keep carping on? I am totally sure you are a seriously competent person. As a regular user and sometimes contributor to this site you may appear to some (not me though) to have a chip... The crude jokes were rubbish a while ago. You are equal to the blokes. Admit it and move on. If you don't how will they? Prepared to get pummelled.. I await in fear. Good input from you IS when you mean it. J

Posted By Gilles27 Not at that point, but only a few hours to go! Sorry Is, no offence meant, perhaps it came out a bit wierd. Pls take no offence, but then offence is in the eye of the beholder, so if it upset you , sorry. I just think that when sexism stuff kicks off it should get ignored. Have good weekend. j

Posted By Merv Newman i think Ted is going a bit sideways here. Even though the content of his posting is absolutely correct. However, Sagalout (name reminiscent of old age pensioners drunken knees-up) forced me to go through my bottom drawer and pull out a safety booklet dated 1915 : The booklet is entitled "Safety-Health-Efficiency" "This booklet has been prepared for the benefit of our works employees, to whom and to whose families the Company extends its best wishes for health and prosperity during the coming year. We urge you to read it carefully, to preserve it, and to put into practice the suggestions that it contains" "Safety is imperative, health is essential to happiness, and efficiency is the quality most valuable in an employee. Each is dependent on the others. Safety is not attainable in the absence of good health, nor is it realized by the inefficient man ; good health depends upon freedom from accident ; healthy men are usually the most efficient. Realize the importance of these and strive constantly to attain them all. they mean to you your welfare and success in life." That was the preface. Now just the first paragraphe of the text : "Accident prevention Most accidents, whether incurred at the works or in the home are due : To not knowing what is right To doing what is known to be wrong To not caring whether the act is right or wrong To not stopping to think whether it is right or wrong The first of these is ignorance ; the second, disobedience, or as termed legally "willfull negligence"; the third, indifference; and the fourth, carelesness" Not a lot has changed, has it ? I think it was Wilson and Watt who said in about 1902 that in case of an accident it was the victim's fault 100% Discuss Merv

Posted By sagalout Mmmm. One or two interesting posts. Perhaps the weekend will bring some more? Is, I am not sure I understand your comment on first reading? are you saying that safety has improved the inclusion and respect for women in industry and business? Or was it a social comment? Roger, I am on common ground but maybe in a slighly different spot. You make a good point about bosses being owners but most of the front line management was still done, in bigger companies at least, by employees. Ed, maybe the difference today is that we have loads of regulation that is normally ignored whereas 100 years ago, not so much regulation but what there was did get more respect? hence my qustion about "how much has anything really changed at the "coal face". I was reading a report earlier today on a recent court case involving a chap who was tragically killed in an overhead power suppply accident. There were clear and unequivocal failures in compliance to the employers s.w.p. but interestingly, the "foreman" was fined £1000 under sec 7 prsumably based on the fact that he did not stopthe work which was in his clear view, the "engineer in charge" which included safety controls and management was only reprimanded. To refer to another thread "what no blame culture was that you were talking about?" and "exactly how far have we come since 1906"?

Posted By Edward Shyer Hi Merv, Not so much a sideways move just looking from a different angle. Industrial dermatitis for instance was around 100 years ago but was put down to living conditions and lifestyle but in recent years this has however been highlighted and accepted that workplace activities and workplace substances are solely responsible. The problem you have is that as industrial dermatitis can and does usually appear very quickly in a given workplace activity the reasons (I highlighted) for some employers even today for getting rid of the employee are usually used as opposed to addressing the issue. Another issue is work related stress this could arguably be put down to modern lifestyles and job insecurity. I believe that workplace stress was about as much 100 years ago as it is now. I am aware that there are many factors that cause workplace stress but while employers are able to use these tactics will workplace stress go away. I accept that legislation has driven H&S forward over the last century and has resulted in a massive reduction in workplace deaths, accidents and diseases. However I believe this has been because of the fear of individual prosecutions as well as company liability that has been the driving force behind this. Regards Ted

Posted By Is Kismet I have obviously distracted this topic and my apologies/regrets to the originator. The essays are in parts so obviously discriminatory that I felt it should be mentioned as a change for the better - it was not an attempt to be sexist, or to change the subject, or a social comment (??) but to show that work related activities affect us all equally - as it did then, and as it does now.

Posted By Is Kismet Hi Ted, you wrote: I accept that legislation has driven H&S forward over the last century and has resulted in a massive reduction in workplace deaths, accidents and diseases. However I believe this has been because of the fear of individual prosecutions as well as company liability that has been the driving force behind this. Possibly. But do you not think it is the reduction in manufacturing, and mining, and the almost complete disappearance of our other large industries that is one major factor, and another being the huge step forward in clean water supplies and sewage removal, and lastly the medical advances we've experienced over the last century? I'm also not convinced it is the fear of prosecution. We (as a general term) don't commit murder because we fear prosecution, it is because of our moral outlook on life. We don't steal because we are scared of being caught, it is again because of our moral obligation to our peers. Much as I would like to think we (H&S professionals) and the legislative support we have, has made a difference, I believe these aspectes to be only a very, very small factor when taking the whole of our society and our environment into account.

Posted By Is Kismet I can accept the last one Ted, a good point. Not necessarily legislative pressure but pressure all the same.

Posted By Is Kismet I would have thought the issue of fire certificates for new premises was a very proactive step. From my (limited) point of view, the removal of this measure seems to be a backward step. A number of our clients resist measures introduced by RAs, but were willing to accept the provisions of a fire certificate.

Posted By Merv Newman You might find this link interesting http://eh.net/encycloped...rich.safety.workplace.us It relates the history of safety at work in the USA. I'm sure a similar article for Great Britain would make a great item in the Practitioner. Anyone need a few CPD points ? Merv

Posted By John Murgatroyd http://www.ijoeh.com/ Frequently sad. LOADS of H&S over here, and loads of employers over here getting work done where there is little H&S. Government isn't funding HSE, so loads of job cuts are happening. So inspections are getting less and less. Hmmm............ I think I smell a rat.............somewhere... Didn't they (gov) just lose a little skirmish in EU....you know, the one where there MUST be rest breaks but the employer doesn't have to ensure they are taken (didn't that is) ? Hmmm.......more rats coming, I smell them already.

Posted By J Knight Is, On a like-for like; I read recently (it might even have been on this very forum) that somebody recently worked on a major project to dismantle and rebuild a power station; the outgoing station was built in the 1950s at the cost of 5 deaths; the demolition of the old and construction of the (larger) new plant killed nobody. Cynicism is easy, and comparisons are hard to make; after all, I have cited only one case and one should not generalise from particulars, but I think things have changed, and one of the changes is in the very moral climate which also prevents murder; nowadays it is less likely that morality in the UK will accept murderous employment relationships, John

Posted By Jeffrey Watt When inherently dangerous institutions, hundreds of years old, like the Royal Navy do not learn from their mistakes, what hope is there? Galvanic corrosion between iron cladding and copper rivets caused their dreadnought hulls to fail in the 19th century and then 100 years later galvanic corrosion caused the fore wheel of the Harriers to break off on landing during the Falklands war. IMHO This has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the nature of man (or woman). We will always be fighting our EHS corner and there will always be people to protect. Why? At sixteen years old I watched my comrades standing in the rubbish compactor of the supermarket where we worked, trying with a combined 23 stone of downward force what 2 tons of horizontal force couldn't muster, namely getting another big box into the skip. "Are you guys nuts, someone could turn that on from inside the warehouse, they can't see you are in there!" I admonished. "The duty manager told us to." was the reply as they continued to jump up and down on their new trampoline. At sixteen I couldn't believe anyone could be that stupid (both the manager for suggesting it and my comrades for not telling him to wise up). 20 years later I understand it and believe it and know that logic and reason are useless against indifference.

Posted By sagalout Perhaps as the originator of this thread I might suggest that it has run its course? Thank you to all who contributed, as one who does not have the opportunity to be involved in such discussions in the real world I am most grateful to you all. In summary I would say that it appears we share a view that progress has been made but that much remains to be done. It is difficult to clearly identify H&S led change separate from the co-existing social change. However, it is easy to see where a H&S perspective has influenced the changes in law and behaviour in the workplace and that it continues to do so every day. Thanks Again Pete

Posted By Jeffery Watt Woops sorry Pete was typing while you were posting "Cut,its a rap".

Posted By John Murgatroyd Finale: Consider the evidence given to the Children's Employment Commission (1842) by Henry Morton, Agent for the Countess of Durham's Collieries: " I believe that employing children in coal mines is perfectly consistent with good health. They earn good wages. Working on the night shift does no harm, the air and ventilation are the same at one period as at another. I have never heard of boys injuring themselves down pits from the nature of work, only by accidents. I do not think any change in the hours of work is necessary for children. I would not object to a law preventing children from working before ten years old but would rather leave it to the manager to accept or refuse them. Any such law would be unfair on parents with large families… I do not think that working in the pit means that boys are incapable of having lessons after a day's work. Most coal mines could not carry on without the labours of young boys."

Posted By Merv Newman My first working day out of school (still aged 15) I was shown a plaque on the laboratory wall "in memory of Doctor XXX who died in faithfull pursuite of his duties" Apparantly he had sucked up a mouthfull of some nasty bacteria through a pippette. Or (alternative version) had picked them up from his pipestem which he had laid down on the lab bench. Smoking a pipe while handling dangerous pathogens (is that a tautology or what ?) Also, according to legend, despite a serious case of the (unspecified) lurgy, he kept working until he collapsed over the bench. Fortunately, this event caused a change in company policy. We were all vaccinated against everything we would come into contact with. going from Tetanus-whooping cough-diptheria through smallpox to Pasturella Pestis. (black death) But I suppose they have all worn off by now. So, yes. Policies and practices change over the years. Usually following dramatic events. And legislation also evolves, usually following VERY dramatic events. Maybe enforcement with it's related threat of punishment, is still (and will continue to be) quite weak, but the threat is always there (at least post facto) which leads some managments towards improving their policies and practices. However, until we, as a profession, can persuade our managements that H&S is a profit centre rather than a cost we will continue to struggle. Thank god I don't work down the mines. Although my brother did. Merv