Posted By Dean Stevens

Yesterday i was on my way home from work whilst listening to one of the local radio stations, the presenter was ridiculing "bonkers" health and safety discussing the subject of product labelling.

e.g a bag of nuts containing the wording "may contain traces of nuts", baby oil marked "keep out of the way of children" etc etc anyone think of any more?

Anyway my point to this post is when is society finally going to wake up and realise that most health and safety that has gone
"bonkers" is solely due to the fact that we have adopted the Americans compensation culture.

I remember reading a story once about a women who successfully sued a washing machine company because her dog had died after she put him in it, she won the case because there were no written instructions stating that "you should not put pets in etc"

When will common sense prevail in this world?

It does sadden me when i here these "bonkers" stories, but with so much compensation being claimed companies/authorities are only doing it to protect them from civil action.

Do you think this helps peoples perception of us heath and safety guys?

Discuss at your leisure..................

Posted By John Allen
I sometimes wonder if the term “may contain traces of nuts” should be displayed at the entrance to this website!

First of all the story about the woman putting her dog in a washing machine and then suing the manufacturer is so old that even red top editors must know its an urban legend.

Secondly baby oil is used by adults and applied by them to children. Of course it’s labelled ‘keep out of children’s reach’ – you wouldn’t want them to drink it would you?

Thirdly there is no American style compensation culture in this country. I feel so strongly about some of this stuff being spouted off by posters on this forum that I have no apologies for pasting below the whole of the TUC’s comments on this subject:

“We are heading for a US style Compensation System

There is absolutely no evidence for this. For a start the legal systems of both countries are very different. Secondly our judges have not changed (if anything they have become more cynical of claims) and neither has the law.
In Britain awards are made by judges, not juries, and there are very strict regulations on what can be awarded. It is not enough to show merely that you have been injured or just that your employer was negligent. You have to prove that any injury or loss you claim was caused by your employer’s negligence. You also have to prove what losses have been incurred, or will be incurred in the future, as a result of your injury. For example, a worker who loses two fingers in an accident but can still manage to wash the car and to feed themselves, albeit much more slowly than before the accident, would not be able to claim for the cost of a carer because they would not be able to show that they had lost the ability to carry out such tasks. The strict UK system can result in decisions such as the one where a woman who lost both legs in an accident got her damages reduced because she would no longer have to buy tights.
In the USA awards often include “punitive damages” which are effectively a fine. It is these that occasionally lead to very large payments, but even in the USA these are almost unheard of for workers claims against their employer. In fact many American workers are unable to claim damages against their employer because of laws which prevent them doing so, or because of legal restrictions on the amount that can be claimed. Most recently the US Congress agreed a law restricting the amount of compensation that could be claimed by asbestos victims who are dying from mesothelioma”

Posted By Peter Longworth
I do believe we have a compensation culture in this country but I also believe that it is the insurance companies that are largely to blame.
In the company I work for we see mainly minor injuries such as cuts to hands etc. It's not very often that these result in anything other than first aid treatment but we still see a number of successful claims most of which never get to court. The reason for this is that, legal costs being what they are, it is not financially viable to pursue these cases through the courts. The claims are settled out of court every time. The insurance companies then increase the excess on each claim to such an extent, that we are now virtually self insured. (Our excess is in the 10s of £1000s). We must have employer's liability insurance by law so we are completely snookered. The insurance companies are making a mint for doing nothing.
We spend a lot of time and effort trying to reduce these minor injuries but unless we can eradicate them completely we will continue to be a cash cow for the insurance companies, solicitors and a small minority of employees.

Posted By Jason911
I agree with Peter. The legal system, be it judge or jury is irrelevant. The point here, which I believe was inferred in Dean's original posting is that we have now turned into a 'Where there blame, there's a claim' society.

I deal with the claims we receive both public and employee liability and they have increased dramatically since 'no win, no fee' solicitors arrived on our TV screens.

When I started this job I used to get highly irritated and confrontational with anyone who ridiculed our profession. Then I thought why suffer the high blood pressure? You will never ever change the human condition of 'It will never happen to me', by getting irate with people you are merely fanning the flames and reinforcing there opinion. Better to just not react, treat them with the contempt they deserve, make a witty retort and keep chipping away. They will soon loose interest and look to ridicule something else, its human nature!

Jay

Posted By garyh
I have always (in my capacity as a safety manager) advised our insurers, solicitors that we should fight every claim where I believed that we were not at fault. In practice they look at the cost of settling our of court v the cost of fighting (and maybe winning) in court. They take the cheapest short term option, in my experience.

My view is to take the long view; if employees (end ex employees) know that you will fight to the last if their case is poor, they might think twice. "No win no fee" lawyers don't like taking on this sort of plaintiff; they are out of pocket if they lose.

We as a profession need to stand up here and be counted. Don't advise settling on claims just to save money. Incidentally if we were largely to blame, I used to advise that we "take it on the chin" and settle.

Incidentally, I once told a group of Directors how to prevent having ANY claims. They sat up and took notice!

My solution - "DON'T HAVE ACCIDENTS".

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Why should anyone expect anything from the "popular press" and "broadcasters" then the pap they have been spouting for years ?
Why should you expect fairness and understanding of compensation paid to employees and public, from what is basically an organisation employing thousands with shareholders expecting payment ?
So, someone with a nut allergy eats from a packet with no warning....would they get compensation ?
I doubt it.....not unless it says: "no nuts in here...none ever....nowt....nuts is out"
In any case, pretty soon there will be no room on the packaging to put anymore guff....crisp packets will be the size of cars....and that's just for the "nutritional information", all of it...both types.
Far too many companies run sloppy outfits....with H&S at the bottom of the agenda...if that high...many advised (in some cases extremely badly) by H&S consultants. I'm all for injured persons using the law to obtain redress for their losses and/or injuries. If the companies, or employers, don't like it...well, that's tough.
At the end of the day all this "compensation culture" stuff is a fabricated exaggeration by those with a particular agenda to fulfil....and employees are still dying because of workplace accidents and industrial disease/s....while employers laugh all the way to the [foreign] bank.

Posted By The toecap
Chris Evens remarked yesterday that the HSE had banned step ladders. More mis understood takings again.

Posted By Jason911
I agree that we will never ever change this type of headlines printed by those red top comics, so why get upset about it?

I don't agree with our compensation culture being a myth, invented by those firms with a hidden agenda. I deal with these claims day in and day out and not only do the claims get more and more ludicrous, such as 'Our client slipped on a button in your 150,000 sq ft warehouse and you are negligent for not spotting it and removing it', but it is emerging as the single largest area of fraud being committed in the UK today.

It has also resulted in many businesses spending thousands of pounds on security measures, such as CCTV just try to prevent it, which you could argue diverts money away from other areas such as H&S. The type of claims were talking about here surely are the frivolous ones, created by the 'no win no fee' outfits and they are a completely separate issue from the legitimate ones that result in severe injury, or even death that fully deserve to be compensated.

There has to be a balance, such a more regulation for solicitors and a mutual reference society, as currently used by the automotive insurance industry to prevent people making multiply claims and laughing all the way to the (their all foreign aren't they?)bank.

Posted By Jason911
I understand your logic John, but with all due respect I deal with 50+ claims a month, so I would argue that I have a lot more data than most to accurately assess the situation.

As far as government stats and policy go, they are not worth the paper they are written on as statistics can be massaged to prove anything, especially during an election year.

Posted By I McDonald
John

thought your last was a bit strong as this is an open forum and each is entitled to their opinion.

Do not dispute your work related claims stats but how often are other claims pushed through/don't reach court using H&S as a reason. Members of the public, etc, trip on a path, etc. Some of the comments in the original thread did not point directly at work related claims when the term "claims culture" is used. ............contain traces of nuts. Any claim for traces of nuts would not be work related but the ridicule from the misinformed media with their own agenda soon put the "H&S" label on it.

Back to the point I asked on my last contribution and 1 of Deans original points, does this alter the public perception of H&S Professionals/Profession?

Ian

Posted By Jason911
John,

My reference to the government was their argument for the introduction of 'no win no fee' not the other stats that you mentioned, which again I would argue are about as much of an indication and as impartial and incorruptible as the weekly pop charts.

I think a minority of people on this website have become so single minded in their pursuit of good H&S practice that they honestly believe that all employers are evil and all employees and the general public are honest law abiding citizens, who never ever have an accident because of their own fault or sheer stupidity.

I am afraid to tell those people that H&S is not the centre of the universe and that it is industry, invention and commerce that brought us out of the dark ages not H&S.

I am sorry as this will no doubt offend and I love my job as much as the next person, but please get a grip, every accident at work is not the result of the employer.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Where does my "data" come from ?

Let's see:
RTA. Knocked off my m/cycle by a van driver who was looking the wrong way...and drove out of a junction at speed doing so.
Severe trauma to left leg...fractured kneecap...tendon damage.....
Claimed, as is my legal right.
How long ?
Well....3 years 8 months to settlement.
6 visits to private consultants at the van drivers insurers cost....
This was a straight black and white case.
Another:
Trip at work (not me)
Fault ? Cables laid across the floor in a bay....
Injury: Fractured wrist, tendon damage.
Time to settlement: nearly 3 years.
Again, many visits to medical consultants.
So, who's getting rich ?
Not the claimants.
Solicitors, and consultants.
Buried under all the [supposed] false claims are the real ones.
The false claims are being used to impede the real claims, the false-claim stats are being used to cover-up the real claims stats.
How many will die this year from asbestosis ?
How many from other work-related health problems ?
How many from genuine accidents ?
How many with long-term illness because of their employment ?
No guys, the FUSS is about covering-up as much as possible and paying out as little as possible....irrespective of whether or not the claim is genuine.