Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Zaphod
After, years of defending my suggestions and recommendations against people who often believe I am being over the top, I think I have just come to the great realisation that they are right. What's more so am I. (I like to think!)
By its very nature, H&S is about predicting the future - assessing risk and taking action where you think the level of risk warrants action. However, if you only took action on risks that were definitely going to be carnage, a lot more people would get hurt.
For every 10 H&S actions, may be there is only one that will prevent harm. Unless you have a time machine, you cannot say which action is the one that will definitely prevent harm. So, you err on the side of caution.
I am not advocating that there should be no limits. Clearly H&S should take a sensible risk based approach. However, it is always going to be 'excessive' - I believe if it is not excessive, an unacceptable level of injuries and occupational illness will take place.
Perhaps it is time we stopped defending our recommendations and embraced the fact that we are proud to be OTT!
Please discuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
There is being over the top and then being over the top.
EG recent post asked the question
"Do I NEED to provide drinking water for an employee who drives for most part of their duties......"
The responses which where being given saying it should be provided never answered the question properly instead they mislead from the actual legislative requirement.
This is poor method of advising why not just say "no you don't but in my opinion it should be considered because .........."
At least then your giving guidance allowing a person to decide themselves what needs to be put in place, you are clearly outlining where you can draw the line and demonstrating the benefit of taking further measure even though they are not required
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PH
I think it largely depends on the individual.
Just look at this forum. How often is a relatively simple question asked requiring a simple answer that gets turned into a major debate? I come across too many safety people who's primary concern seems to be their desire to demonstrate how knowledgeable they are, while missing the point that most 'normal' people want a simple and practical solution to their problem.
We are sometimes our own worst enemy.
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
"The responses which where being given saying it should be provided never answered the question properly instead they mislead from the actual legislative requirement."
Really Gff? Re-read it and you will see that the very first word of response (by Toecap) is "No".
We then went on to discuss assuming that we did not need to all repeat the phrase "but in my opinion..." because clearly what we write here is our opinion.
I was accused recently of never giving a yes/no answer here at work. I agreed and explained that there are few instances in H&S when a yes/no answer is completely helpful without explanation, and often needs a caveat added.
The old approach of saying "no" to everything is where the bad name comes from - "no unless" or "yes if" are better.
That's life and yes Zaphod until we learn the skills of accurate fortune telling, we will need to err on the cautious side.
There really isn't anything wrong with trying to help people understand and develop their thoughts is there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Zaphod, an interesting but flawed proposal. If indeed we are OTT then that is not acceptable in any way. The best H&S is effective H&S: and if it is OTT then it is neither efficient or effective.
I suggest that many professions and trades have the responsibility to uphold and apply standards and that many often "feel" the weight of gaining acceptance of their approach as do H&S people. For example, you say that good H&S is predictive but then so is good machinery maintenance. I can well recall the "discussions" to get access to machinery for agreed maintenance. Were they really any different?
Have we never been guilty of perceiving something that we have to do to get a job done or allow our employers to meet their duties as being OTT? I know I have but once properly explained I have often reluctantly accepted and complied. H&S doesn't need to be any different does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
Tabs
Your right!
No other posting suggested that it was a requirement, I don't know how i got it so wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Gff, no problem - it's probably because you are flawed like the rest of us :-)
Zaphod has made me look at things slightly differently today. Perversely though, it has made me say "no" rather than "maybe" LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
OTT is a term usually only used by people who disagree with what they are being told or PAYING for the decision made!
Personally I would prefer to know the reasons for the OTT opinion and aim at either changing my trail of thought on the subject or educate the person I was discussing it with to ensure they realise my reasons for making that decision.
JPK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zaphod
Very interesting replies. Perhaps my assertion that "being OTT is OK" was OTT in itself!!
As H&S professionals we often have to persuade senior managers and directors to make decisions and spend money on H&S issues that within their world view, do not seem important - even when a CMIOSH professional presents what he or she sees as a powerful and persuasive case.
Rather than getting frustrated with such a situation. I am now trying a new approach of agreeing when someone says that my recommendation is OTT and then going on to ask clever questions that leave them doubting themselves. That's my plan anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
On the subject of the EU legal challenge on reasonably practicable, Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health and Safety Commission recently said “We continue to believe that the right way forward is a proportionate and risk-based approach protecting employees and others effectively, whilst allowing commonsense to be applied when deciding on what protective measures to adopt”.
propotionate in by book does not mean OTT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Tabs,
You are a man after my own heart! (Assuming male gender - if incorrect I apologise).
I too have become famous for the yes/no response. To paraphrase the great man himself, "maybes aye, maybe naw".
So often it is horses for courses - but then that was the point of the goal-setting risk analysis approach. So often people want a straight yes or no, and don't want to think for themselves. And of course, it makes blame avoidance so much easier . . .!
H&S is a team approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Taylor14
got to agree with PH, all about separating wheat from chaff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
I find that a lot of H&S people tend to be OTT because they are too scared that they may make the wrong decision and be blamed for it. (I am not accusing anyone on this board of this, it is just an observation).
People need to be confident in themselves that they are making the correct decision and then they can be confident in what they are doing and they can make sensible proportionate measures to control risk.
There's many a time I've had to over-rule the decision of an over-enthusiastic H&S professional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MetalMan
What I tend to find is that the people that are the most ott are the people who are the least confident in their knowledge or ability, You need to be confident in your knowledge and experience and your ability to "find out" if you don't know, otherwise it all ends up in a big ott rear end covering excercise, hence risk assessment for making coffee etc.
Andie Petrie where you ever in the RAF? if so let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.