Posted By Bennie
Hi Angela - if the risk assessment highlights potential damage to the toes or feet - Note - I said potential - then the employer must take any precaution as is "reasonably practicable" as to prevent harm to his workforce. Easiest way for most employers is to provide safety foot ware free of charge.

However, I am more concerned at the seemingly lack of management commitment to safety.
The need to assess any task that may prove hazardous to health or safety has been mandatory since at least 1992.

Suggest you go contact the HSE inspectorate for advice on any worries you have.

Good luck.

Posted By Angela Wilson
Thanks for your responses. My h&s officer thinks H&S is a waste of time that just costs companies money and in my opinion shouldn't be in the job. But this is a company that has always condoned this. But since I made my grievence they've had to carry out this risk assessment' but they are just dragging their heels, so to say.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
5 months ?
My company did no risk assessments for 10 years....
Even the ones they have done now are of no value, since they ignore known risks.
The assessment for weld fume is based on the msds for consumables and the source metal. Nothing at all about the fume from the paint on the metal, hence the reason why the rpe filters have "DUST FILTERS" printed on them.
Even the tests that the hse insisted they had done were done at 1900z, when the workforce had gone home !
I do not imagine that many employers are different.

Posted By Angela Wilson
Hi John, as far as I can tell this is the first risk assessment my company has carried out and they've only done this because I asked to see a copy of their assessment which said they did'nt have to supply safety boots.So maybe their penny pinching attitude at not giving me a pair of boots is going to end up costing them a lot more.

Posted By Peter Leese
Merv, you've mentioned you can do a risk assessment in 5/10 minutes. I have a new client (furniture manufacturer) where we need to do approx 48 RAs. We're happy to pay you one days pay and travel expenses to complete them for us in the one day ie 48 times 10 equals 480 minutes equals 8 hours.

We'd expect these to be in word format so that they can be easily updated/reviewed as required. I estimate the 48 will take us at least two full weeks.

The purpose of this little note? To show that people should think twice before they write. By contributing clever (silly) little remarks they denigrate our work and do not consider the amount of detail needed, and the interviews with the operatives and the managers to see how they think about the dangers.

This is, in my opinion, one of the failures of our profession. We seem to want to talk it down and not up.

Posted By Glyn Atkinson
I believe that Merv was only talking about this particular risk assessment and to be fair, it is only a minor and straight forward discussion - chance of injury to feet - yes, therefore PPE required.

If you are going through a hierarchy risk assessment of how to get around the handling and other loading operations, then - yes - it would be a longer process.

I don't think that this particular "safety officer" will go into hierarchy processes somehow!

If HE / SHE thinks that H&S is a waste of time, then God help the workers if that is their safety champion on sites!

THAT'S what gets this profession a bad name !

Posted By Chris Jerman
I'm with Merv on this one. I certainly don't think that he meant that every risk assessment could be completed in 10 mins - it depends upon the complexity of the issue; some might be done in seconds. It's merely recording the findings that takes the time. Having co-written and taught the IOSH General Risk Assessment course for 4 years (does that count as silly or clever?) I have to agree that assessments that take too long don't get written but ones that are made simple and quick might. I know which I'd rather teach.

In the case in question, I wouldn't need a risk assessment of the blindingly obvious to tell me whether protective shoes were needed or not. How did we manage (before 1992) to know what we needed for the best. How come we need to consult the 'oracle' before we make any kind of decision?

I have to say that the tone of the response was unnecessary and serves only to foster the commonly held view that risk assessment is a 'black art' and the province of the highly qualified?? safety pro. Sensible discussions make us all stronger. Insults make us all cross.

Merv, I'd take up the offer, it sounds like easy money. Don't forget incidental expenses!



C

Posted By Chris Jerman
Gladly Peter, but I'm arguing OUR case not just Merv's. You say that we appear to be talking safety down and not up. Too right. There are too many so called safety practitioners that appear to be trapped in '70s industrial Britain and have failed to wake up to a more modern approach and engage with managers at their level. Making risk assessment APPEAR to be really simple, useful and actually having a point to doing them beyond 'It's the law" is how you can achieve this. Simple assessment can also give a (quick and dirty) impression of where the real issues are so that more detailed assessment can be undertaken in a prioritised way. They also stand as an 'in the meantime' document to show to enforcing officers. Spending hours on one assessment that turns out to be low risk in the final analysis is not my idea of time well spent. Might be a good earner for a consultant though!

Remember that these pages are are written and not spoken. The written word sometimes loses the full sentiment behind the point and can be a source of misunderstanding.

I'm sure that Merv will respond if he feels that it is necessary. After all, he could bash out a couple of risk assessments in the time it takes to reply.
Peter - I'm kidding on that last comment, just so that you know. Seriously, we're on the same side you know.

Regards

Chris

Posted By Chris Jerman
Peter, I wasn't going to spend any more time on this thread, but your comment had me thinking. Just done a search on the web. Did not realise that you were a consultant. As there are no member profiles on the site - why would I?

The observation was in no way, as you might have been suggesting, a personal comment. As I said - don't read too much into phrases on these postings.

I too have spent years as a consultant. It's where I have gained much of my experience over these years. But as with all things there are good ones and bad ones. And let's face it there are good and bad retained advisers too.

No offence meant, dear boy.

Chris

Posted By Peter Leese
But as with all things there are good ones {consultants} and bad ones. And let's face it there are good and bad retained advisers too.

Chris, I agree fully with your comment above, but how is it relevant to this discussion?