Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Rob Jones
Hi all,
I find that H&S is viewed by most companies as a side issue. That is not to say the people do not think that its important. its just that for many companies the margins in making a profit are so small that people think first of how to keep things tight in cash terms.
For example I have seen a company where food is frozen in a spiarl freezer. The belt frequently (say monthly) became snagged and required freeing off. The safest way to do this would have been to defrost the freezer and then allow engineers (proably specialist contractors) to enter and free the belt. However this would take say 6-8 hours and would be loosing the product in the freezer. So site engineers would enter and free the belt off. No one had ever been hurt doing this but its easy to see how dangerous it was, however as it had always been done this way and it mean that production coud be up and running and the product would be saved. This will never been seen as an issue until someone has an accident. Production is eerything to small/medium size companies.
Do other find things similar?
RJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MP Grayson
Yeah, I seem to remember something about an incident a few years ago when two men crawled into a bakers oven to fix it. Company didnt want to allow it to cool down.
I believe that they never came out alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart C
Unfortunately a common picture but they are missing the point completely - engineer out the snag - try to avoid the breakdown completely. Production would then not be hampered and safety not compromised - ok it may not be that easy but how much effort have they put into it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Jones
I think that 'engineer out' the problem is much over used in the H&S world. For many SME's its simply not possible for them to spend the money required to have issues solved. In the example of spiral freezers above, there is no way a small company could spend the money required to investigate the issues that could lead to a belt snag once in say 320 hours. It really should be equipment manufacturers who need to do this type of work, but as a small company the manufacturer is not interested and is instead likely to be focusing on large companies who have more machines and a larger potential to order even more.
Often I think the easier job is the H & S consultant, who can vist a site and say 'engineer out the problem' or 'ensure that the safe system of work is followed', BUT its the managers at the smaller company who are left with the real problems of needing to implement these things with no money and uninterested staff.
While I'm on my soapbox, one thing thats currently getting my goat is the fact (as i see it) that there is no such thing as an accident any more. If someone is injured at work then (unless thay were being extremely stupid) they will get a payout from the company's insurers. The idea that an accidenet can be no-one's faults simply no longer exitsts. Say a memeber of staff fell down the stairs going between floors in an office. Most people have done this at home, where you simply miss a step. If it happens at work then its the company's fault, even if you have poster remeind people of how to walk down stairs and to use handrails, the IP could always claim that they had never been reprimanded for not using a hand rail and so the company has failed to properly enforce a SSOW.
I suupose my point is that its becoming increasingly difficult for SME's to operate as the oppotunity for claims is so high.
RJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
whilst I appreciate all that you are saying its still the case in most occasions that when people continually shout that they have no money to do the essentials those same people have new 4 wheel drive vehicles etc and in >30 years of experience in H&S I have found that almost without exception this is the case
I have worked with identical businesses in size circumstances etc but with completely different cultures where one director could not afford anything for the workforce, maintenance etc whilst another could -
its down to the people running the business
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve B
Engineer out the problem, yes it is easy to say but it should be looked at and documented if it is not "reasonably Practicable" i.e. quantify the risk. whilst I appreciate the difficulties some companies are having with regards to tightening the purse strings etc, the bottom line is quite simple. carry out a cost benefit analysis and compare the cost of "engineering out the problem" and the cost of killing someone. the latter will probably close the business for good and the directors may have a criminal record or serve time in prison.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Jones
Steve,
I agree that a cost benefit vs risk needs to be looked at. I think that if the company in question did this they would simply close as the cost of developing equipment that did not fail (or had a failure rate of less that say 1 per year) would be more that the company could bear and at the same time a death would be more than the company could bear. Hence nothing will be done as the company currently makes a small profit.
I mainly work in the food industry, and think its interesting to note that many firms in the UK are focused on improving effiency and output as well as safety. These firms are under increasing pressure from far east manufacturers who can produce products cheaper as their labour costs are so small. The thing is the far east firms H & S record will probably be great as much of the work is done by hand and so machinery related problem would be virtually non-existent!
RJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi
My experience is yes you are 100% correct.
Even when it comes to maintaining things many do not want to do it correctly.
People like buying new equipment but maintaining it is something that is not liked. Maintenance is a very dangerous occupation and poor maintenance is the cause of many an accident.
It is also my view that many maintenance people know nothing about health and safety.
I am thinking about all the safety cutouts and interlocks that are bypassed, even aware of interlocks on trains that were by passed when interlock cable went open circuit. OK managment will say it does not happen.
In Ireland we have people working on gas equipment that know nothing about gas, not to mind something as simple as the requirement for a vent. I also became aware of a health and safety consultant that seemed not to be aware of this requirement. We have people doing electrical repairs that know nothing about electricity.
The attitude is if it works it is ok,
I myself do think this is a major problem. Maybe it is just me?
seamus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AF
I can honestly say these scenarios listed are all too true, and happen more frequently than the companies themselves care to mention.
Putting my QA hat on, there is such a tool as PPM (planned preventative maintenance) - that this particular company has to conduct defrosting at approx 320 hrs, causing loss of product.
PPM could be suggested at say 280 hours then the freezers switched off (after the last production run) ideally at a weekend, this would allow the problem to resolve itself before it actually happens.
Or will it not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Granville Jenkins
Yes I would agree to a certain extent with your comments - with the arrival of the new CDM 2007 Regulations the Client is now put in the hot seat (and some of them don't like it!)
However, it must be said that most of the accidents on site are more to do with what goes on on site, a situation where the client has no or little influence once their back is turned, and accidents are caused through bad working practices where grandad's rules rule strong, which hopefully is a dying breed, as we all now know grandad's rule is not the best rule to follow!
Regretfully some accidents are simply down to over familiarisation by the operative who has carried out the same task a thousand times and never had an accident and when the site foremans back is turned they resort back to the old habits - why not they say - I have been doing it this way for 30 years and never had an accident!!
Regards
Granville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
While agreeing with most of the above postings I am impelled to mention "permits to work"
Where one or more persons could die, or when there is a possibility that the building could be destroyed, then a "permit" is essential.
And the senior person signing it, preferably the MD, accepts total, and I really mean TOTAL responsibility for the operation.
Someone dies ? He/She goes to jail and personally compensates the family. There goes the house, the horse and the Labrador.
Or is that a bit laxist for some of you ?
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.