Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By holmezy
Velly interlesting Mr Bond,
been away for a few days, so read this thread with interest this morning....
It seems that some of us agree that "common sense aint so very common" and that "reasonably practicable" usually depends on whether the boss can afford, or provide cash, to do it, rather than a balance of cost v benefit. Safety pro's who open every staement with something akin to " Reg 3, section 2 of this or that law" or whatever do annoy me, but it sometimes whats needed. Other times its possibly better to take a moral view and suggest that you would like the employee to go home to his wife and kids unharmed, again horses for courses.
For me, the art of doing a good job is to know the law, and more important to understand the message the law is trying to convey and then being able to get that message over in which ever terms are suitable for the individual.
Didn't some clever chappy once say something along the lines of " the law is there for the guidance of the wise and the direction of the ignorant" or whatever,,,,,, the message is, at the end of the day, still " stop hurting people" with sometimes an "or else" added.
Just my opinion though....
Holmezy
on a rugby tour dressed as Morris dancers this weekend, think we are going somewhere around the Scarborough area so keep an eye out for me!!
Pedigree tonite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
You carry-on quoting laws and regulations.
Most employers just want to know which laws they are breaking so that a vanilla approach can be constructed.
Guards on machines are ok, but most employees will find a way around them sooner or later. Do employers stop that approach ?
No.
But they can live with it, although one of their employees will die from it eventually.
I've no doubt you guys are quite useful to large companies, and even to medium companies, but small employers are in the majority, a very large majority. And they are the ones setting the [low] standards in H&S. They are the ones killing the majority of employees (those who don't manage it themselves) and they are the ones setting the levels for the abysmal industrial disease statistics.
And you are going to influence them ?
In a pigs backside you are !
I've watched, and listened, while a H&S consultant told my [previous] employer how to arrange fume and dust tests to obtain the best result: Don't test the fumes, go by the msds for the consumables and materials; Ensure that the metal is cleaned before welding; Have the doors wide open.
Obviously, the "professional" approach is not the moral approach.
In any case, with gov reducing the amount of H&S inspectors to subsistence levels (or lower) and inspection intervals to 1 in 15+ years, and with the current H&S obsession with "ambulance chasing" (better publicity....wasted, since all employers know their chance of getting caught is zero) it may be irrelevant soon whether you quote laws. I note that the ECJ has decided that eu employers can effectively ignore EU H&S law. So ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
I think most professionals accept that knowledge of the law in their specialist area is an essential part of their competence. It is how that knowledge is used that defines their abilities.
Maybe one of the underlying frailties here is the expectation, of many H&S people I have known, that quoting the law somehow makes people sit up and take notice? This is often more noticeable where the person is early in their career or is operating in an area on the boundary of their personal competencies.
Why? "Well its about us not breaking the law anyway and then again this is peoples lives we deal with etc etc."
However, as we all know, we are all law breakers in one form or another at some time in our lives. Whether through ignorance, wilful disregard or just a conflict of desire. Why would it be any different at work?
Therefore, in advising others, we should perhaps be more circumspect. I see that as the point in the original posting. We should be clear about what is our role and unless we have the organisational authority to require or demand compliance to any law or standard, we should only quote them in the context of a range of options. By which I mean that next time you decide to rush to an appointment and drive over the speed limit, imagine how effective it would be to have someone tell you " para blah blah---"
Managers manage. Advisers advise. the people who need to decide, need to know the range of options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
A lecturer that I have both been lectured by, and arranged lectures with, often starts with asking what one word can define the law. He is looking for "protection".
He then expands this as protection of the individual, protection of the environment and protection of property.
Errm , can you define safety in one word? I would suggest "protection", in effect they have the same roots!
However, safety also extends to "protection against being sued / prosecuted" (or at least mitigation)
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Taking up the point about NEBOSH etc I agree that as advisors we need to know what the law says and how it can be best applied. However as far as examining bodies like NEBOSH or BSC are concerned I think they are focused in the wrong direction. To give an example of what I mean, it should be enough for me to know that an employer owes an extra duty of care to an employee who is more vulnerable in some way, eg only has one eye. I don't need to know that the case law that decided that was Paris v Stepney Borough Council. It's the principle of the decision that is important not who was involved and when the decision was made. Use it in the syllabus for the sake of illustration but don't make it part of the examination process. I know if I started quoting case law at my employers I would very quickly be told to get to the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Smiff
I am sorry that so many have mis-interpreted my post and taken up issues that I did not raise.
I never suggested that we should not have a knowledge of the law. I certainly do, and can quote it when required.
My point, that I hoped was illustrated by my example on environmental matters, is that all too often the safety guy opens with "the law says..." when in so many other areas it is sufficient to propose a "good thing" that stands up on its own merit.
If I need a secret weapon I can play my legal trump-card, but as a last resort. The legal arguement does not win buy-in like a "good thing" does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
I knew wot you wuz on about and fully agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Smiff
Don't be too disappointed with some of the responses as it was an interesting thread. For what it is worth, I agree in principle with your comments as I believe the majority do.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.