Posted By John Richards "here was something where I could help prevent those at work from suffering damage to health" Here speaks the voice of idealism ! Maybe "minimise damage to health" ? I'm sure that in an ideal world you are right, but in the world where minimising cost takes preference you have problems. The biggest risk to an employees health (IMHO) is the employer.

Posted By Ian Blenkharn You surely need to decide what your ideals really are, and how far they can be stretched. You say that you are an "idealist" but also that you work for those who "are looking for the cheapest option to keep them out of trouble." You can't have it both ways. I suggest that your idealism is more apparent than real, and largely cosmetic.

Posted By EI Chris, I do not think the problem is we are losing sight of our true objective, I think that different people and business tackle EHS from different view points. Some focus on the moral aspects, some legal and some financial. From your original post, I agree that a number of recent topics on the forum aimed at "Comply or die" type stuff. Can be a number of reasons for this. Can be a new start in the profession is tackling an issue outside their "comfort zone", can be a business that is trying to improve and develop its management system as they have been weak historically, can be insurance or enforcement driven changes, etc. It is hard to gauge sometimes from the content of the thread the motivating factor behind the question. Personally I think we are all as individuals in the profession, driven and motivated by the moral implications. We get it wrong .......... people get hurt (I know it is management who should drive it but some of us take it personally when people get hurt on our patch). The problem is, how best to get there? This is were the driving element normally focuses on the legal or financial aspects. Again, how to get there? Big factor is the industry/sector of work. I work in the construction/engineering construction industry. My driving force for the business is aimed financially. Why? Because my circumstances dictate that is the "Right Battle to Fight". Current project has a KPI bonus payment at end of project based around LTIFR. Hit the target......in excess of £10Million bonus (unfortunately none goes to me). Having this sort of bargaining power helps me. In driving forward this concept, systems, plans, etc, tackle the legal aspects. "Comply or Die" attitude/concept is not relevant but, compliance is covered and in some areas, exceeded. Added bonus of meeting my individual objectives - moral. If I am in a different industry or project, working for a business that has no history of an effective management system, a company that has a poor safety culture, etc. How to get there? Financial argument has no bearing. Company has done alright without all this before. "Comply or Die" becomes your bargaining chip. Reach compliance ...... demonstrate financial achievements from compliance (reduced accident costs, less time taken off work through sickness, etc)..........platform to build from. Added bonus, start to make progress towards meeting my individual objectives - moral. Personally, started in EHS in the military. All sown up at the time. Tax payers money (probably changed that way of thinking by now). Came out of the military, got first start in construction EHS.........where do I start? Stopped reading SOP's - started reading regs/ACOP's/ect. Need to "Comply or Die" first. Some posters may be in similar positions. Shift in driving force came from experience. No I don't think we are losing sight of our true objective ......... but how to get there? Bit long winded but I hope it in some way answers your original question as I get the impression you are a bit disillusioned. Regards EI

Posted By Chris Packham EI I long ago stopped being disillusioned. At least I hope so. Frustrated frequently. And sometimes puzzled. In a recent posting I offered a document that I had put together as a handout for a presentation I gave to a local branch of IOSH. The topic was safety data sheets. 800 plus hits on the posting. Just 8 people asked for the document. Presumably the rest felt they did not need to see what someone else had researched and produced. Or was it that they felt that this topic was not relevant for them? Chris

Posted By Ron Hunter Chin up Chris. I consider you to be one of the most respected and authorative contributors to this Forum. Keep up the good fight.

Posted By Chris Packham Ron Frustrated - frequently Concerned - yes, otherwise why would I have stuck my head over the parapet and started this thread? Downhearted - If I were that easily discouraged I would haven't fought my corner for so many years. And I will go on fighting for as long as I am able. Raymond I don't entirely agree. Whilst many employers may take what has been called the CATNAP approach, I have quite a number I deal with where the management are genuinely concerned to do the best they can and who are quite prepared to go beyond the minimum required by law. Demonstrating legal compliance in my particular field is difficult anyway. Perhaps that is why most of my clients are in the "genuinely concerned" category. Oh! And before anyone asks. (Cheapest Available Techniques Narrowly Avoiding Prosecution) Chris

Posted By Colin Reeves Chris I like your idealism and aspire to the same. Looking back in history, legislation prior to HASWA 1974 was very prescriptive and, accordingly, if the legislation did not cover a particualr detail, then the employer was able to wriggle out of liability. This was clearly addressed by HASWA in the form of "be safe or be prosecuted", leaving the detail of how to do this to individaul employers. Since that ideal time, legislation (much coming from Brussels) is slowly moving back towards the bad old days pre 1974. I despair of the way Europe is pushing us.... Colin

Posted By peter gotch Colin. I don't think you can blame Europe. HSE could choose to decide that the HSWA implicitly implements most aspects of EC H&S directives and choose not to write a separate set of regs for each directive. The European Court of Justice has upheld our principle of reasonable practicability. Regards, Peter