Posted By Larry What an interesting thread. A thread that is read I may add by anyone, including people who are easily persuaded and have no health and safety qualifications/training. OK so some of you have jobs where changing a light bulb is the norm and you don’t waste time on risk assessing changing light bulbs, fine, OK, do your mental risk assessment and move on. But, what on earth are so called health and safety professional doing implying that little jobs like this do not need to have risk assessments, What have you got that I haven’t, some magic portal that allows you to see into that office and see what’s what? No, you don’t have one. What ever happened to PEME. You don’t the lay out, you don’t know the people, you don’t know anything about where this office is, you don’t know the type of floor and any covering, carpets or loose rugs on polished floors. How high is the ceiling? You don’t know any of the specific hazards in the office, so how can you dismiss the risks when you don’t know what the hazards are? One of my clients has their office in a listed building. Being a Victorian building with very high ceiling there is certainly a clear and present risk. Another client of mine has an upstairs office with a spiral staircase in the centre of the floor going down. Yeah it has a banister, but when changing a light bulb you are above the barrier. Do they have a risk assessment. Too right they do. I would be as angry as an angry thing on an angry day, if one of them read this thread and told me that they now thought that there was no need to risk assess. And before anyone asks, NO. Not all of my clients have risk assessments written for changing light bulbs. Why not, because some don’t actually need them. But I made that call with them when I was there actually in the office with them. I didn’t make the call from several miles away when I haven’t even been there. Now, consider this. If you make a carte blanche statement that office workers don’t need risk assessments when changing a light bulb, where do you draw that line? What about the office toilets. You know I’m thinking, water, slippery floor, working at height, electricity! A nice little cluster of hazards. Does the carte blanche one liner, “you don’t need to worry about that” apply there? Now try considering this one. Office strip lights. Risk 1. THE FLOURESENT TUBE. End of life tubes and replacement tubes are HAZARDOUS WASTE and considering that they are easy to break…..Enough said. Risk 2. THE EARTHING LEADS. The defusers on strip lights often have earthing/bonding leads, why? To reduce/prevent/limit the risk of electric shocks. How many office workers know that. How many office staff would worry if they accidentally broke one of those leads when changing a light bulb because there was no risk assessment/SSoW. I think not many when they find that the light still works OK. What then? Well the chances are that nothing MAY actually happen, but that bonding lead is there for a reason, because a professional designer saw a significant risk and s/he designed in a control measure. And now its not there. Why not? Because some professional H/S bods decided that there was no need to risk assess a simple task in an office that they had not even visited. Small hazard + no control measure = big risk.

Posted By GeoffB4 Well said Larry, but I wouldn't bother. Unless you can find a way of getting past closed minds. You know the one's on the board, those who complain about employees who say 'I've always done it like that and never had an accident'.

Posted By D H Just goes to prove that risk assessment is based on perception. Some people on this thread have perceived it is routine - no significant risk therefore advocate no assessment. Others have perceived that in their own work places etc there is a significant risk therefore assessment is done and recorded. Others have perceived that it may not be a significant risk, but fear if it goes wrong they don't fancy their chances in court so do the assessment just in case. Can I say to Penfold who posed the question - its up to YOUR assessment and perception of the risk. It is YOUR company that have to answer for the decision taken. It is YOUR employees who are at risk. Please - YOU decide and let us know what route you take? Dave

Posted By Raymond Rapp Someone used the word 'perception' and this in itself is probably the main differential of opinion in this thread. I, like some others, see the changing of a light bulb as a one off task that is relatively simple and low risk. Do it many times at home and barely a thought to the safety process; whereas some others are talking about fluorescent tubes, high ceilings, vulnerable people and so on. Clearly there is a difference between these tasks and subsequent risks. As the previous thread indicates, I am conscious of the perception that people have of our industry. Therefore I do not want to over dramatise trivial risks. It is a pointless exercise relating to a one off incident where something went wrong. We don't manage safety based on the worst case scenario. True story - our Document Controller complained of a headache due to the reflective diffusers above his head and asked if the lights could be switched off. I asked our M&E engineer to remove the starters on the tubes. He said (with a smile) "do you mind if I stand on the desk". I replied, "no, if that is the best way to do it". He asked when was the best time to do it. I replied "in about ten minutes, when I have gone home!" Ray

Posted By D H Martin - all depends if you perceive it as a high risk activity in the first place?? Dave

Posted By D H Touchy touchy - you should maybe walk away my friend! Dave

Posted By IOSH Moderator This thread has run its course and is now locked.