Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
purplebadger  
#1 Posted : 15 July 2010 11:28:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
purplebadger

The TUC response to the current review being undertaken by Lord Young into H&S is one of the best I have read to date. You too can read it here and I am sure you will agree it’s objective is just what our profession is seeking; http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-18203-f0.cfm
MrsBlue  
#2 Posted : 16 July 2010 08:26:28(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Typical union response - "....... No control over workplace and system of work and level of protection are in the control of the employer" Who are these employers? In my industry there is a thing called consultation with the staff by the employer. As we should all know "consultation" is defined as listening. And all the statistics banded about in the the article are mostly prefaced with the words - "it is claimed by". The deaths related work could fall to zero but the unions would still find something to grouse about.
neilrimmer  
#3 Posted : 16 July 2010 09:06:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
neilrimmer

Rich, you must have some personal issue with the unions as you picked one line from a fantastic piece and went on a rant. I applaud the TUC for this piece, well written and concise and certainly makes a very valid point. I know some people like Rich and many other safety professionals have a thing against unions but we should always remember we wouldnt be here today if it wasnt for their hard campaigning and lobbying over the years. I think what is clear is that we are likely to come under a barrage of attack from smarmy cameron and his chums and a close relationship with the unions will benefit the safety world immensly in this soon to be hard times
imwaldra  
#4 Posted : 16 July 2010 09:29:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
imwaldra

I agree, based on a quick read, that it's a balanced, largely evidence-based and very helpful response. Well done TUC and thanks to "purplebadger" for drawing it to our attention. Ian Waldram Member Trustee
Dazzling Puddock  
#5 Posted : 16 July 2010 09:49:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dazzling Puddock

Rich wrote:
Typical union response - "....... No control over workplace and system of work and level of protection are in the control of the employer" Who are these employers? In my industry there is a thing called consultation with the staff by the employer. As we should all know "consultation" is defined as listening. And all the statistics banded about in the the article are mostly prefaced with the words - "it is claimed by". The deaths related work could fall to zero but the unions would still find something to grouse about.
Yes consultation may be defined as listening but do the employers actually hear? Employers are always in control of the system of work and level of protection and to think otherwise is naive in the extreme! Given the amount of employees with long term health issues such as mesothelioma and asbestosis then I think it is going to be a while before work related deaths drop to zero!! A well written piece by the TUC which sums up workplace health and safety pretty accurately IMHO.
MrsBlue  
#6 Posted : 16 July 2010 09:52:46(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Friday Rant Let’s get one thing clear I do not have an issue with the unions. Let’s get another thing clear – society expects the population (where they can) to work. Therefore it is incumbent on all employers to provide (SFARP) a safe working environment. In another post (last couple of days) a poster stated that SMEs (in general) fail to carry out Risk Assessments. Why? Could there be something wrong with the whole gamut of health and safety which prevents SMEs from doing the basics. The TUC article tackles health in the workplace and blatantly states a whole load of alleged statistics with no effort to substantiate the claims. As for calling Mr Cameron smarmy that says more about the person who said it than anything to do with H&S. A review of health and safety in this country is, IMHO, long overdue. And anyone who thinks this government is going to water down legislation is mistaken. After all, most of it comes from Brussels and this country prides itself on having one of the best health and safety records in the EU. Why? - because most of the other countries in the EU either ignore EU directives or implement them without the gold plated extras the UK does. The governments’ intention through the review is, maybe, to help all employers (particularly SMEs) to implement best practice and thus comply with the law, guidance, ACOPS etc which in turn would further reduce accidents and provide a safer working environment. Someone tell me an area of health and safety where reviews are not required. Why don’t we all sit back and just wait and see what the review actually says before spouting off that it is a waste of time and everything in the H&S world is all hunky dory. It is not.
John M  
#7 Posted : 16 July 2010 09:59:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

I wonder how many IOSH members took the time and made the effort to respond to Lord Young's review? Not many I suspect. I did but as yet not even had an ackkowledgement. Not surprising really from this lot.
neilrimmer  
#8 Posted : 16 July 2010 10:43:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
neilrimmer

Rich, I agree some parts of H&S legislation should be reviewed, however the review that has been ordered is not about making H&S better, the alterior motives are quite sickening, the goal of this review is reduce H&S legislation to the bare mininum to help out the business men that fund the tory party. After all money spent on Health and Safety is wasted profits. The tories and Health and Safety in the same sentence is never a good thing. John, I also responded to the review announcement, asking the simple questions of why a review is needed? because the compensation culture is a weak excuse at best. Also asked the question about whether Lord Young is the right person to be leading a review? what qualifies him to review H&S? and whether is heavy links with thatcher would cload his judgement? No response from number 10 or lord young..... cant say I'm surprised though
neilrimmer  
#9 Posted : 16 July 2010 10:44:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
neilrimmer

* cloud his judgement
Murray18822  
#10 Posted : 16 July 2010 10:53:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Murray18822

Seems the comments are leaning towards political affiliations rather than being objective. As for responses from any government department the lack of or poor response is the same regardless of which party is sitting in Downing Street!!
pete48  
#11 Posted : 16 July 2010 10:54:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

I have just read through the briefing note and I think it an excellent piece of work and a very useful part of the whole debate. It is well written, easy to understand and covers what most of us would consider to be the key areas of the debate/review. I did particularly enjoy the comparison between the number of traffic wardens in London as being greater in number than the HSE FOD staff for all the UK. On a more serious note the identification of the impact of sec 3 of HASAWA and the way it has muddied the waters somewhat with regard to the separation of public S&H from workplace H&S is a useful inclusion in their response. Thanks for the link, P48
John M  
#12 Posted : 16 July 2010 13:56:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

Sorry Murray but it not. As one who has commentrd on variious working, green and white papers and consultative documents I have never, ever failed to have an acknowledgement following submission. The Cabinet Office invitation could not even get their own fax number correct. It also canvassed responses from a selected section of organisations despite it being an "open" invitation. Furtive to say the least. I can assure you that I have no political leanings whatsoever, but am deeply concerned about this "review"- particularly so far as his remit and allocated time is concerned. It follows none of the expected protocols for a review of this nature and importance. J
jay  
#13 Posted : 16 July 2010 16:48:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

On the contrary, a report, "Regulatory surrender: death, injury and the non-enforcement of law" by Prof Steve Tombs, of Liverpool John Moores University and Dr David Whyte, of the University of Liverpool, the report reveals that policy changes and the drive towards better regulation by New Labour have seriously affected the ability of the HSE to enforce health and safety law. Contrary to the current government’s view that business is over-regulated, the report authors suggest that the previous administration’s better regulation agenda has resulted in a more business-friendly, less worker-favourable situation. And the HSE, they argue, “continually sought to accommodate this agenda” with the result that it found itself “less and less able to maintain its formal role in terms of enforcement of safety law Refer to:- http://www.shponline.co....lace-safety-deregulation
andybz  
#14 Posted : 17 July 2010 09:13:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
andybz

As a standalone document, I can probably agree the paper from the TUC is interesting and well written. But does it really address the issues being raised by Lord Young? For example, it seems to say that H&S regulation has been effective, but then says the reduction in accidents is due to loss of industry and actually health performance is poor. To me that is quite a contradiction. With regard to the Tombs paper. I have only read the SHP article, but it is very interesting to me that the point being made is that changes have affected the ability to enforce H&S law, and not that this has had an impact on H&S performance. My observation is that people have different views on whether more H&S regulation will result in better H&S performance. My view is that enforcement usually results in less being learnt about accidents, and so can have a negative impact on safety. Buncefield is a good example where the full facts of the case were not known for years because of the ongoing prosecution.
NigelB  
#15 Posted : 17 July 2010 13:44:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Neil, you ask what qualifications Mr Young has to conduct this review, apart from being a lawyer, I presume. In 1984 and 1986 – as Employment Minister – he conducted studies into the impact of health and safety laws, as a result of representations made by businessmen. In a report ‘Deregulation Kills’ by the GMB trade union – in which I had a hand – on the 1993/94 deregulation exercise, the following quote is taken: ‘The Government’s problem with the studies conducted during the 1980s was that they failed to uncover any evidence that health and safety laws placed any undue burdens upon business. In the earlier two studies, only 10% of the firms questioned even bothered to mention health and safety as a problem. The subject was not referred to by 178 of the 200 firms sampled, even when prompted. The later study, based upon a sample of 150 small firms, posed leading questions aimed at encouraging respondents to claim that undue burdens exist. It still failed to uncover any evidence that business found health and safety laws too costly to cope with.’ It appears that Mr Young has experience of wasting taxpayer’s money looking into problems that don’t exist. This, presumably, is why he is such a splendid appointment. Of course it was not Mr Young who set up the 1993/94 deregulation exercise, which was left to Michael Forsyth. That exercise was estimated to cost the HSE £100,000 [taxpayer]. 7 Sector Task Groups were set up, each chaired by a business representative - the Government ensured it was a business led initiative. Members included CBI and TUC representatives and the HSE acting as secretariat. If the time contributed by members of the STGs were costed at average consultant rates for the time, the GMB calculated their input was the equivalent of around £250,000. In the final report: Review of Health and Safety Regulation – main report: HSC May 1994, the following is quoted: ‘Health and safety regulations have never been at the top of the list of business concerns, according to various surveys over the years.’ ‘The most recent evidence, however, from a March 1994 Barclays Bank survey of new businesses, again put health and safety well down the list.’ ‘In fact there is very little evidence of concern over current standards as set out in British legislation. On the contrary, the evidence is that employers both accept the need for regulation and the standards which it sets out. For example the December 1993 membership survey by the Forum of Private Business suggested that most firms were content with the standards required by law.’ So what was the big outcome? HSE – and others - were distracted from their day job into going through the Statute Books to get rid of laws that were no longer used, had been forgotten about and not applied. This allowed Mr Forsyth to claim regulations would be reduced by 40%. Having lost this particular exercise, the then Government went on to reduce the resources to the HSE. We might not have too much longer for déjà vu on that one! Nigel
NigelB  
#16 Posted : 17 July 2010 20:46:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Rich777 said: ‘The TUC article tackles health in the workplace and blatantly states a whole load of alleged statistics with no effort to substantiate the claims.’ The TUC document is a submission briefing note to the review. The TUC may have assumed somebody overviewing a review of health and safety would know something about health and safety. Possibly a dangerous assumption. I’m sure Mr Young would challenge the TUC quoted figures if they were inaccurate. However, I looked on the Web for 10 minutes and found the following: TUC: ‘There are also the 1.2 million people still in work but suffering an illness caused by work. Of these, 538,000 are suffering from a work-related musculoskeletal disorder and 415,000 from work-related stress.’ Evidence source Figure 1: Estimated 2008/09 prevalence of self-reported work-related illness, by type of complaint, for people working in the last 12 months Self-reported work-related illness and workplace injuries in 2008/09: Results from the Labour Force Survey: HSE: Exactly the same figures. TUC: ‘Every year over 15,000 die as a result of occupationally caused cancers. Evidence source: ‘Attributable estimates for total cancer registrations [deaths] are 13,694.’ [2005] The burden of occupational cancer in Great Britain: HSE Research Report 800: 2010 The TUC - and others – view this as the minimum and believe the true figure to be much higher. TUC: Another 4000 are killed by lung conditions ‘occupational exposures to fumes, chemicals and dusts may together account for around 4000 deaths each year.’ Evidence: HSE Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/copd/ TUC: 1000 [fatal injuries] while driving at work Evidence source: ‘This represents up to 20 people killed very week with some 250 suffering serious injury.’ In other words 1,040 fatal accidents at work relating to road fatalities. http://www.orsa.org.uk/index.htm TUC: and an unknown number die as a result of premature death caused by overwork or stress. Well they are unknown because we do not keep records. Anyway, I would image that Mr Young is having trouble with the best example of manipulated statistics, misrepresentation of information, factually wrong figures and deliberately misleading statements that is called ‘Health and Safety: Reducing the Burden' by a think tank called Policy Exchange. The Policy Exchange report has a forward by – would you believe – Mr Young! Apparently Mr Young liked the report because it was ‘designed to establish some basic facts about health and safety.’ In fact it was so bad at doing this the IOSH corrective comments on it were almost as long as the report itself! Cheers. Nigel
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.