Rank: Super forum user 
|
I notice in the papers today Lord Young has commented again.
Variously it is being reported as "Compensation Culture is Killing Jobs" or "Health & Safety Laws are Costing Jobs".
See:
http://www.thisislondon....viser-on-safety-laws.do; and
http://www.telegraph.co....ws-are-costing-jobs.html
I just wish the press would make up their blooming mind!
Meanwhile the following Groucho Marx quote springs to mind:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It seems he's really gunning for the compensation culture. As long as politicians stick to the inside of their own heads and don't make my real world job any harder that's OK by me, though I do echo comments made here earler about his view of 'low risk' environments.
And before the heavy engineering people jump in, yes I know that a CNC lathe or a drop-hammer is very dangerous, but so is a lift with exposed HT wiring in the shaft, which is what our 'low-risk' Central Office has at the moment,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I actually think he's getting closer to the truth the more time he spends on it.
But the simplistic reporting is still doing my head in. It's not the Laws that cost the jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest 
|
I know its early doors but what with recognising the importance of 'competency' in our industry and a route for SMEs along with this Lord Young report and recommendations, I reckon the 'seeds of progress' have been sown. Long way to go but surely all this has got to be seen as an improvment.....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What you mean is that the job would be easier if those injured/killed could not use the law to obtain compensation.
The only way the government could do that would be to ban no-win-no-fee.
That would be restraint of trade, and actionable !
And in any case, the "compensation culture" is largely a figment of those with a vivid imagination.
http://www2.warwick.ac.u...search_finds_spiralling/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnmurray wrote:What you mean is that the job would be easier if those injured/killed could not use the law to obtain compensation.
The only way the government could do that would be to ban no-win-no-fee.
That would be restraint of trade, and actionable !
And in any case, the "compensation culture" is largely a figment of those with a vivid imagination.
I think that is an oversimplification John.
I suspect it is the way claims farmers advertise that is the problem, not the actual agreements between the law firms and their clients.
And in any case Lord Young's pertinent comment is:
Quote:They are not bringing cases that will win in court, they are just looking to bring cases that will last two or three letters until the other side pays them off.
Whereas the research you quote looked at:
Quote: the number of "personal injury actions" in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court
By definition, an out of court settlement is not going to be reflected in figures published by the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
...Edited to add:
There's nothing wrong with the research you've quoted John, I think it's great that it's been done.
However, it is looking at the wrong data set to prove or disprove Lord Young's assertion.
What we need to look at is the total number of claims paid out by Insurers since the law change as well as the total costs in payouts by Insurers since the law changed.
However this may be trickier to get hold of because:
1) There are many different Insurance Companies from whom to collect data (I suppose a researcher could try the ABI).
2) Insurers may not wish to release the information as it is commercially sensitive (costs may have increased, but Insurers may have benefitted from charging increased premiums too, thereby increasing overall profits.)
3) Who collates the actual cost to business? For every claim submitted to an Insurer, there is a business loss manager, in house trainer, Occ Health doctor and/or h&s adviser running round like a demented beetle who is paid by the business on the receiving end - and not the insurer.
4) Then there is all the FOI requests that the enforcers must receive. Each one of them must require a team of people to extract the info, who would be better employed actually enforcing the law.
...So lots of data to crunch there, and I'm not even convinced it's an exhaustive list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My experience of claims solicitors is that they do not take a case unless there is a reasonable chance of the case being found for them by a court.
I could just as easily say that the solicitor/s win compensation without a hearing NOT because the opposing side cannot bear the costs but because they know they would lose.
And, of course, they are not going to say: " we were onto a loser anyway so paid without court to have no costs to pay", so they say "we paid because it was cheaper than court even though we knew we would not lose"
And since a large amount of claims are pursued by trade unions, Lord Young would presumably have to ban trade unions from helping their members (which is what my trade union is convinced he intends to do)
So:
A ban on advertising (illegal restriction of trade) ?
A ban on no-win-no-fee (same illegallity)
A ban on unions (initially) financing legal action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnmurray wrote:
A ban on advertising (illegal restriction of trade) ?
A ban on no-win-no-fee (same illegallity)
A ban on unions (initially) financing legal action.
I tend to agree with Yossarian - it is not the fact of no-win no-fee but the advertising of it.
As to your points on restraint of trade, some advertising can be banned (viz tobacco). If there is good enough reason for a ban it can be implemented - it is arguable whether this is sufficiently serious to warrant a ban on advertising.
My personal view is that such advertising does deserve to be banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've taken to listening to a national radio station that is rather good. But it's a commercial station. So there are adverts. Virtually every ad-break is 'littered' with one proclaiming and focussing on the compensation you could be due if you have an 'accident thats' not your fault'. It's all concentrated on compensation money, thats' all that matters. To hang with right or wrong, its' just about the money. Every body part now has a numerical value. I take the point made above that bad things do happen as a result of bad management. I wholeheartedly believe that an injured party should be granted compensation if/ when it's due. I just don't think these 'services' need or should be advertised. To me they just feed the 'anti health and safety' brigade. I've met and worked with people who cannot wait for their chance to lodge a claim for compensation. Their first thought isn't 'I'd better do this the right way',no it's ' I'll do it this way and if it goes wrong I might be onto a few quid.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Its not the no win no fee business that is the cause of the problem. Its the fact that many people take the greedy option and make a claim irrespective of the level of fault becuase they know fully well that most peole will pay out if it is a lower cost than the increase they will have to pay on future premiums. The insurance companies go for the least resistence because th premiums often across the board.
The main focus should be to educate people to behave in a safe way thus preventing the many claims being made in the better to claim than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Acting as Devil's Advocate,
why not reverse HSAWA 1974 Section 40 regarding the onus of proof and make it fall in line with all other UK laws?
would that stop the opportunistic without penalising those with a genuine claim?
I am aware that it was reviewed but there has been a political change since that review so who knows.
Take Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Changing the onus of the HASAW Act would suit only one section of the population, those who have a total disregard for H&S. Reversing the onus would mean that some people would simply expect the authorities to prove guilt not have the defendant demonstrate that he did all that was reasonably practicable or practicable to prevent an accident. That would take H&S back at least 30 years. The point of the way the act is written is to ensure that every employer has to do what is reasonable ior face the concequences. Changing the law is not the answer to the claims culture, it is about ensuring employers act in a responsible way and ensure there are no reasons for claims lawyers to act for those who have been injured. How many cases in the real world have no foundation any way???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob Shillabeer wrote:Changing the law is not the answer to the claims culture, it is about ensuring employers act in a responsible way and ensure there are no reasons for claims lawyers to act for those who have been injured. How many cases in the real world have no foundation any way???
...And in any case H&SAW Act is Criminal Law, whereas claims are made under Civil Law.
Changing the Act would therefore not have any direct effect on whether a claim was made by an individual. A fact conveniently overlooked by the advocates of the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bob Shillabeer wrote:Changing the onus of the HASAW Act would suit only one section of the population, those who have a total disregard for H&S.
Personally I think this is wrong, Bob. S40 means that employers have no easy way of defending themselves from any accusation, criminal or civil. With hindsight there is always something more, no matter how small or insignificant, which would have been reasonably practicable to do, and consequently many employers plead guilty even when there's precious little guilt, on legal advice (I've been there) It also means that the HSE can smugly accuse people of breaking the law without even setting out how or why they came to that conclusion, secure in the knowledge of how the employer would find it almost impossible to PROVE himself not guilty. I think that's wrong too. until recently, even if you did succeed, you might still be innocent but out of pocket as you couldn't claim your full costs back. Even the judiciary thought that unfair.
The odds are stacked against employers and I see no reason why. Employees are just as frequently the cause of accidents as employers, but you wouldn't think so from the HSE's enforcement statistics.
So we treat ALL employers as the scum of the earth (..." a total disregard for safety...") and yet most of us are paid by them and we complain when jobs go overseas or businesses close. How's that work?? I haven't seen much defence of employers from IOSH over the years either. Perhaps it's time for a more balanced view where employers are encouraged and listened to, not just slated!
If Lord Young chose to repeal S40 he'd remove an inconsistency and one which causes much bad feeling. Unfortunately I actually suspect he won't because he probably doesn't even understand the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
But Dave, your comment fails to acknowledge that it's Civil claims and perceived compensation culture and not Criminal cases that is the problem that triggered the review.
But then I think the reverse burden of proof is the best protection ever for employees who do not create the risks that they have to work with and based on the sound ethics of the Golden Rule so perhaps I'm biased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
I therefore think that Lord Young would need to have a heck of a good reason to propose ditching the reverse burden of proof and business cost isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yossarian is quite correct in his view. The HASAW Act is not in need of major change. It has now been in place some 36 years and has worked very well overall. The civil claims side of the equation is the one that tips the balance unfavourably and is seen as ways for lawers to make money through no win no fee case doubt I will cause some furour for saying this but things done largely in the public sector like the things that get reported in the media as stupid elf & safety stuff, you see it all the time, and IOSH are trying to show this but it is see and read mainly by safety professionals. There is a sense being created that the law needs changing but it is the perception of its easy to claim that needs to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No.
The "perception that it's easy to claim" is being used to drive the "need" to change.
Whether, or not, you need change is not the issue.
The issue is that change is coming, like it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I welcome the review into the so-called compensation culture which I believe will only be shown to be a figment of press imagination anyway! What does annoy me though is the government’s hypocrisy in its priorities to tackle societies so called ‘ills’. Given the scale of UK Ltd ‘elf n safety’ and the compensation culture (which should not be lumped together anyway) is actually a very small perceived problem. The government’s response to this is a knee jerk reaction to appease apocryphal media reports? Surely a much better use of Lord Young’s time would come from dealing with the huge financial burden to us resulting from smoking tobacco (which the government is happy to take tax from) and excessive alcohol consumption ( which is also a lucrative source of tax). No doubt if the government was earning a tax from injury claims then they would be in no rush to review the so-called ‘compensation culture’ anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It's quiet scary really. I doubt Lord Young has any interest in workers welfare whatsoever. It would be like putting the head of the communist party in charge of a review on the Tories pay and benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David Young, aka Baron Young of Graffham, has no interest in workers whatever.
Looking at the list of his "interests" I see that he is remote from the shopfloor by a substantial distance.
Since he is a qualified lawyer, I feel it likely that he is aware that the Com_Cult is an urban/media myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Nothing like a political debate to highlight the extremes is there?
"What we have got to do with health and safety is to reduce bureaucracy. It is all cumulative and it adds to costs.” This appears to be what Lord Young is saying along with a view that the no-win no fee system has produced some outputs that have left employers with a perception that they cannot win any case unless they have covered every base with paper and hence the comment about bureaucracy.
I doubt that Lord Young or anyone else is seriously embarked upon removing any of the key duties and rights of employers or employees alike. If he can clear out the bottom drawer in the cupboard and get us back to taking a sensible approach to all such matters then all power to his review.
I imagine that Lord Young, as a lawyer, will share my absolute support for the principles enshrined in our civil law but also share concerns that the rights bestowed are being somewhat manipulated and not to the benefit of all parties.
I have mentioned before the historical context of who makes a good review chairperson. The context I have in mind is that of Lord Robens. Check out his background and experience and then look at the outcome of his review.
I believe we should afford Lord Young some respect and await his report before condemning him and the whole process simply because of his political allegiance and background.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Its not the current H&S laws that need updating its the culture of claiming for accidents that needs to be looked at. Fair compenation is right no one can argue that, but there are so many people trying to make money from it that's what need correcting. I just came back from town and saw a solicitors company offering no win no fee legal advise on the street, so no wonder people have become claims mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
All this makes me wonder.
If compensation culture is so out of control, then why not try better management to beat the living daylights out of it.
We're gonna need another Lord to look into this one but it's got to be an option.
Also, let's not think that health & safety is the only portion of common law where people are trying to make a few quid. It's where everybody goes to make a few quid. The Criminal stuff just attempts to satisfies society.
Ain't nothing wrong with the laws, peeps. And I'll warrant we see a giant non-event in this respect with Young's report. And I'm sorry to say that the people who will have convinced him won't be the likes of IOSH, HSE etc. but his fellow lords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If we amended Section 40 to reverse the burden of proof, criminal law would be out of kilter with civil law which would be very confusing.
but Section 40 now has to be viewed in the context of the judgment in R v HTM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It may well be a "giant non-event"
However, the main thrust is to reduce cost/s.So if we look at a few things:
"However, Lord Young used this particularly emotive case to argue that the emergency services should be exempt from the protection of health and safety law" (which was about some pcso's not saving a drowning child because of Elf 'n Safety......)
We (well, me anyway) can also look at part of the unions case to the enquiry:
"It points to the government’s own Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) statistics which show ‘that employer liability claims have fallen 69 per cent from 2000/01 to 2009/10 - from 219,183 in 2000/1 to 78,744 in 2009/10.’ It notes that research suggests fewer than a third of those eligible to make a workplace injury claim actually do so. Claims are also down for clinical negligence and public liability, with only road traffic accidents on the upturn. The law firm says the way to reduce work-related claims, is to make work safer. ‘The reality is that it is the inadequate enforcement of health and safety legislation, the under resourcing of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the insufficient numbers of inspectors and the too few prosecutions of employers that leads to thousands of people continuing to be injured and killed at work,’ the Thompsons’ submission notes"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wonder what Lord Young thinks about this: 'The board is responsible for determining the nature and extent of the significant risks it is willing to take in achieving its strategic objectives. The board should
maintain sound risk management and internal control systems.' That's the 2010 Combined Code for Listed Companies from the FRC.
Significant risks absolutely include risks relating to employee incidents; just the down-time alone would make them reportable even without HSE involvement. It's impossible to maintain 'sound risk management' without due regard to H&S,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Another thought just occurred to me.
You never really hear of employees suing because they've not been paid or not had their tax deducted by their employer.
The finance stuff is always spot on. All the procedures, all the auditing, all the documentation.
Yeah, you're right. The duck house and the moat blow this out of the water.
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.