Not sure if this is the right forum for this. In the current economic climate, many of us , particularly in the public sector, will be wondering whether the axe is going to fall, given the savage, unnecessary cuts being imposed by our multi millionaire ConLib leaders.
I'm just watching that buffoon Boris Johnson trying to defend the fast moving, panic stricken cuts being imposed by this Government, a knee jerk reaction that any idiot can see is going to cause a further, deeper recession.
Ignoring the stupid, amoral, brutal act of throwing public sector employees onto the scrapheap, who are only in place because of very recent government and local authority policy, I was thinking about the potential impact on our profession. It is already clear that decent jobs out there are few and far between, and those that exist are poorly paid. I did not do all that studying or jump through all those hoops for Chartered status, to earn £22000 a year.

In terms of health and safety departments, we at least have Regulation 7 of the MHSW Regs to support our existence. Employers are legally bound to engage competent advice. Many other vocations have no such "safety net". What interests me is the point that numbers employed must "have regard for the size of the undertaking", and should be internal posts, if possible.
I know that the size of my team is not extravagant, and that there are too few of us to cope, in an ideal world, or to be as proactive as we would like to be. Cuts in numbers would genuinely have a serious impact on what we do.
My question is this. Has anyone lost their job, come to the same conclusion, and reported the facts to the HSE? Was there any reaction? Secondly, Is the HSE likely to take an interest in companies or local authorities who make cuts to h and s departments, and perhaps flout Regulation 7?
I would be interested to hear of any experiences or views.

ITER
1. I neither want nor do I need sympathy. My point about the cuts was that they are a drastic over reaction to a situation created by the government and local government who created the jobs(regardless of political affiliation, there is nothing to choose between them, they are all amoral, spineless, self serving hypocrites). The same result could be achieved, with minimal impact to the economy, with better financial management and reductions through natural wastage. Forced redundancies are a sign of p**s poor management. I absolutely agree that there is a lot of waste, but having worked in the public sector for over thirty years, I can assure you it is not the fault of the troops on the front line. At approximately one adviser per 3000 employees, I don't see my department as particularly over staffed. If there is fault, it belongs with middle and senior management, who are only intent on personal progression and empire building, and not with the troops, who largely just want to crack on with the job. Can you guess which category will receive generous payouts when laid off?
2. I am interested in thoughts of how Regulation 7 will be interpreted and whether it will be enforced.

Taffie

You may find the views in these two reports interesting.

If you think the ConDems can be trusted have a look at these two articles

http://www.hazards.org/votetodie/abuseofpower.htm

http://www.hazards.org/votetodie/slashandburn.htm

Regards

Tim B

Absolutely. I agree.

And there may be many diligent public sector workers but there are just as many doing just enough to get by and sitting out what they perceive to be their comfy job with fantatstic working conditions (good holiday entitlement, 6 months full pay for sickness, the ability to take career breaks and be guaranteed a job afterwards and virtually impossible to be sacked) and for many still a final salary non-contributory pension. Oh and many can also retire on full pension after 30 years service. Remember it's our taxes that pay for that cushy number. Whilst we would get sacked for under-performing and taking extensive sick leave, whilst we will be lucky to retire at 65 with a meager pension, I know of civil servants that have retired at 50 and others that are utterly incompetent but cannot be sacked for being incompetent.

Taffy - as a future point you are not allowed to put *'s in replace for swear words, I suspect you post may be heading for the delete key by the Mods.

A few years ago, when the economy was relatively healthy, I found myself in a position where I had to point out that by removing the Group H&S Manager (Retired / redundant...take your pick), the company no longer had 'Competent Advice' for the Board.........

Answer........(After a blank look)..........'Thats not important, we won't get sued or prosecuted for that.'

That comment came from a high powered director, needless to say I moved on shortly after!

Can anyone point out a case where a company was prosecuted for not having access to Competent Advice?

Gordon. Not really. Firstly, as my wife lost her job through redundancy this week (worked hard for the local authority - no fault of her own), the temptation to have a shot at the people who caused this (and hundreds of thousands still to come) is too great to resist. What's wrong with a well reasoned rant now and then? if you don't like it, ignore the post.
Secondly, and for the first time in my experience, politics cannot be separated from this issue, which relates to how deep companies and authorities are likely to be forced to cut, whether they are likely to cross the line into flouting reg 7., and whether the HSE (who are not exactly immune from politics at the moment) are likely to enforce in those cases where this does happen.

In response to the post that suggests outsourcing, I can understand the temptation to look at this, economies of scale etc., but consultants would not be cheaper, they would not be so familiar with the organisation, the myriad of policies etc etc., they would not take the same level of ownership etc.and again, it would be against the spirit of reg 7, which stipulates an internal source of advice, where possible.
Looking at the big picture, and the net cost to us all, presumably those public sector employees who were thrown on the scrapheap would no longer pay tax or NI contributions and would claim benefits instead. I see little evidence of the Mr Cameron's promise of new private sector jobs in our profession.

This thread has raised some real concerns, all of which can be understood in the current economic climate. There are two things I wish to share on this, one is personal and public responsibility for our actions as a people and secondly what options are available for rectifying the situation.

Without being political (e.g. blaming the government for everything), we all perhaps should accept the fact that the spend, spend bubble finally burst - we knew it was coming (we were warned!) but probably didn't care too much for the consequences and kept right on spending and creating unhealthy debt, none of us could 'justifiably' afford. You can blame governments, banks or other financial institutions (who have clearly played a part in this!) as much as you like, but it really boils down to our own fault in the end - call it greed if you like.

Finally, to fix it is probably beyond any one government, organisation or individual, so don't believe them when they promise they have the solution - the solution however, will require painful decisions and actions that will wound and hurt the majority of people caught up in this (e.g. The West!). It is like a war, in all honesty no soldier really wants to go out and put themselves at risk when required, but they know they have too! This involves discipline and obedience, something our Nation (all of us) needs to re-learn, we cannot possibly go on living beyond our means and not accept the personal responsibility any longer, it does not work, it does not pay.

I have every sympathy with those who have lost, and will yet lose their jobs, income and livelihood as a result of the current situation, but we at least have a benefits system that will help to sustain the basic needs of life, for this we should be grateful at least. Please then spare athought for those in the world who do not have welfare benefits, who struggle daily for a handful of rice or water by which to survive and live on for another day. We are greedy and we need to take stock of our attitudes and behaviour, despite the pain and look for ways we can best survive, rather than fight it out! God bless you all.

Peter,

You have perfectly verbalised my concerns.

The "rule of unintended consequences" will inevitably follow any meddling.

Much like when the Ambulance chasing lawyers came into being because the (pre 1997) Conservative govenment (of which the lawyer, Lord Young was a cabinet minister) tried to reduce costs.