Rank: New forum user
|
One of the justifications used for the introduction of OSHCR was the presence of unscrupulous consultants who had a "perverse incentive to take an overzealous approach to applying the health and safety regulations."
I was wondering if anybody had encountered any of these consultants?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
While there may be histories of over zealous consultants I have never yet had to tackle one. Incompetent consultants is another subject, which should/could be solved by the register. However, I have encountered numerous incompetent/overzealous safety "officers". Two of whom I have managed to get "moved on".
Merv CMIOSH, consultant. (retired)
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thanks Merv
I too have encountered varying levels of incompetence in both consultants and in-company H&S staff. Though much of the emphasis has been placed on the overzealous or unscrouplous consultant and I just can't see the evidence for it.
The over zealousness seems to come from in-company H&S staff or indeed non-H&S staff.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Those with little knowledge can really give you a bad hair day.
Merv
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I've always thought that Lord Young or whoever wrote the comments in his report about bad consultants was referring, in many cases, to the idiotic 'banning' stories read in the Daily Mail. Of all those elf'n'safety stories I read not one involved a 'consultant' but some scared official or council person making the decisions.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would agree with Merv. We have a saying in house that goes: "The danger arises when you don't know that you don't know". This is a common factor in much of our work. Even qualified consultants may not realise the complexity of a particular aspect of health and safety and, not knowing they don't know, may take action with the best of intentions that can actually be counter-productive. This is one aspect where I have reservations about the register. How will an employer, who may know little or nothing about health and safety, or about the specific aspect of this broad topic, evaluate whether the consultant on the register actually has the necessary specialist knowledge? Particularly if the consultant believes that he or she has, but in reality has not appreciated that they do not!
As Merv says, a little knowledge can really give you a bad hair day.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Very true and I admit to being one who does not know what I don't know. We are all in that same boat, and if any one out there can tell me what they don't know then I will be amazed.
At least I have the good sense to realise that I don't know what I don't know, that's one reason I come on this discussion forum, to learn from other like minded individuals.
The register is at least an attempt at getting competent consultants together in one list in an effort to assist the Client in employing a competent consultant. There has to be a certain amount of honesty on the part of the consultants as they have entered their details themselves. It's only when they have lied about their abilities that they may get found out, and then give us all a bad name.
Can you say that being a CMIOSH or FIOSH means incompetence - I don't think so?
Please don't knock the register before it gets up and running, perhaps when there is proof of it's shortfalls then by all means have a go.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
I have had two occasions recently when asked to advise on a particular occupational skin problem where the investigation revealed that the gloves selected by the company's health and safety advisor (in both cases CMIOSH) were incorrect and had contributed to the problem. Neither was aware of the complexities of gloves used as chemical protection (in my experience quite a common event) and had relied on the advise of their local supplier which was incorrect. Accepted these were not consultants but employed by their companies, but I cannot agree that having CMIOSH/FIOSH automatically confers competence in every aspect of occupational health and safety.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=Merv]While there may be histories of over zealous consultants I have never yet had to tackle one. Incompetent consultants is another subject, which should/could be solved by the register. However, I have encountered numerous incompetent/overzealous safety "officers". Two of whom I have managed to get "moved on".
Merv CMIOSH, consultant. (retired)
Interested to know how the register will solve 'the incompetent practitioner' The register is £30 to be registered on it, and CMIOSH or equivalent grade. In my book this doesn't make you competent.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Please don't knock the register before it gets up and running, perhaps when there is proof of it's shortfalls then by all means have a go.
With respect Chris, that's ridiculous: we've all got a right to say right now whether the theory that the Register is based on is flawed or not - that's what these forums are for.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Merv
I agree with you the scope of safety management spans such a wide feild that finding competency simply from a register is hard. I think the register is to stop unqualified anybodies starting up as safety consultants.(This is a positive as it stops people giving the profession a poor name - Fatty Harbuckles case spring instantly to mind where a ex EHO (food biased) was doing risk assessments (safety biased)
You see from some of the posts the "consultants" twiching and saying "ive come across poor company H&S people" and in house people saying " ive come across poor safety consultants" - well frankly I look after around 28 sites with numerous safety officers/managers/advisors/leaders and have come across both.
However to answer the question - do you think that consultants when visiting clients who have no safety "in-house" over egg the report to get a few more days work - well yes some do.
Do i think that when i take my car in to the garage they would think of putting on some brake shoes that were not required just to bump up the price - well yes i do.
When you bring in a consultant if you have a specialist safety team in place it generally a technical issue - they advise and the team sorts from there on the basis of that advice. Where you bring in a consultant and have no other source of expertise or take your car to a garage you are at the mercy of that individuals integrity.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If the register is anything like CHAS, EXOR, Safe Contractor etc then it will just be a money making paperwork scheme and its my understanding that the register is purely voluntary, so if your a company looking for a H&S consultant aren't aware of the register, its just going to be a Google search and contact who's at the top! So in all honestly what use or advantage is it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The "Register" includes details of consultants who are employees of companies as opposed to being self employed.
Can anyone confirm that these "employed" consultants has individual professional indemnity insurance or do they rely on their corporate policy. If the latter is the case then it would appear to fly in the face of the claim that the Register is exclusively for recording individual consultants rather than those in corporate capacity. If those consultants who "moonlight" without PI how is the Register going to deal with that?
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
After all the debate, controversy and publicity surrounding the OSHCR register, last week I was shocked to come across a safety consultant who knew absolutely nothing about this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Jon
I am slightly confused as to what difference it makes between being a consultant on the register as part of a practice covered by the practice's PI as opposed to being covered by individual PI. Particularly bearing in mind the issue is perhaps more fundamental - it is policy in place on the date of the claim that is the one that bears the cost. Ie by asking to see a PI cert then all this really implies is that on the day of checking you had a valid PI policy and that hopefully you will keep it up or put rundown cover in place if you cease trading or retire.
Regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My understanding is/was that the "Register" was not available for corporate registration. In other words it was for individual consultants. Having had a wee look at what the "Register" delivers I note some of the major top heavy selling agents are endorsed with an individual contact. Surely that was not the intention of the "Register". An inquiry to the "contact" might produce a "sorry he is not available at this time- can I help ? response . The punter is then sucked in and before he knows it he is allocated a non registered consultant (a cowboy if you accept Grayling's interpretation), a huge ready made health and safety manual of biblical proportions and an invoice for £4000.
Cynical I may be, but I guess this Register will self destruct within a year.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes, I have unfortunately met a few consultants who have taken an over zealous approach to H&S.
My role involves visiting a large number of organisations. I have seen the results of this. For example three overfilled A4 lever arch files full of paperwork for a small (3 employee) engineering company. The consultant was a sole trader who is Tech IOSH. Then there was a three person consultancy, all CMIOSH, who provided their clients with two folders worth of H&S paperwork. Exactly the same paperwork for three companies I visited who used their services. None of it was what I assessed as sufficient & suitable.
There are too many of my fellow H&S professionals who are over zealous. Not just consultants, managers/advisors/officers/co-ordinators too. Some are IOSH members (affiliate, tech and CMIOSH so far - no GradIOSH has been over zealous yet!), some various levels of IIRSM membership and others not a member.
Having said that the vast majority of my fellow H&S professionals are superb. Today a non-IOSH member I met was clear evidence that one can be a superb H&S professional without the IOSH/IIRSM/CIEH/whatever badge.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John M said
" My understanding is/was that the "Register" was not available for corporate registration. In other words it was for individual consultants."
John - that was my understanding also from the briefings I attended but am I surprised that the design and the end product are different? - NO.
I am surprised that two established independent consultants presenting sessions I listened to at recent seminars when asked the question would they join the OSHCR said NO
Take Care
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sadly the enforcers have no such register..... (tongue firmly in cheek here) because the worst I have come across as unscrupulous and over zealous are repeatedly EHOs
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Fletch
I concur. A different animal indeed!
Before I incur the wrath of the Moderators (again) perhaps the posting(s) dealing with the Register in general should be moved out of this thread.
Now back to overzealous etc......................
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And I say...... One mans 'Over Zealousness' is another mans 'Diligence'. I for one I am glad I work 'in-house' as I have another 4 colleagues from different regions to bat things to and fro, keeping it real, so to speak..
And who's to say that the consultant that is slating the previous consultant is right, no doubt the consultant after that will do the same.
It's all about semantics if you ask me.......
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I accept that that ’overzealous’ and perhaps ’unscrupulous’ (adj. devoid of scruples; oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honourable) consultants exist. I have lost count of the number of calls that I get claiming this reg, that Act etc merely in order to try and get a 'sale'.
I for one am not as yet entirely convinced as to what the OSHCR will deliver, and will hold judgement on that for the time being.
However, I think Ken has made an interesting point about over zealousness vs. diligence. In the past, I have disagreed with and ‘challenged’ many people, including fire officers, HSE inspectors, insurance companies, on ‘advice’ that they have given and/or ‘things’ that they want done. I have won some and I have lost some. On a couple of occasions I have felt that they were being ‘over zealous’ or at least unrealistic in the practical application of their advice etc, but when we have sat down to discuss it I have often (not always) understood their reasoning etc.
I have NEVER considered any to be unscrupulous and I am both surprised and disappointed to hear Blodwyn say that she (?) has found EHO’s to be repeatedly unscrupulous. I am sure that the vast majority of EHO’s will take offence at that and I am equally sure that the CIEH would be equally keen for her to justify such a comment. It is possible that some EHOs may come under significant ‘political pressure in their work but I don’t believe that that is enough to justify describing them as unscrupulous.
In my experience the EHOs that I have worked with and come across have been in the main very professional, competent and ethical. I have bounced off EHOs and they sometimes come and bounce off me, sometimes they teach me something and sometimes I teach them something.
I think as these forums often demonstrate, there are few black and white/clear cut answers to many health and safety situations, and we will all have a slightly different take on what is required or not. That doesn’t necessarily make us unscrupulous, over zealous, incompetent or whatever; just different.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Interesting comment and posting. I wonder how many EHO's will now don the OHSCR Consutants' hat.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
U only know if U/others are overzealous [or are they being suitable & sufficient?!] via a court decision as I advise that we all provide advice etc that is based on the fact that at a later date a barrister / judge may evaluate our advice/paperwork etc and only then will we see 'what is what' so we should do things right irrespective of other pressures!
I know of 2 risk assessments for the same situation; one of which was more than 5 pages long and 1 was two pages long - The long one was deemed to be too much and the presenter was being overzealous with recommendations / controls etc so they parked it; please guess which one in court was seen by the judge as being suitable and sufficient; Yep it was the longer of the 2! as on this occasion the short version could not be found so the longer one was put into the evidence bundle [even though it was not 'officially' used]. It proved to be a good 'mstake' because the short one would not have passed the judges 'SS' test
And I feel that we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the decider/controller; whoever that may be; that is the one that is banning everything not the H&S professional and the fact that H&S law does not ban anything it simply says that things should be adequately managed!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As an ex consultant (cmiosh, retired) I do believe that I have scruples. (Actually there is a set in the display cabinet with the antique apothecaries scales. (scruple, unit of weight in the apothecaries' system , equal to 20 grains , or one-third dram , and equivalent to 1.296 grams))
However, back to the discussion. I used to sell my services by the day. The more days I could sell the more profit I made. BUT. Most clients, if not all, are business people and need to know how much you will cost them and for what. Each additional day had to be justified and if they were not happy they could refuse to pay all or part of your bill. So you are forced, like it or not, to be reasonable. And reasoned.
So, some of the fraternity make money be reselling boilerplate, possibly even nicked from someone else. Apart from the "nicked" bit I feel that that is quite compatible with our (and the oldest) profession - "you've got something to sell, you sell it and you've still got it"
I think the argument comes down to "suitable and sufficient" and where do they stop.
A 5 page RA may be sufficient and good and complete and accurate but is it suited to the circumstances ? (I won't revisit the legal history as I would have had to read that post three times to understand it)
I think the key words are "efficient", "effective" and, not to forget, "cost effective".
Where's the ROI ? (for the client)
Merv.
is it Saturday yet ?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Jon
Doesn't the fact that a large player only has one consultant on the register indicate something to a would be client?
Regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bruce
What is that "something"?
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Jon
Obviously the implications will upset people, but we have been through the competency debate time and time again....... in my opinion anyone using large consultancy that has only member of staff able to qualify for the register should have serious concerns about the overall level of competency and professionalism of that organisation. There may be exceptions where the advice is so niche, but that is unlikely to be one of the large providers....... and before anyone says that is not commercially possible then I am well aware of a small health and safety consultancy that currently has 4 CMIOSH, used to be 5 when I worked there and hopefully will be 5 again depending on upgrade panel...... they are all direct employees not associates and two have been brought on in house.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bruce
I agree entirely with your comments above.
The "sales" team might need to be looking out for a new beginning.
Jon
|
|
|
|
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.