Rank: Super forum user 
|
I've been reviewing the current proposals by HSE on cost recovery with a view to responding, when the following question has crystallised in my thoughts:
"By focussing on the financial aspect, does the Government/ HSE risk undermining the Legal and Moral underpinnings of H&S legislation with the net result being that if you can afford the bill, it becomes acceptable to break the law and put people at risk in the pursuit of profit?"
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Anyone?
I've got to say I woke up in a cold sweat about this last night, the sooner I submit my response - the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest 
|
I believe, in the main, that the answer to the question is no - simply because the adverse publicity would (hopefully) act as an additional deterrent with customers leaving in droves. Also, as has been said before, nobody sets out to deliberately kill or seriously maim a worker. Some employers may not have the safety of workers to the forefront of everything they do but I'm reasonably sure there is no deliberate intent.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Possibly - but I feel some folks follow that logic already. Just pay - we can afford it.
I like the idea of these "spot fines" ( or whatever the official term is ) - they might help focus some people's attention.
However - with less and less inspectors the chances of getting charged anything or getting a notice must be dropping dramatically.
Yossarian - 50th birthday of "Catch 22" this week - presume you will be celebrating or are you a fan of the film rather than the book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry but the cynic in me believes that the HSE will want to charge (financially, that is) at every available oppurtunity. Working for an asbestos licence holder we think we will be the 'easy targets' for the HSE as we have more direct dealing with them what with the asbestos industry being so regulated and in the news so often. Maybe that's just me though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
rich777 wrote:I believe, in the main, that the answer to the question is no - simply because the adverse publicity would (hopefully) act as an additional deterrent with customers leaving in droves. Also, as has been said before, nobody sets out to deliberately kill or seriously maim a worker. Some employers may not have the safety of workers to the forefront of everything they do but I'm reasonably sure there is no deliberate intent.
Rich
That may be the case Rich, however in Freakonomics (2005) Levitt & Dubner described a situation where fines levied for late pick-up of childen from a creche caused an increase in late-pick ups because the parents felt they were undertaking a legitimate financial transaction.
What is to stop smaller businesses from adopting a similar attitude by e.g. ditching proactive advice and waiting for a visit with a £750 letter or £1500 Notice before taking action?
...All this would of course happen below a level likely to attract adverse publicity - which only really happens with a court case.
Martin
Martin 1 wrote:I like the idea of these "spot fines" ( or whatever the official term is ) - they might help focus some people's attention.
On the face of it, I agree - but in my organisation the cost would probably come out of a central pot rather than a managers budget, which means the impact is lost somewhat.
Martin1 wrote:Yossarian - 50th birthday of "Catch 22" this week - presume you will be celebrating or are you a fan of the film rather than the book?
I am more particularly a fan on unresolvable paradox and dilemma.
Gerry D, I've got to say your comment appeals to the cynic in me as well. And if you appeal - the HSE intends to adjudicate against itself and charge you double (i.e. up to £3K) if it finds in favour of itself.
Great idea!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello Yossarian
As I have said in other posts I really don't like the idea. However, I'm not sure the scenario you describe will happen, but the reverse may be true in that if you can afford to pay you won't get rid of the HSE inspectors once they have the foot in the door.
Why? - If investicgation becomes an income generator then it makes sense to investigate those with money, or won't run away - like the public sector.
I know there are supposed safeguards in the system, but I've been round the public sector long enough to know how quickly targets skew activity. There is an in-built target here of 34% of income, and it is inevitable that managers will start to lean on inspectors to raise cash - and human nature means that the 'low hanging fruit' are grabbed first.
I was only chatting to a H&S chap in a Lower Tier COMAH site the other day, and he was telling me about the HSE having the nerve to charge for the time it took one of their team to read a report they had required the firm to write for them!
I could reproduce my whole response to the consultation, but I won't. Needless to say my form is on its way, and it is not exactly supporting the proposal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ooops - that wasn't clear!
The public sector doesn't have any money, they just won't be able to run away!
Expect the inspectors to be spending most of their time in the bigger private sector companies; or the public sector.
The idea that they will be after the 'cowboys' just won't happen as it is almost impossible to get money out of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well I've submitted my response now... but I cant help feeling it will be as effective as Cassandra prophesying the sack of Troy to minds made insensible by the gods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Beautifully put, and probably true.
However all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
So come on all you good ladies and gentlemen, there is less than 6 hours to go until this consultation ends - get your form in!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.