Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
garfield esq wrote:quote=garfield esq]
What's worse is some of the bunkum you see 'HS Consultants' trying to get businesses to implement. Speaking plainly, there's to many companies trying to offload there 'duty of care' by employing HS Consultants, some of which are as unscrupulous as 3rd rate car dealers... Lost my resolve to not reply to this. Most companies are not trying to off load their duty of care they are just trying to get help. And the majority of consultants are genuinely trying to help and are certainly not unscrupulous. Before you start consultant bashing on this forum, again, consider your words more carefully as there are a significant number of well qualified, experienced and honourable consultants on this forum doing a a very difficult job and trying to do their very best for their clients. So having their professionalism questioned by some unknown voice hiding behind the name of a cat on this fourm won't go down too well. Your card is marked Sir (I assume as Garfield is male).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"How many hair places, garages, small builders and the such like will end up doing the same to get round H&S law? Needs a careful approach to avoid statements such as: "I'm not an employer, we are just three self-employed people working together on this fragile roof".... "
As said before, you cannot "go" self employed and continue in the same job in the majority of cases. HMRC have quite stringent regulations on self-employment, and the penalties for infringement can be very severe (one I know personally had to declare bankruptcy to avoid selling his house). Not only that, the penalties can go back at least six years, and in the case of deliberate fraud...longer. The way of thinking about it is to consider the window cleaner (!) Does he/she clean a lot of peoples windows ? Yes ? Self employed. Does he/she clean one office block continuously (forth bridge job) ? Yes ? NOT self employed. Does the "employer" supply the material/tools/building ? Yes ? Highly likely to not be applicable for self employment. Note that in many cases the revenue will receive tip-offs from other paye employees.
As for Mr Camerons letter:
Mr Lofstedt. Thank you for your report. We will consider your recommendations in the coming years. However, we are minded to invoke any considerations towards restricting access to legal advice and action immediately. The DWP has produced figures showing the savings the government made in the previous years by people becoming not-living shortly before they became able to claim the state pension. Some 63 thousand died at an early enough age. This represented a considerable saving to the state. Much greater savings could be made if workplace health and safety could be reduced still further. Yours sincerely David (call me Dave)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unfortunately it is a fact of life that governments are great a creating ‘red tape’, however the truth is that parliamentary time and resources required to reduce bureaucracy are much greater and therefore it never gets done.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There appears to be some disagreement regarding self-employed people being exempt from h&s legisalation. The wording used in the Lofstedt report states 'no potential risk'. There is no such thing as 'no risk' and therefore I susepct it means 'low risk' - just semantics. In principle I do not see an issue with this recommendation taken on face value. Not quite sure how it would in pactice.
Most h&s duties are specifically aimed at the employer and not the individual ie employee or self-employed. The employer would still owe a duty to protect self-employed workers as per s3.(1) HSWA. From a regulatory perspective s3.(2) and 3.(3) apply to self-employed workers. These Sections would need amending to cater for the recommendation or alternatively it would stay on the statute but not enforced by the regulators unless there was a clear breach, for instance, a self-employed worker being engaged in high risk activities.
It has been suggested that some unscrupulous employers would use this change in policy to reduce their laibility by declaring those working under them as a self-employed. Indeed, some do already. However, in reality the employer still has the same duties to protect them as they do an employee under h&s law, save for a few exceptions. Perhaps an ACoP could make this duty clearer as there is often confusion with this aspect of the law at present.
With respect to self-employed workers providing risk assesments and other h&s documentation, if those exempt are carrying out low-risk activities I can hardly see what use RAs would be anyway. Most RAs I have seen from self-employed workers are not very good, generic documents begged, stolen or borrowed. Frankly most are not worth the paper they are written on.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John M wrote:For Heather Collins. See post #60. Thanks John - not you saying it yourself then - I had wondered! ;) Claire already said what I thought about the original post you quoted so I'll just agree with her!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Post #80
Ron
This is normal procedure; Lofstetd's Report would have been delivered to the Minister well in advance of the official publication date. This would allow for a "measured" Govt. response.
Similar to PM Questions, table a question in advance so that they are prepared for it and can therefore provide their qualified answer.
Democracy in action?
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Odd then that they don't tend to marry-up on several key issues!
Rayrapp: Lofsted says "no risk to others" and that is a possibility for many self-employed people. LY Report (and Gov response to Lofsted by reference to LY Report) introduced the "low risk occupation" concept.
All very vague, all very woolly and impossible to legislate I would suggest. The real truth has already been stated here. Many thousands of self-employed are outwith the enforcement radar and by default not subject to regulation. A circumstance the Government seeks to take credit for designing, whereas the truth is it already exists.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Moves are already underway with another Chope Bill by way of the introduction of his "Low Hazard Workplaces (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill " 2010-11.
My mole tells me 2nd reading is on 20th January 2011.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
2011 should read 2012 in the above post
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Echoing the observations of Ray Rapp, may I draw attention to the diversity of interests that Loftstedt addressed. In this light it may be useful for safety specialists to bear in mind how professions that presently have a low profile in the safety field can interpret the report as an invitation.
For example, practitioner psychologists may choose to apply the substantial research about occupational safety published in the UK, USA and Australia over the past couple of decades, much more than they have in the past.
As the principle of admitting full members of the BPS Division of Occupational Psychology to the OSHCR has recently been negotiated, this is not unlikely.
To safety practitioners eager to improve the productivity and profitability of safety management, this can offer scope for implementing Loftstedt's report in innovative ways that go far beyond the current standards of OSH practice.
And the psychology of 'behavioural diplomacy' may well overshadow 'behavioural safety' in many sectors, in due course.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John M wrote:Moves are already underway with another Chope Bill by way of the introduction of his "Low Hazard Workplaces (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill " 2010-11.
My mole tells me 2nd reading is on 20th January 2011.
Jon It is a Private Member’s Bill and with the added aspect of debating the magnitude of hazard, I cannot see this getting much support. It will find its own way into the long grass!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I just read the Low Hazard Workplaces (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill. A really pointless piece of legislation and almost impossible to interpret in any sort of sensible way.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steadman
Yes I am only too well aware of the difficulties of the passage of Private members Bills. However, there is no guarantee that it will not hurdle the second reading and make progress. The Health and Safety Offences Act has its genesis in a PM Bill as indeed does the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
This coalition lot flock together and I woud not be at all surprised that we will be hearing a lot more of Chope in 2012. The Young and Lofstedt reports together with their proposals are just preparatory tools.
Wake up all Safety Bods - the corporate barons and Coalition forces are are ahead of the game here.
J
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
#94
All that is required for 1st reading is a long title for the Bill. It does not have to make sense and brevity is key at this stage.
Hope this helps
J
|
|
|
|
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.