I forgot to add is, the only protection they have is the training, experience and a painted white line around the lathes which they should not cross (supervision is also non-existant).

Thanks John but we can only dream of CNC lathes, ours are from the year dot with no guarding on any moving/dangerous part.
the loss of production has been quoted (as usual).
Maybe I was hoping someone on the forum would have a magic wand!

KAJ, I wasn't suggesting changing machines. I was suggesting that your employer's insurance company ought to have copies of the workshop risk assessments, and they could put pressure on the employer to fit appropriate guards.

It could be that if someone was seriously hurt by an unguarded lathe, the insurance company might not pay the £100,000 compensation! Check the policy small print - which might require employer to comply with PUWER/HaSaWA.

Better to request help from insurers than HSE inspectors?

No they are run off compressed air, but not the big bertha ones.

KAJ if HSE walk in now, the boss is going to know who snitched.

Don't envy where you sit. Agree Insurance people just might be helpful.

Can you get the operatives on side ?

Other than that you can only cover yourself & keep reminding the MD of the personal consequences (to him) when things go wrong.

Cheers everyone, thanks for the replies, everything is documented and I will keep plodding.
thanks again

KAJ Safe

Your use of the qualifier 'only' in your statement 'the only protection they have is the training,... ' appears at odds with your apparent attribution of fault on the part of managment.

To what extent do they actively prevent you personally from improving the quality of training by improving it, especially through incorporating the creative messages spelt out in HSG 48?

As the Good Man in the New Testament is reported to have observed, 'Why not deal with the beam in your own eye., etc.?'

KAJ,
I have to ask this tongue in cheek, I know lathes very well of many types I have my own quite old centre lathe.
Why was the training insufficient.
Why did the injured person approach the dangerous part in the first place?
Why is it that individuals no longer seem to have the competence to avoid the danger in the first place, especially those who are skilled and qualified?
Why does the trade training no longer include the explanations of the dangers and how to avoid them, what ever happened to the "you are responsible for your own acts and omissions"?

Controversial no doubt, but sorry it had to be asked.
I just see so many blanket H&S rules these days that the guys on the ground are becoming numb to them and are no longer "thinking" for themselves.

I don’t disagree with the comments above, but maybe you have not exhausted all the options of changing the Managements view yourself just yet. Why not approach the MD / management team and or whoever is your direct boss and say you understand their concerns about cost and possible disruption to production, but you do feel this is a business risk which could be very expensive for them if there was an accident. Then ask if they mind you looking into just what guarding is out there, how much it would cost and what effect it would have on production. Suggest you would not let it interfere with anything else you have to do and say that your investigation could take some time. They may not mind you undertaking a “paperwork” exercise to evaluate the issue. If they agree you go and find a supplier and get them to come in as quickly as possible.

I suspect the provision of the correct guarding will not slow down production ( may want to surreptitiously get production manager in on the conversation with the rep), so the real issue will be cost of guarding. Once you have the appropriate information and you have laid it out in a proper business report/ action plan, give a copy to all interested parties. The rep may be able to give you ( and Production manager) other benefits of their guarding ( less turnings to clear up so more production time). Either way presenting the information formally, which shows little to no effect on production, then the MD only has to get their mind around the initial outlay, which may not be as bad as they are imagining.

You have nothing to lose by this and everything to gain, it shows you are sympathetic to the company’s needs as a whole, including the effects of a serious accident. Note I suggest getting the production manager to join in under their own volition, so mention that the rep will be around at XX o’clock, if they want to be involved they can be, if you try and drag them into it they may resist. Make sure the rep is scheduled when you know the production manager is not off or in scheduled meetings. The rep could point out to the Production manager, his/her responsibility if something were to go wrong. Then you stick up for the manager and suggest that is why the company is looking into the guarding.

Hope this makes some sense and you get the general idea.

Thanks for the comments Chris
We have our own maintenance team who I planned on using to make the guards (those on the internet seem quite simple), this would have been even cheaper but this was knocked back as the production director informed me that lathes are excluded from such requirements.

With respect, KAJSafe, when you choose to so crudely label someone who comments in response to your request, this sample of your behaviour hardly invites managers to behave other than to label you in the same vein.

'Behavioural safety' is only one of literally dozens of well-researched possible ways of implementing the messages of HSG48.

When you choose to regard them as in 'the land of pixies and fairies', it's appears that it's simply beyond your ability or willingess to do anything more constructive than paint yourself repeatedly into corners, and blame others.

Good luck.....

KAJ Safe

The Organisation Behaviour journal in the USA, has published accounts by John Austin and others of applying the principles of Acceptance and Commitment therapy as an organisational behaviour intervention that you (and others) can apply without any managment endorsement, if you take the trouble.

If you wish to know of a dozen others, you're welcome to PM me.

Of course, an alternative option is to keep going in circles and blame me or anyone else who questions habits of labelling and other dysfunctional responses .

Thanks SNS, at last, tractical advice that my sort of managers may listen to :)

Chris
The chuck and what we call the saddle or toolpost are not covered (although as stated earlier, we do have a white line painted on the floor which they should not cross, not too sure how they stop this if they slip/trip).
I have seen the basic guarding on several engineering websites but I was hoping that one of our members had these long bed lathes on their own site.

KAJ,
Why no chuck guard?
You can't enclose the saddle, how would the operator use the long, cross and compound slide hand wheels if the saddle were enclosed?
The machine would be inoperable in that situation so you may as well chuck it in the skip because you could not use it as a lathe.
The feed wheels and headstock gearing must be enclosed with either a fixed or interlocked guard.
Guarding the lead screw would be best practice but, there must be nothing able to catch in it anyway so there is no real need.
How long are the beds, as I say I have a centre lathe, well an Engine Lathe, not a Gap Bed type in my workshop, I fix these things and do PUWER assessments on them.
I also "do" CNC lathes.