IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Corporate homicide and corporate manslaughter act versus available jobs
Rank: Forum user
|
I was thinking about this the other day. Since we've been in recession, jobs are pretty scarce, and especially so in our sector, which led me to wonder about the impact of the CHCM act and how that is affecting company's attitudes to hiring.
Are company's being more circumspect, or is it simply a case of too few jobs/too many candidates, and employers can and are, being very choosy?
What is your company's stance on the CHCM act?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It can’t see how the CMCH Act could have affected the job’s market. Remember the act does not impose any additional duties on employer’s. It only makes it easier to prosecute those that fail to carry out their existing duties.
A lot of rubbish employers are complaining that “If it wasn’t for all these H&S regulations we’d be able to get the economy going again”.
I don’t really believe that.
I believe that good H&S management is good management, full stop. And good management in the long terms makes company’s more efficient and effective.
Of course you can gain short term advantage by cutting corners but long term it does not add up.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:It can’t see how the CMCH Act could have affected the job’s market. Remember the act does not impose any additional duties on employer’s. It only makes it easier to prosecute those that fail to carry out their existing duties.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't mean that the CHCM act has "affected" the availability of jobs, but I was speculating whether or not it's easier to prosecute employers under this act if you were to take on someone who is say newly qualified/lacking in experience versus reducing your chances of anything going awry should you employ someone with years of experience/plus qualifications.
A Kurdziel wrote: A lot of rubbish employers are complaining that “If it wasn’t for all these H&S regulations we’d be able to get the economy going again”.
I don’t really believe that.
I believe that good H&S management is good management, full stop. And good management in the long terms makes company’s more efficient and effective.
Of course you can gain short term advantage by cutting corners but long term it does not add up.
I agree with you on this part.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Young people are less experienced (for everything not just H&S) so are less likely to be hired.
Nevertheless I would not say that younger people are intrinsically less safe than older more experienced staff. We are recruiting young people including apprentices (probably because they are cheaper) and I have generally been impressed by them at induction. They ask questions and seem willing to take advice and to learn. It’s the old guys that have seen it all and are set in their ways that cause lot of the trouble.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It will be interesting to see where this one goes!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Young people are less experienced (for everything not just H&S) so are less likely to be hired.
Nevertheless I would not say that younger people are intrinsically less safe than older more experienced staff. We are recruiting young people including apprentices (probably because they are cheaper) and I have generally been impressed by them at induction. They ask questions and seem willing to take advice and to learn. It’s the old guys that have seen it all and are set in their ways that cause lot of the trouble.
Leaving youngsters/youth out of it for the moment, I was concerned with the hiring of a H&S person (specifically). The person who needs to carry the can for the employer, in terms of making sure they stay compliant/within the law, to avoid any kind of prosecution, on their employer's behalf, and whether that's having any bearing on who the employer hires in terms of xxx years/qualifications versus newly qualified/less experienced.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nikki-Napo wrote:A Kurdziel wrote:Young people are less experienced (for everything not just H&S) so are less likely to be hired.
Nevertheless I would not say that younger people are intrinsically less safe than older more experienced staff. We are recruiting young people including apprentices (probably because they are cheaper) and I have generally been impressed by them at induction. They ask questions and seem willing to take advice and to learn. It’s the old guys that have seen it all and are set in their ways that cause lot of the trouble.
Leaving youngsters/youth out of it for the moment, I was concerned with the hiring of a H&S person (specifically). The person who needs to carry the can for the employer, in terms of making sure they stay compliant/within the law, to avoid any kind of prosecution, on their employer's behalf, and whether that's having any bearing on who the employer hires in terms of xxx years/qualifications versus newly qualified/less experienced.
With respect, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. H&S duties are almost exclusively aimed at the employer, they can delegate responsibility, but they cannot negate responsibility. The person who carries the can is the CEO or MD and in some circumstances it could be other senior managers. Unless there is clear evidence of wrong doing by a sub-ordinate person ie the h&s person, they will not bear any liability. Hence the only real consideration for the status of a h&s person is the role they are likely to fulfil in the company versus the commensurate salary, which is subject to market conditions.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Corporate homicide and corporate manslaughter act versus available jobs
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.