Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Stephen25053  
#1 Posted : 11 March 2013 08:55:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Do you see HSE as a part of the Health and Safety function in your business or as 100% Regulator and what do you think they should be?
damelcfc  
#2 Posted : 11 March 2013 09:33:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

100% Regulator. TBH though, I do not have a problem with this as follows; In the past before FFI I have had visits from the HSE and they have been ok. We have a had a cuppa, a look around and left without action from either party. Although, these were usually part of a campaign, like slips, trips and falls I personally always felt that 'at any minute, they could turn and spot something they don't like and....' so obviously, HSE inspectors are treated with kid gloves, shown the good bits as far as possible and politely ushered off-site as quickly and nicely as possible. With FFI I have no reason to suspect that you are on my site to do anything more than to try and find something wrong to charge me. If you look hard enough, you will find SOMETHING. I cannot allow you to do this so you are not welcome anymore. No matter what guise you come in, you are ultimately the Regulator, the person with the red and yellow cards. We have learned to play the game without a ref, business' know their own risks and hopefully have a 1/3/5/10 year plan in place to improve things with revenue and capital as it becomes available but right now they are where they are. In house SHE (Q)(F) Managers are the safety function of the business- they know the business better than anyone else. 2 out of 3 interactions with inspectors in the past, the conversation has eventually got around to (led by the inspector) how miffed off they were that they were on less money as the enforcer than us guys employed by the companies. Just one of the other reasons I cannot take the risk of your presence with this narking you! So, for me, in summary, I know what you are, the law enforcer, this IS your role, please don't even try to come in any other guise - that's my job - you can't tell me anything new - although if you do, I'll smile and agree and keep fetching the coffee. I'll lie to you, throw you off the scent, panda to you, shower you with gifts, waste time, flirt - anything, anything to get you off-site as quickly as possible - that is what I'm employed to do ultimately.
SteveL  
#3 Posted : 11 March 2013 09:41:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

damelcfc Says it all, and I feel that this will continue, would not even dare to ask advice any more
johnld  
#4 Posted : 11 March 2013 10:18:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnld

I had posted these comments on the 2 tribes thread but I think they are worth repeating here with some additional comment Before I retired I was involved with safety and dealt with various enforcement agencies for over 30 years. Over those years all enforcement agencies and the inspectors have slowly moved from being individuals that you knew and could approach for advice and guidance to simply policing the workplace. In some cases, but not all, the inspectors have simply become book followers and having little knowledge of the process being carried out. I am sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but it has been my experience over the years. To give an example I once had a visit from an EA inspector looking at our procedures for using open radioactive sources. The conversation started by the inspector admitting that he had no knowledge of work with isotopes as his background was waste disposal and he would simply have to use a tick box check list. Going back to Davids (Stephen25053) question “Do you see HSE as a part of the Health and Safety function in your business or as 100% Regulator” Unfortunately I now see all enforcement agencies as 100% regulators and with the push for all to impose fees and fines I see very little prospect of that changing. Which I personally I find very sad. The move to cash generation would not encourage me to have any contact with inspectors unless it was essential for regulatory compliance. I would add a caveat to this and say that I did find that the specialist Bio Safety Inspectors were always very approachable and easily contacted. I feel we can achieve more by working with HSE and others and not keeping them at arm’s length. Unfortunately I do not see an easy way of getting back to that I outlined earlier and being part of the Health and Safety function which HSE and others were in the past John
chris42  
#5 Posted : 11 March 2013 10:48:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I think the HSE are rapidly becoming 100% regulator, but should there not also be a proactive element to their function. To be honest I don’t think the HSE have been available for advice for quite some time now (before the present Government meddling’s), they do not want to be responsible for making a decision and having any comeback. ACOPS / Guidance and I guess the web site is the only proactive element that seems to still exist. However I feel even these tend to be woolly in places and god only knows if they will become worse or better when next changed or even remain in the hands of the HSE. The HSE do also still come to IOSH meetings and give talks which can be informative. I wonder when these last elements of proactivity will finally end. The problem is is it going to be 100% enforcer or enforcer & judge & jury with FFI. I hope at the end of people giving their views you will come back and say if you feel H&S and wellbeing of people will be improved by the HSE just being an enforcer.
KieranD  
#6 Posted : 11 March 2013 11:11:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
KieranD

Two factors indicate the much broader that needs to be taken into account in evaluating what the HSE is up to now 1. Today's publication by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) of a new report in its Employment Relations Research series: Employer Perceptions and the Impact of Employment Regulation. Contradicting the Coalition government's thinking on the impact of employment law on business via its 'Red Tape Challenge' and Employment Law Review, respondees from 40 firms generally considered that employment regulation was both necessary and fair. In the main, anxiety about employment law stemmed from a fear and misunderstanding of the law. This is the so-called 'perception reality gap', identified Peck and others in Business Perceptions of Regulatory Burden (2012). 2. An Appeals Panel, with employer and trade union representatives (including at least one IOSH member), considers appeals against fines associated with the FFI. As an enforcer, the HSE decisions are moderated by representatives of much broader interests of employers and employees
RayRapp  
#7 Posted : 11 March 2013 11:17:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Is the so-called Tripartite (Employer, Unions and Regulator) system now officially dead I wonder?
jontyjohnston  
#8 Posted : 11 March 2013 11:26:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jontyjohnston

While working in N Ireland I had numerous examples where inspectors were of a profound help to me in some difficult circumstances. One senior inspector saved my sanity on a £200M construction project by reminding me of what was important when faced with the challenges of a tough contract, tough client, apathetic PC, foreign contractors.....Keeping folks safe. I must be honest any say that it was probably down to the individuals rather than a process or policy on the part of HSENI. Now, 100% regulator and it might be difficult to find those little islands of sanity!
walker  
#9 Posted : 11 March 2013 11:47:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

I've had dealings with HSE inspectors for around 25 years in a number of different jobs and found them helpful & friendly even though INs and PNs were on the table. Then recently, we had one arrive on site and throwing her weight around; I honestly don't think she had the ability I'd expect of a new NEBOSH cert holder. Fortunately I was able to go over her head & get her boss involved. Like others have said here, I'm reluctant to consider them as anything other than a regulator now this FFI thing is going. The posting by Victor (about the face mask) says it all really.
Stephen25053  
#10 Posted : 11 March 2013 12:37:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Firstly, I will try to be as brief as possible but that will not be easy. The responses to the question so far are enormously interesting and also a little depressing, at least to me personally, as they do not appear to reflect my own experiences. At this stage I will explain and justify my position on the question - something that any Inspector should do in relation to their position on any question. It is my view that the HSE can only ever be 100% Regulator, for many reasons. It is unquestionably the case that any site Operator knows their business far more than a visiting Inspector and is in a position to know the appropriate solutions towards managing the hazards presented by the activities on their site. The goal setting nature of the legislation is another reason that the only people who can decide on, implement and then manage safety or health measures are those with control of the business. Regulators do not have, and neither should they have, any control of any business. They only have recourse to the legislation (HSWA) which puts them into effect and defines the parameters within which they should operate. It appears to me that there is a great deal of antipathy towards Inspectors, for a variety of reasons, and that is absolutely fine but I do think that there is a lack of consideration for the difficulties that can be found when viewing a situation from their position. Inspectors do come with their own experiences, both before and within HSE. These might be industrial, technical, legal or managerial but you do not just drift into HSE and find yourself as an Inspector. What does change when doing an Inspectors job is the realisation that things DO actually go wrong, and much more often than previously thought. In FOD, an Inspector might investigate 3 serious accidents every week, depending on the Group they are in. Most people should not experience this in their working lifetime! Every inspection, investigation and court case adds to that experience but it also influences how we approach our jobs. There is no doubt that the recent introduction of FFI, where this is applicable, has changed the perceptions of industry quite widely towards questioning the motives of HSE when we find anything wrong but I am not convinced that any more 'material breaches' will be found now than were found prior to the introduction of FFI. It is my view that these now have a 'tag' which clearly defines them, more importantly they now have a financial cost! Different political perspectives carry these changes with a changing political landscape and they always have; had Lord Young or Professor Lofstedt or now the Red Tape Challenge concluded differently then much more profound changes may have resulted. It is important to consider the political influences on a regulator like HSE when considering how the Inspectors in that regulator communicate and work - this is certainly a very immediate influence on me and one I am constantly aware of. This does serve however, to further define the very different role that HSE has than that of the Health and Safety function in a business. Finally and on a personal note, I sincerely hope that the relationships between myself and those companies that I Inspect are based on more mutual respect than those reflected in response to the question so far, that is perhaps an issue around the egos involved rather than the role of HSE and I am firmly of the view that ego should be left at the company gates. If you are not happy then it is perfectly reasonable to talk to someone else in HSE, that is what we do! Regards, David
jontyjohnston  
#11 Posted : 11 March 2013 12:57:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jontyjohnston

Any chance you might be in a senior HSE position soon, to bring a little sanity and good sense to a regulatory framework gone mad?????
Clairel  
#12 Posted : 11 March 2013 13:10:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Stephen25053 wrote:
It appears to me that there is a great deal of antipathy towards Inspectors, for a variety of reasons, and that is absolutely fine but I do think that there is a lack of consideration for the difficulties that can be found when viewing a situation from their position. Inspectors do come with their own experiences, both before and within HSE. These might be industrial, technical, legal or managerial but you do not just drift into HSE and find yourself as an Inspector. I am firmly of the view that ego should be left at the company gates.
Ok point 1. I am an ex-inspector and there are several of us on the fourms. So I think it unfair to suggest that antipathy is due to a lack of understanding. Perhaps you need to appreciate that the antipathy held by many is due to the expereinces they have had. Yes you can just drift into being an inspector. I did. So did many. Needed work. Applied for lots of Gov't jobs as they had the best working conditions and ended up being an inspector. You may leave your ego at the gates but many do not. There is a spilt in the HSE between those that enjoy the power trip and those that don't. I find that when reading your posts that you give a very idealised view of the HSE. Do you really live in blissful ignorance of the darker side of the HSE and some of the inspectors in it?
pete48  
#13 Posted : 11 March 2013 13:34:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Steve, the relationship with HSE that I have enjoyed over several decades has been mutually supportive. A bit like living next door to a serving police officer! You can be mates and work together but if push comes to shove then the officer has a job to do and so do I. I guess the benefit, to both sides, of that sort of relationship is shove is less likely to occur unless it really is the only option. So to answer your question; HSE have always been and always will be 100% enforcement. The issue that has arisen with FFI is that it just complicates that relationship significantly. Maybe it will prove possible to maintain such relationships in the future, who knows. If I have my employers costs in mind, why would I now stop to talk to you or offer you a cuppa if it might cost my employer £xxxx down the road. Why wouldn't I be very closely watching your every move and the time it takes you to do whatever? How confident am I that you will never find a material breach even if I am in a position to believe it is unlikely or at the very least very unexpected? All these factors have changed the landscape for me. As to the wisdom of FFI. In principle fine, but the system chosen is ill conceived. It assumes that the significance of a breach is directly proportionate to the time spent by the HSE. I doubt that would stand any real scrutiny as to the effectiveness and acceptability of such a system. If we had to have some form of recovery, where is the parallel in the current FFI to the fixed penalty notice in traffic offences? I suggest it will be much harder, even for guys like you, to continue to function as pro-actively as you obviously have in the past or indeed would prefer to going forward. Those coming new to the position of Inspector will find a very different landscape awaits them I fear, sad but true, p48
Stephen25053  
#14 Posted : 11 March 2013 13:39:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Clairel, I am perfectly aware of those who were previously inspectors and those who currently are, at least if they have alluded to the fact. I choose my language very carefully and make no apology for it, usually it serves me well! The antipathy clearly comes from a combination of factors including a lack of understanding but clearly also includes personal experiences. Just because you can see the relationship from both sides does not make that the majority view. I have some experience of those who might come across as being on a power trip, although I am not convinced that this was actually the case. We are all human beings doing our jobs, sometimes we will get on and at other times, with other people, we will clash. However, we are also all adults and should be able to deal with these personality issues as such. Now the tricky issue of my 'idealised' view of HSE. As an organisation I can absolutely see what we should be doing and I have my own views as to how we should be achieving this. Generally, I think we have a reasonably good focus on what society would want HSE to achieve and recent Government reviews would tend to support this view. Oddly however, I often disagree with my colleagues just as much as I do with dutyholders because I am very much of a view that we should not ask for any more than the law requires and we all have slightly differing opinions as to exactly what that might mean on a technical level. As for the 'darker side of HSE' I really have never come across this although I am just about to have a rummage through our HR software to see if I can find it. Regards, David
Stephen25053  
#15 Posted : 11 March 2013 13:45:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Pete48, Your post is close to spot on, in my opinion, and I could not agree more! Regards, David
johnld  
#16 Posted : 11 March 2013 13:47:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnld

David said “It is unquestionably the case that any site Operator knows their business far more than a visiting Inspector and is in a position to know the appropriate solutions towards managing the hazards presented by the activities on their site.” In the past I had regular meetings with the inspector who looked after the sites I was involved with. Much of the discussion was about solutions we had used and also those implemented by others. I was quite happy to also discuss where as a site we were experiencing problems. So there was an exchange of information which was also a learning experience for both of us. This free interchange of information, I consider, is now inhibited to the detriment of all. John
Clairel  
#17 Posted : 11 March 2013 14:19:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Stephen25053 wrote:
Clairel, I am perfectly aware of those who were previously inspectors and those who currently are, at least if they have alluded to the fact. I choose my language very carefully and make no apology for it, usually it serves me well! The antipathy clearly comes from a combination of factors including a lack of understanding but clearly also includes personal experiences. Just because you can see the relationship from both sides does not make that the majority view. I have some experience of those who might come across as being on a power trip, although I am not convinced that this was actually the case. We are all human beings doing our jobs, sometimes we will get on and at other times, with other people, we will clash. However, we are also all adults and should be able to deal with these personality issues as such. Now the tricky issue of my 'idealised' view of HSE. As an organisation I can absolutely see what we should be doing and I have my own views as to how we should be achieving this. Generally, I think we have a reasonably good focus on what society would want HSE to achieve and recent Government reviews would tend to support this view. Oddly however, I often disagree with my colleagues just as much as I do with dutyholders because I am very much of a view that we should not ask for any more than the law requires and we all have slightly differing opinions as to exactly what that might mean on a technical level. As for the 'darker side of HSE' I really have never come across this although I am just about to have a rummage through our HR software to see if I can find it. Regards, David
Yep. You obviously live in an idealised world where the HSE is everything you see it to be and everyone in it operates in the way you operate. There are definately many people on a power trip who work in the HSE. They irrititate their colleagues as much as they irritate the people they inspect. Then there is racism, sexism, bullying and elitisim and the old boys network still exists too. Just about everyone I worked with there recognised that they were expected do to what the powers that be wanted them to do, not what was necessarily right. How far people would try and influence the way they worked to marry up with their own ideas of what was right depended on the person. There would a new way of working or a new flavour of the day far too often. And everyone would groan and mumble about what a waste of money it was and they would be better off being left to do the job they knew they could do, being directed in the way that knew from experience was the right way, rather than just ticking boxes to meet targets even if that didn't help reduce accidents. Since leaving the HSE have had the unfortunate experience of coming across a couple of pretty awful inspectors. One of whom didn't have a clue and tried to tell my client that I was incompetent (just because she didn't like consultants - all inspectors seemed to be trained to dislike consultants, I was too) - amazing how quickly she back tracked once she knew who I was. And another for whom I received an apology from the HSE after my client complained about their disgraceful treatment of me at a visit - whereas in fact I was more concerend about the disgraceful way they treated my client. Bullying and humiliating one of the employees in front of management in trying to prove a point. Bad eggs in every barrel? Absolutely. But HSE's historical policies and procedures did nothing to change that. And FFI further divides what may be an enforcing body but always used to try and give advice too, for the greater good. Not any more. If I was still in the HSE I would quit over FFI. I think it's a disgrace. It's creating barriers where once there was a common ground.
son of skywalker  
#18 Posted : 11 March 2013 14:21:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
son of skywalker

I have had the pleasure of some really decent HSE Inpsectors but also two very rude and pretty nasty HSE Inspectors. This was before the FFI. The situation will only deteriorate in my opinion as H&S professionals will only see the HSE as trying to make money as per government dictate. Son of Skywalker
Stephen25053  
#19 Posted : 11 March 2013 14:43:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Clairel, Some of the criticisms you make are obviously still true, although not that many where I work. I have never seen sexism, racism or bullying and if I did there would be no delay in letting any perpetrator know. Then again I am aware that it only needs one idiot in any location to affect a number of staff. Elitism is inevitable in any organisation and different people want different things from their careers, in my book that is for any individual to deal with. I don't know how long ago it was when you left HSE but the degree of peer review now is going to reveal mistaken outcomes, every group meeting includes peer review of colleagues recent Letters, Notices, Investigation Reports on a rolling basis. This is not within the peer group so my letters or other work is scrutinised in London or Birmingham or Cardiff and I don't know! This is a brutal but excellent system for revealing those who have 'differing' outcomes to those required by the law. As for FFI, it is pretty clear that I do not agree with it but, and this sounds very selfish but is not intended to be, it really has very little impact on me as I deal almost solely on COMAH sites which already operate a 'charging' regime and have for many years. This is maturely dealt with and really is not an issue. FFI will either work or it will fail but the world will continue to turn and the pendulum will swing. Regards, David
Clairel  
#20 Posted : 11 March 2013 15:02:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Ah well. There's your difference. You work for HID and therefore how you operate and how you interact with your 'clients' will be very different from the rest of FOD, and has been for a long time. When I was there it felt very much thet HID was almost like a different organisation. So a lot of what I have said will mean nothing to you. Bullying by the way is huge in the HSE and the HSE has one of the worst records for long term sick from work related stress. And by the way did I ever see a RA for my own work activity whilst I worked there? Nope. HSE live by the 'do as I say and not as I do' way of thinking. Hypocritical really. Wonder if that ever changed.
redken  
#21 Posted : 11 March 2013 15:52:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

"COMAH sites which already operate a 'charging' regime and have for many years. This is maturely dealt with and really is not an issue" That is not always the case and if you inspectors of the type described by Claire in the Hazardous Industries Division(HID) then you really have a Major Scenario.
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#22 Posted : 11 March 2013 16:35:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn

damelcfc wrote:
........... So, for me, in summary, ....... I'll lie to you, throw you off the scent, panda to you, shower you with gifts, waste time, flirt - anything, anything to get you off-site as quickly as possible - that is what I'm employed to do ultimately.
Do you really mean that? Really? If you do, I suggest that you resign immediately and try to regain both your honour and your credibility, but don't be surprised if IOSH throw you out on your ear before you can say "I resign"! Though brutally honest, it's foolhardy and unprofessional and isn't what IOSH expects of its members, is it? Actually, perhaps you should be surprised, but that's another story.
Stephen25053  
#23 Posted : 11 March 2013 18:20:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Clairel wrote:
Ah well. There's your difference. You work for HID and therefore how you operate and how you interact with your 'clients' will be very different from the rest of FOD, and has been for a long time. When I was there it felt very much thet HID was almost like a different organisation. So a lot of what I have said will mean nothing to you. Bullying by the way is huge in the HSE and the HSE has one of the worst records for long term sick from work related stress. And by the way did I ever see a RA for my own work activity whilst I worked there? Nope. HSE live by the 'do as I say and not as I do' way of thinking. Hypocritical really. Wonder if that ever changed.
Clairel, You are correct, I do work in HID but I spent 8 years working in a number of FOD groups. I am pretty comfortable going toe to toe with most people if it is necessary and so I accept that I am probably not the most sensitive person to be recognising bullying but I really have not seen it, or at least not what I would classify as bullying. Of course I have heard of instances but I do not speculate, that is not to suggest that it does not happen. As for risk assessments for the work of Inspectors, well, some might say that that is a little patchy but I do not see that we do a great deal of hazardous work ourselves, we are accompanied on sites and are well trained (I think...). Regards, David
Clairel  
#24 Posted : 11 March 2013 18:36:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Stephen25053 wrote:
I am pretty comfortable going toe to toe with most people if it is necessary and so I accept that I am probably not the most sensitive person to be recognising bullying but I really have not seen it, or at least not what I would classify as bullying. Of course I have heard of instances but I do not speculate, that is not to suggest that it does not happen.
To be brutually honest David it is that sort of attitude that allows the bullying to continue. Especially your remark about being comfortable to go toe to toe with most people. That implies a certain fraility to those being bullied. Being bullied can take many forms including a person of a senior status using their status to consistently undermine someone they are supposed to manage and also to prevent them progressing in their career.
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#25 Posted : 11 March 2013 18:43:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn

I'm confused now. If you judge yourself able and suitably knowledgeable to judge the safe - and unsafe - actions of others, should you not at the same time be suitably able and knowledgeable to undertake your own risk assessment? No wonder my tax bill is so high!
Clairel  
#26 Posted : 11 March 2013 18:44:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Stephen25053 wrote:
As for risk assessments for the work of Inspectors, well, some might say that that is a little patchy but I do not see that we do a great deal of hazardous work ourselves, we are accompanied on sites and are well trained (I think...).
Not a great deal of hazardous work? Accompanied on sites? Well trained? Within a month or so of joining I was on my own inspecting farms (that I knew very little about) in the middle of nowhere with farmers who were going through one of the worse times of their working lives. No one knew what farms I was visiting or when I was due back. Mobile phones wouldn't work in most of those locations. I was completley alone and vulnerable. You think that's acceptable? I could give you other 'stories' too. Yes. I think you live a blinkered life but I think that you do that by choice judging by your posts. Blissful ignorance.
damelcfc  
#27 Posted : 11 March 2013 19:37:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

ian.blenkharn wrote:
damelcfc wrote:
........... So, for me, in summary, ....... I'll lie to you, throw you off the scent, panda to you, shower you with gifts, waste time, flirt - anything, anything to get you off-site as quickly as possible - that is what I'm employed to do ultimately.
Do you really mean that? Really? If you do, I suggest that you resign immediately and try to regain both your honour and your credibility, but don't be surprised if IOSH throw you out on your ear before you can say "I resign"! Though brutally honest, it's foolhardy and unprofessional and isn't what IOSH expects of its members, is it? Actually, perhaps you should be surprised, but that's another story.
You have to remember who pays your wages - what's in your contract and what is expected of you. Your terms and conditions are most probably different from mine. Your sector is most probably entirely different to mine and your status, track record and achievements are more than likely measured by a pole apart set of KPI's to mine. Don't get too surprised to learn that 'we' who speak the truth (rather than think it) are the new breed, the new face of OHSE management - We are extremely, extremely sought after these days and command big salaries and respect in our field for our 'realistic' approach. Make no mistake I am at the top of my game, despite what your impression might be. I even know IP stands for Injured Person (RIDDOR on-line reporting instructions) in a O[reference removed] - not internet protocol - are you in the right line of work for 2013? My original post stands - I'm employed to do just so (not that I've ever had to).
damelcfc  
#28 Posted : 11 March 2013 19:39:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

the removed bit above said Occy Health Forum - not sure why removed as certainly not offensive and don't want anyone to think I typed anything offensive!
nigelo  
#29 Posted : 11 March 2013 19:53:21(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
nigelo

just about to go on iosh course and read some of all your comments we have a strict health and safety system in place with a h&s rep in each branch and a manager in charge of them but after all said and done the only person in charge of h&s is you looking forward to my course
David68  
#30 Posted : 11 March 2013 19:58:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
David68

I am relatively new to health and safety and I am in my first role where the HSE is the enforcement authority. If the HSE arrived at my door tomorrow morning then the inspector would be made welcome and treated like any other visitor to my company - with respect, decency and with an expectation of honesty. If a material breach was to be identified, I would expect to be told why, what we needed to do to resolve the situation and it would be a hard lesson learned. There appears to be a great deal of cynicism about FFI and the motives behind its introduction. Maybe it is simply a money making scheme, but it is down to us as professionals to ensure that it fails. This can only be done by us doing exactly what we are paid to do - making sure our employers are obeying the law.
moderator 5  
#31 Posted : 11 March 2013 21:03:04(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
moderator 5

Damelcfc at #28. Looks like you have been tangoed by the auto filter. It removes words, phrases etc that it doesn't like. Why Occyhealth should prompt it to act is a mystery to this Mod but I will report it as a glitch, Mod 5
boblewis  
#32 Posted : 11 March 2013 21:35:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Claire Mentioning sexism - I once saw a PI pat one female inspector on the head. She proceeded to accidently step on his toes - literally. It was such a gracious smile and apology that she gave!!!:-) Bob
boblewis  
#33 Posted : 11 March 2013 21:36:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Or is that mysoginism?:-)
jontyjohnston  
#34 Posted : 12 March 2013 09:52:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jontyjohnston

Well said David68.........sanity at last!
chris42  
#35 Posted : 12 March 2013 10:05:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

David (Stephen 25053) So do you think that the HSE has become 100% enforcer from enforcer/ pro active enabler or has it always been 100% enforcer? If it has changed from something else to 100% enforcer do you feel either employers or employees or even general public have benefited in any way or resulted in improved H&S in any way?
Stephen25053  
#36 Posted : 12 March 2013 11:01:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

chris42 wrote:
David (Stephen 25053) So do you think that the HSE has become 100% enforcer from enforcer/ pro active enabler or has it always been 100% enforcer? If it has changed from something else to 100% enforcer do you feel either employers or employees or even general public have benefited in any way or resulted in improved H&S in any way?
Chris, Thanks for your question, it is the heart of the matter after all. I think we should always have been 100% Regulator. Actually, I think we have just about managed that, and it has always been the intention, but there is not doubt that the introduction of FFI has drastically changed that perception and the Dutyholder / Regulator relationship, for now. I don't recognise the phrase 'pro-active enabler' in the context of a regulatory body, although I suppose it might be argued that the Financial Service Authority (FSA) may have strived towards this before 2008. I also have a very firm view that HSE does not directly improve safety or health outcomes other than through enforcement (in one form or another) as we do not control any aspect of any workplace. The only way that we effect changes is through communication whether that be verbal, written or formal / legal, but it is the employer who puts those changes into effect and so reduces the risk, hopefully. The relationship has not changed in my view but I do think that society benefits from the influence that HSE has on dutyholders, I just do not pretend that we actually make the changes. I am perfectly aware however that we are one of the presences which apply the pressure to reduce risks and therefor benefit from this, it just might not feel like it at the time. Regards, David
Stephen25053  
#37 Posted : 12 March 2013 11:09:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Clairel wrote:
Stephen25053 wrote:
I am pretty comfortable going toe to toe with most people if it is necessary and so I accept that I am probably not the most sensitive person to be recognising bullying but I really have not seen it, or at least not what I would classify as bullying. Of course I have heard of instances but I do not speculate, that is not to suggest that it does not happen.
To be brutually honest David it is that sort of attitude that allows the bullying to continue. Especially your remark about being comfortable to go toe to toe with most people. That implies a certain fraility to those being bullied. Being bullied can take many forms including a person of a senior status using their status to consistently undermine someone they are supposed to manage and also to prevent them progressing in their career.
Clairel I suspect I may have been a little misunderstood. The quote above is a reflection of my own personality and probably a shortcoming that I have in recognising bullying, it is consolation to me however that, when I witness the ways that some communications are conducted on this forum, I may be more emotionally sensitive than I think. Personally, I find any reference to money or remuneration quite appalling when other users of the forum may actually be struggling to find work. But, that is just me. Regards, David
chris42  
#38 Posted : 12 March 2013 11:31:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I would consider my phrase of proactive enabler to cover any proactive measures from the HSE that allows employers to at least comply with their duties as laid down in legislation ie :- a) Giving talks to various IOSH groups b) Production of ACOP’s / guidance (after all, if you are only there to enforce the law why help define what is acceptable) c) The web site with its helpful information d) Particular campaigns run by the HSE from time to time These are surly proactive and any other proactive measures would not be considered enforcement, do you think they (and any other proactive measure) should be stopped and are you aware of any plans to do so?
Clairel  
#39 Posted : 12 March 2013 11:53:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Stephen25053 wrote:
I also have a very firm view that HSE does not directly improve safety or health outcomes other than through enforcement (in one form or another) as we do not control any aspect of any workplace. The only way that we effect changes is through communication whether that be verbal, written or formal / legal, but it is the employer who puts those changes into effect and so reduces the risk, hopefully.
That is contradictory. To say the HSE does not directly improve safety or health outcomes other than through enforcement (which by the way I strongly disagree with as inspectors used to give advice more often than enforce) but then also to say that the only way we effect changes is through communication etc, is a direct contradiction. I would say some of my greater successes as an enforcer was when I wasn't enforcing. I did enforce quite a bit but for the most part I didn't feel comfortable in that role. Maybe that's why I prefer being a consultant where I can actually help people more by changing attitudes and raising awareness rather than compelling people to do something with no ultimate change in perception.
Stephen25053  
#40 Posted : 12 March 2013 12:15:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stephen25053

Clairel wrote:
Stephen25053 wrote:
I also have a very firm view that HSE does not directly improve safety or health outcomes other than through enforcement (in one form or another) as we do not control any aspect of any workplace. The only way that we effect changes is through communication whether that be verbal, written or formal / legal, but it is the employer who puts those changes into effect and so reduces the risk, hopefully.
That is contradictory. To say the HSE does not directly improve safety or health outcomes other than through enforcement (which by the way I strongly disagree with as inspectors used to give advice more often than enforce) but then also to say that the only way we effect changes is through communication etc, is a direct contradiction. I would say some of my greater successes as an enforcer was when I wasn't enforcing. I did enforce quite a bit but for the most part I didn't feel comfortable in that role. Maybe that's why I prefer being a consultant where I can actually help people more by changing attitudes and raising awareness rather than compelling people to do something with no ultimate change in perception.
I do not see it as contradictory at all. It is obvious to me that if I gain agreement from someone on-site to remedy a situation before I leave that site and the only record of that is in my notebook then that is still enforcement. It might be regarded as gentle, pragmatic, call it what you will, but had I not been there it most likely wouldn't have happened, at least not at that time. If I decide, based on the use of the Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the evidence available to me, that I will write a letter to effect some change, then that is a form of enforcement. Not the formal Notice or Prosecution type of enforcement but enforcement all the same. If I were the person who was going to fix the scaffold, guard the lathe or design a suitable hazardous fluid transfer system then I would be the person who could actually reduce the risk. I am not however, I use a variety of different forms of communication (hopefully appropriate to the circumstances) to influence others to do that. Much of my point of view comes from the findings of Lord Gill following his enquiry into the ICL Plastics Explosion whereby HSE was quite heavily criticised for essentially not being firm enough as the Regulator and not following up and forcing previous recommendations which had been made. Regards, David
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
2 Pages12>
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.