Rank: Super forum user 
|
There is an element of health and safety in every single decision that we make in life. Do we put the washing on overnight - what if the machine malfunctions when we are in bed and blows up? Do we cross the road at the crossing or dash across when there is a space. You cannot move without considering your health and safety whether as a deliberate act or a subconscious decision - this does not mean that every action falls under the remit of "health and safety".
A dog in a cafe? Sure, potentially there's a health issue there but there's also a health issue with general hygiene and cleanliness in a cafe - is that health and safety? That's in the remit of Environmental Health and Food Hygiene Inspectors and there are plenty of rules and regulations that govern this particular environment. The cafe owner should be advising people that he cannot allow the dogs in because of food hygiene regulations not health and safety regulations.
How far do you expand your net - as far as I can see, the only people "at work" in the cafe are the owner and his staff, so by citing health and safety he is only protecting the workers, everyone else including all the customers can go hang. Whereas, if he cited food hygiene it would cover everyone equally. Therefore, surely this is not only inaccurate but inadequate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Obviously I understand the duty of care to people who are not employed and ya-di-ya, but food hygiene just covers it so much better ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
hilary wrote:
A dog in a cafe? Sure, potentially there's a health issue there but there's also a health issue with general hygiene and cleanliness in a cafe - is that health and safety?
Yes, of course it is. General hygiene and cleanliness in a cafe is absolutely about health. What do you think it's for?
hilary wrote:
How far do you expand your net - as far as I can see, the only people "at work" in the cafe are the owner and his staff, so by citing health and safety he is only protecting the workers,
aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhh!
That is EXACTLY the sophistry that is damaging and harmful. 'Health and safety' is NOT a divinely-granted title that means ONLY health and safety AT WORK. 'Health and safety' is much wider than HASWA, and it is perfectly reasonable to ascribe to health and safety decisions that are nothing whatever to do with HASWA, if tehy relate to (say) health and safety.
Yes, I do take decisions about safety when I'm not at work.
Yes, it is right and proper to describe them as decisions about safety. What would you call them?
No, it is not right to claim that a decision is not about health and safety unless it relates specifically to H&S at work and the legislation relating specifically to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well, using your philosophy then, EVERYTHING comes under health and safety so we cannot moan when people cite health and safety as the reason.
The mythbusters panel might as well shut up shop and go home then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The HSE Chair usesthe term Health&Safety when she clearly means just safety:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ne...aste-recycling210313.htm
"But the industry also has a persistently poor record on health and safety. Over the 7 year period from 2004/5 to 2011/12 HSE received reports of almost 120 fatal injuries (some of whom were members of the public) and close to 4,000 major injuries to workers in the waste and recycling sector. Fatal injury rates for employees are 10 times higher than the all industry average.
The sector does know it has to tackle its poor health and safety performance and is already moving things in the right direction. Injury rates have fallen by around 20% in the last eight years, but there's still plenty of room for improvement"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Lisa Boulton wrote:Here, here. I completely agree with all the comments made. I have made my own feelings known in previous postings, usually on individual myths.
My other issue is the letters sent to the press by the HSE in response to a story, take the 'banning' of Henman Hill 'incident' at Wimbledon the other year, thankfully the Lawn Tennis Association did a great reply telling the HSE to effectively mind their own....
I worry how much national press this has had recently such as the BBC news website last week. Just because 'Elf and Safety has been quoted rather than say Food Safety or Fire Safety, the HSE really should make it clear that even if something isn't an H&S issue it still could be a breach of another form of 'something' & Safety
The lawn tennis association might have told them were to go, but strange how this year there is an advert on 'total jobs' for those in the wimbleton area, for a health and safety manager.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
It seems to be about the words used - the role of a group of people who challenge the ongoing improper use of 'health and safety', cited as a reason by under-employed busy bodies for people not doing something or doing something that is not necessary is one I would applaud. However the findings of the panel should refer to 'occupational safety law', or 'health and safety law' not merely 'health and safety' - its too general a term to be useful in the .
Actually, come to think about it, on a day to day basis I try to avoid using the words 'health' and 'safety' together unless at a very general/high/planning level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
quote=hilary]There is an element of health and safety in every single decision that we make in life. Do we put the washing on overnight - what if the machine malfunctions when we are in bed and blows up? Do we cross the road at the crossing or dash across when there is a space. You cannot move without considering your health and safety whether as a deliberate act or a subconscious decision - this does not mean that every action falls under the remit of "health and safety".
A dog in a cafe? Sure, potentially there's a health issue there but there's also a health issue with general hygiene and cleanliness in a cafe - is that health and safety? That's in the remit of Environmental Health and Food Hygiene Inspectors and there are plenty of rules and regulations that govern this particular environment. The cafe owner should be advising people that he cannot allow the dogs in because of food hygiene regulations not health and safety regulations.
How far do you expand your net - as far as I can see, the only people "at work" in the cafe are the owner and his staff, so by citing health and safety he is only protecting the workers, everyone else including all the customers can go hang. Whereas, if he cited food hygiene it would cover everyone equally. Therefore, surely this is not only inaccurate but inadequate?
Given the fact that a small café will receive a health and safety inspection at the same time as either a food hygiene or food standards inspection and that any contraventions are likely to be detailed in the same letter it is not surprising that a café owner would site health and safety for any reason he or she has to do or not do something asked by an EHO or Authorised officer.
The HSE do not own the term health and safety.
They are not even the enforcing authority for the majority of businesses in the UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hilary wrote:Well, using your philosophy then, EVERYTHING comes under health and safety so we cannot moan when people cite health and safety as the reason.
Absoilute arrant nonsense.
My preferred breakfast cereal is Waitrose own-brand shreddies, because I like the taste and texture. Neither health nor safety feature in the preference.
My preferred writing implement is a Waterman Carenne Amber 0.7mm propelling pencil, which I have owned for so many years the lacquer is rubbbing off and the brass barrel shows through where my index finger and thumb rest. Neither health nor safety feature in my attachment to the pencil - it's simply familiarity, balance and comfort.
I sleep on the right of our bed, my wife sleeps on the left. This is just habit. Neither health nor safety feature in the decision.
Where I park my bike. The locker I use at work. When I get my morning coffee. Where teh mug sits on my desk. The colour of my shirts. The colour of my tie.
My life is full of decisions in which neither health nor safety play any part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Corfield35303 wrote:It seems to be about the words used - the role of a group of people who challenge the ongoing improper use of 'health and safety', cited as a reason by under-employed busy bodies for people not doing something or doing something that is not necessary is one I would applaud. However the findings of the panel should refer to 'occupational safety law', or 'health and safety law' not merely 'health and safety' - its too general a term to be useful in the .
Actually, come to think about it, on a day to day basis I try to avoid using the words 'health' and 'safety' together unless at a very general/high/planning level.
Good point that might the mythbusters might take notice of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
pete48 wrote:Or maybe they are directed to that position by their terms of reference?
I doubt that the panel members are anything other than committed professionals who work hard to meet their terms of reference. Are those terms relevant, helping the cause or simply causing further confusing is an acceptable debate in my view, Suggestions as to the competence of panel members is not.
Whether H&S is or is not in divine ownership is irrelevant. Their TOR limit them to H&S legislation. What they are saying each time is not H&S (legislation)
Does that limitation help? Obviously not but if that is taken as read then it does go a long way to explaining their approach.
I would argue that even when they are commenting within the remit of H&SW Act that they sometimes get it wrong or out of context. The case of slippery grass at Wimbledon and the recent hair dryer case being examples under Section 3 of the H&S Work Act. They do not bother to talk to the person who made the H&S decision or investigate the reliability of the journalistic source - why? because this is not within their remit to do so. Consequently any conclusions they make are going to be based on conjecture and fragile assumptions. With this approach it is inevitable that they will get it wrong sometimes with the result that employers may be criticised unfairly in the press thanks to the HSE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.