Just having a rant and rave as fed up having to justify to HR departments why H&S has to be included in their new joiner induction programme. They revamp the programme and I understand why, but then think they can skip H&S or when asked want it covered in 2 slides or 5 minutes. Anyone else have the same frustrations? I'm reminding them of legal obligations and also that the HRD is the H&S Director........Grrrrrrrrr

Produce what you feel is necessary, give it to HR and refuse to alter. Explain you are doing them a favour as they will not have to deal with the time off aspect following an accident.

Though I would add don't overload the person with info on day one.

Chris

Surely the H&S component of induction should be commensurate with the hazards and residual risks. Thus a waste transfer site will need much greater content and time than a small office operation.

Also, there will be differing needs for each role within the organisation eg a dumper truck operator needs to be informed, instructed and trained in many different things whilst a computer driver will need a very different set of skills and rules.

Of course staff can learn about H&s through a process of osmosis… just absorb it from their colleagues. And of course if there is an incident the HSE never ask if the training, information and supervision were sufficient…
We had this a few years ago with our HR colleagues asserting that Health and Safety was too depressing to do on the first day and could to be fitted in later. We stuck to our guns and now everybody has an initially 45 minute H&S induction covering:
• Why we do H&S
• What are you responsibilities under H&S
• Who the H&S team does
• What to do in a fire
• First aid
• Incident reporting
For some people we do an additional induction eg lab workers and field workers and then we expect the individual departments to do their own local inductions dealing with local issues. Overall this can add up to a day’s Health and Safety but it should be specific for that person’s work.

This could just be a mismatch of perception between OSH and HR re what the induction process is about.
All too often we, OSH bods at least, think it is a full blown, day one, teaching grandmother to suck eggs talking heads session about safety law, fire safety principles, accident reporting etc etc. Yawn and just love being patronised stuff. Depressing? Yep, I have been in need of a stiff drink after some I have attended or witnessed. Be honest-we have all been there on both sides of the powerpoint.

We also sometimes struggle with the “Go Away And Find Out For Yourself” approach to OSH induction. Not for all situations but very effective and efficient in many cases.
HR bods on the other hand often see induction as the process that covers how new staff adjust or acclimatise to their jobs and working environment. They usually understand the benefits of the “Go Away and Find out” approach more readily than we might.

If we take the HR view then that might mean that the OSH induction needs to focus on the way we do safety here rather than this is what OSH is about. e.g. what are the safety rules that might be different than elsewhere that I have worked; how do I report x,y,z and to whom; who do I go to for help and advice re OSH; how to respond to emergency conditions; what other OSH training can I expect, how will it be organised and when. That can be done easily in a few minutes, easy to hear, more likely to stick.

The ongoing OSH training, both knowledge and task related, occurs later in the process when knowledge gaps have been fully identified.

I've just had something a bit like this, in that we sat down and added up the hours on our volunteer common induction programme (we have about 40K volunteers, delivering most of our front-line services) and realised it was 5 days. People don't volunteer to do 5 days induction, they want to go out there and do their bit.

So everybody with a stake in induction was taken to a basement room in London and locked in until we had reached an agreement about what was actually necessary.... Well, we weren't locked in, and it was a very nice building, and there were coffee and biscuits, but it was a basement.

I took most of the 'Health and Safety' out, to be honest, without demur and without question. Why? Well, it added up to nearly a whole day, and most of it didn't need to be covered at common induction... It needs to be delivered, certainly, but much of it is better delivered in context, as role specific training, and not as a common induction. Some of it can even be delivered by the time honoured technique of 'sitting next to Nellie', provided Nellie is properly accredited and selected rather than just a random person.

Nobody ever learns everything they need to know on induction, and some of the things you really need people to learn can best be learnt elsewhere. The longer I work in this profession the more I start to think that people need to be trained to work safely, and not given 'H&S training',

John

This made me chuckle so I shared with my Director, I'm not able to share he thoughts but on the whole he kind of agrees but thinks I'm made of sterner stuff so it wont 'get me down'. Not sure if its a compliant or not but I'll take what ever I can. Happy days.

There is a provision under HSWA (2)(c) for the employer - the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;

Job done.

I meant that "New employees & contractors will only be issued a permanent ID Photocard and electronic "dongle" to operate the car end pedestrian entry barriers AFTER undergoing the induction!

Jay, that's a sensible approach, and very much how I'm advocating we do it. Just the basics in induction, and then the rest at the right time and in the right place.

As Ray said, IITS, and too often all we think about is the T bit,

John