IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Should the 5 plus employees be scrapped to include all?
Rank: Super forum user
|
Regarding the proviso in the HASAWA concerning 5 plus employees.....
Do you think the law should be changed to protect all workers?
I have been unable to get a job in safety despite my qualifications, so I currently work as a delivery driver, specialising in building trade products where possible, so I get to visit many different sites every week delivering different products and for different employers.
I am amazed at the lack of safety on so many sites, notably the small sites where there are 4 (or less) people working on a house conversion or whatever. No safety equipment whatsoever and a bare minimum of safety on the job for tasks (or an understanding) such as manual handling, working at height, COSHH or even basic welfare.
I delivered some insulation board to a site today, I craned it off the truck, then watched as various men lift a sheet each, then climb the outside of scaffolding and put the sheets through a window cavity (the window frame was not yet fitted).
Few have any basic welfare facilities.
Everything has changed in 40 years, why shouldn't our expectations of safety be level across all industry, so that all workers are protected?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Such people are exempt from very little of HSWA.
They exist as they do because HSE fail in their statutory duty.
Which eventually brings about the demise of those employers who try to obey the law
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
All employers should carry out risk assessments.
The 5 or fewer relates to a written risk assessment. All Employers would be better off having written risk assessments, as that way they could prove they've at least tried to do something to mitigate their risks should an accident or incident be reported.
Only this week, there was an article in the SHP about small to medium sized businesses failing in their duty.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
walker wrote:Such people are exempt from very little of HSWA.
They exist as they do because HSE fail in their statutory duty.
Which eventually brings about the demise of those employers who try to obey the law
The statutory duty is on the employer, not the regulator. I am sure that if it were drawn to their attention, the regulator would be all too happy to visit such sites and remind the employer of their duty.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From HSE own website:
HSE’s statutory functions include proposing new or updated laws and standards, conducting research, providing information and advice, and making adequate arrangements for the enforcement of health and safety law in relation to specified work activities.
They don't enforce H&S law because they have got rid of a significant proportion of their inspectors.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
All a sign of the 'race to the bottom' economy we have at the moment.
Cheapest quote wins, regardless of anything else.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ian Bell wrote:All a sign of the 'race to the bottom' economy we have at the moment.
Cheapest quote wins, regardless of anything else.
This, I am afraid is affecting the performance of larger outfits as well.
Judith Hackett at South West Conference (very good and thnak you by the way) stated that the HSE had been targetting smaller sites. But how many single number employee sites are there in the UK as I type? There must be thousands and over the course of month, tens of thousands as short jobs start, finish and are delayed.
My local builder who worked on my house 5 years ago was pretty good. He had insurance, he wore a mask when cutting (although I bet he didnt even know what face fit was) he had extraction on some bits of drilling / cutting kit, he kept the site tidy and cleaned up. But he didnt believe in the need for any written paperwork. He did plan his work, mainly through experience and kind of recorded it.
He did a 8 house build for a client and was shocked at what they wanted and the constraints he would have to worked under. In his words, to work safely added 20% to the cost.
If every small builder did regular work on larger well managed sites it would increase their knowledge and understanding.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would also prefer that the HSE undertakes more enforcement, but they have to use their resources effectively and all govt depts etc have had their spending cut.
http://press.hse.gov.uk/...-and-safety-spot-checks/
Obviously, we may construe that this is cheap publicity by the HSE, but in the end nowhere in the world has the stick worked on its own.
2. Summary breakdown of results:
Poor standards/dangerous practices at 40% of sites visited (691 of 1748)
On 360 (one in five) sites, practices so poor that enforcement action needed.
313 prohibition notices issued
235 improvement notices issued
The most common issues identified related to work at height and falls (42%), failure to control dust (12%), insufficient welfare (12%) and asbestos (10%).
In total 35% of notices were served for health issues (asbestos, dust, noise, vibration, welfare, manual handling).
3. The initiative took place between 22 September and 17 October 2014. For more on the Safersites campaign visit:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...on/campaigns/safersites/
Such campaigns have taken place before FFI also--therefore I doubt that FFI is the porimary driver for this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
An interesting piece of law to do with slavery is being discussed this week so watch the outcome as the end effect may have an impact on the area of 5 people or less noting that the original law included all employees inclusive of servants [slaves?] but it was changed as it went through the process to exempt servants noting that only the rich had servants then as now
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quote "In his words, to work safely added 20% to the cost."
But did he really mean the additional paperwork and pre qualification would add 20%, but this comes out as H&S ?
Yes I personally think it is in the best interests of the employers of under 5 employees to write up their risk assessments. If nothing else to show there has been a thought process about safety, even if things have gone wrong.
I'm not convinced there is a will to clamp down on these unsafe company's, because they may not be working safely, but they are also not claiming benefits. Also any FFI from these would either put them under or just not be paid.
But until something is done, cheapest wins is also possibly unsafest wins. I, like many of you, have a constant battle with regard to this issue. We want experienced, qualified competent, while those at the top want cheapest.
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
Perhaps the HSE should get a facebook page / Twitter ( I'm not into these things , so whichever is appropriate) where anyone can take a picture and add a post code to a witnessed unsafe working condition. Make it easy to report.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SMEs have been getting away with not providing proper health, safety and welfare provisions for as long as I have been involved in industry, particularly those working on domestic projects. I have said on many occasions that poor regulatory enforcement is to blame, notwithstanding the lack of any meaningful enforcement when they do get identified, such as ENs and moreover prosecution for non-compliance. Even when they do get prosecuted which is rare the sanctions are paltry in comparison to the offence - what sort of message does this send out?
Unfortunately under this current regime I cannot see anything changing. The only time SMEs get prosecuted is when there is a serious incident - too late for those involved of course. It's no good the regulators arguing the duty lays with the employer, we know that, but without enforcement people will cut corners to save on time, money and effort whilst exposing people to unnecessary risks.
A similar argument was put forward at a IOSH conference some years ago by a high profile regulator. He commented that the driver of the Ladbroke Grove train disaster was not competent blah, blah. Forgetting of course that the driver who was killed was exonerated from any blame by Lord Cullen, which I reminded the regulator. His contemptuous reply was that it was for the duty holder to manage the risks they create not the HSE/ORR. I reminded him again that the HMRI(ORR) was slated by Lord Cullen in the enquiry for not properly enforcing high risks such as multi-SPADed signals. Sadly in my experience of regulators ignoring risks and focusing on the outcome of incidents appears to be the prevailing ethos.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Should the 5 plus employees be scrapped to include all?
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.