Rank: Forum user 
|
Do others feel that rams are being written for pc h&s tick box and not in a way that is operative friendly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
And do the actual operatives EVER request RAMS? Think you answered your own question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And do the actual operatives EVER request RAMS? Think you answered your own question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
They never will while they cannot understand them. rams are becoming totally for pcs, surely they should be easily understood by operative , they are more likely to look at them if they are in their “language” not pc speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And which profession ignores its own responsibilities and writes documents to suit the whims of other supposed professionals? Oops mirror time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And which profession ignores its own responsibilities and writes documents to suit the whims of other supposed professionals? Oops mirror time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I can see by your animated picture sarcasm is the norm for you. Yes I agree that many have to write documents, but I disagree it is for the whims of others. Simply that pcs wish to cover their arrrrs with little in put. To get small contractors work their normal rams have to be written in particular formats or styles, which confuses staff whom are already weary of officialdom. Surely the supposed intelligent managers should work with staff not expect them to listen look and understand on things that they are weary of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How can you disagree it is for "the whim of others"? That was I believe your question at the start of this post The PC has (one hopes) a health & safety professional who reviews submitted RAMS
This professional challenges contractors whose RAMS do not fit their personal ideal model and coerce the contractor to submit revised documents that suit these ideals rather than addressing the needs of those "on the tools" doing the hazardous task We have had similar posts about what is a "suitable & sufficient" risk assessment - should I use Low/Medium/High, 3x3, 4x4, 7x7 matrix and WHO risk assessments are actually written for (the employer or the employees) Despite your interpretation of my static avatar I sit firmly in the camp that believe if you are writing a document it should suit YOUR business and YOUR employees needs not some remote tick box backside covering PC Problem is the purse strings dictate "No Boots, No Hard Hat, No Hi-Vis (...No RAMS) = No Job" in this situation people head for the path of perceived least resistance neglecting to consider they are putting their business and themselves at risk in doing so Ponder where that would sit with culpability under the 2106 sentencing guidelines! What we are missing is a true legal test case defining who is the construction "employer" with legal duties - this would either give the contractor the backing to stand up to the current situation or firmly place responsibility for all site matters with the PC who seek to dictate activity through financial influence Edited by user 27 September 2017 21:58:07(UTC)
| Reason: FFS
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How can you disagree it is for "the whim of others"? That was I believe your question at the start of this post The PC has (one hopes) a health & safety professional who reviews submitted RAMS
This professional challenges contractors whose RAMS do not fit their personal ideal model and coerce the contractor to submit revised documents that suit these ideals rather than addressing the needs of those "on the tools" doing the hazardous task We have had similar posts about what is a "suitable & sufficient" risk assessment - should I use Low/Medium/High, 3x3, 4x4, 7x7 matrix and WHO risk assessments are actually written for (the employer or the employees) Despite your interpretation of my static avatar I sit firmly in the camp that believe if you are writing a document it should suit YOUR business and YOUR employees needs not some remote tick box backside covering PC Problem is the purse strings dictate "No Boots, No Hard Hat, No Hi-Vis (...No RAMS) = No Job" in this situation people head for the path of perceived least resistance neglecting to consider they are putting their business and themselves at risk in doing so Ponder where that would sit with culpability under the 2106 sentencing guidelines! What we are missing is a true legal test case defining who is the construction "employer" with legal duties - this would either give the contractor the backing to stand up to the current situation or firmly place responsibility for all site matters with the PC who seek to dictate activity through financial influence Edited by user 27 September 2017 21:58:07(UTC)
| Reason: FFS
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Indeed, but what you may have forgotten is that some PCs will reject RAMS not written to their liking and therefore the subbie has no option but to appease the PC.
In my experience as a PC working on major projects it is the client or rather the jobsworth representing the client who calls the shots and decides whether the RAMS are suitable in their desired format.
|
1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
PC should not dictate a format for RAMS but you should insist on the level of information supplied unless subbie is willing to rewrite to make life and process easier (RAMS review Process) but again should be stipulating the need for early submital to ease this process. the only time that dictation is if there ate specific requirements to integrate in the RAMS like rescue and emergency procedures that are critical to all working parties, the rest is purely how they will do the job in hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Roundtuit, I agree with your response late last night, and I fully agree with your thoughts about test case. I simply disagree with the use of the word whim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As someone who has to review subcontractor RAMS I (personnally) look at the content rather that the style / layout. Are the actual risks covered? What annoys me are RAMS that have been written by people who have not and never will set foot on site. How do they know what risks their operatives face. Thats when I reject them but I also do provide the correct information on the risks faced so that they can provide the correct RAMS. As for the language used, I have to assume that they know their own people and that they are read and understood. I know the difficulties I face for my operatives to I write accordingly. Just my 2p. Have a good weekend y'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.