Rank: Forum user 
|
Do you think HS has gone too far in the UK. ? I know how important it is to manage HS and have been doing this for a number of years, but do you ever get the feeling that we have gone too far? Risk assess this, risk assess that have, SSOW for everything. Someone trips over a box at home, well should have been looking where they were going? Happens at work, investigation, route cause identification, what are the underlying issues, maybe it’s just someone did not look where they were going. I am not trying to undermine the good work HS professionals do sometime really think it’s gone too far???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Bill6152  Do you think HS has gone too far in the UK. ? I know how important it is to manage HS and have been doing this for a number of years, but do you ever get the feeling that we have gone too far? Risk assess this, risk assess that have, SSOW for everything. Someone trips over a box at home, well should have been looking where they were going? Happens at work, investigation, route cause identification, what are the underlying issues, maybe it’s just someone did not look where they were going. I am not trying to undermine the good work HS professionals do sometime really think it’s gone too far???
Its Root cause not route cause
|
 1 user thanked stonecold for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Has it gone too far? I don't know.... let's see
Trip over a box at home - fall over, hurt yourself, your fault - tough luck. Fall over a box at work, hit your head on the way down, fractured skull, brain damage, possible death - my fault because I didn't ensure that we kept walkways clear.
No, I don't think so ....
|
5 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Bill6152 Do you think HS has gone too far in the UK. ? I know how important it is to manage HS and have been doing this for a number of years, but do you ever get the feeling that we have gone too far? Risk assess this, risk assess that have, SSOW for everything. Someone trips over a box at home, well should have been looking where they were going? Happens at work, investigation, route cause identification, what are the underlying issues, maybe it’s just someone did not look where they were going. I am not trying to undermine the good work HS professionals do sometime really think it’s gone too far???
People are still being killed in preventable falls.
People are still dying because of exposure to fumes/dust at work.
Employers are, at least in the SME sector, interested in paper health and safety, while ignoring workshop floor health and safety.
So the answer to your question is: No.
We have not gone far enough, and the govt is still trying to "reduce red tape"...to save their donors money at the expense of workers health, safety and lives.
|
1 user thanked johnmurray for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I do and have done for years it was suppose to be hazards created at wotk not everything just because you are at work Making tea, remeber to tell people once the kettle is boiled hot water will come out Walking up and down stairs crossing roads between two sites must wear hi viz vests, yet once out of work cross where you want Using a micro wave Using toaster and all the other stupid items, paper cuts, using a clip file, carrying cups of tea, not having the radio to loud in case it affects hearing, how much your allowed to carry, although carry anything at home, wearing PPE just because it's required in another area, hard hats when nothing can fall on your head, PA testing everything in sight, DSE regulations yet nearly all of us have lap tops at home and sit curled up on the couch to use for hours on end, how to open and close doors (yes I was once asked, in case someone is stooping down behind it) For me this is what takes away the importance of H&S and
|
1 user thanked Invictus for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Where clip board clowns ban anything & everything from behind their desks issuing non-sensical blanket policies on matters they have poorly evaluated - yes For the rest of the world, free from suffocation by cotton wool and bubble wrap - no Society (and this forum on occassion) too often confuse H&S management with insurance loss prevention.
Unfortunately as most work claims are paid without challenge there is no driver to break the cycle Pity no one is lobbying in the same manner as the travel companies recently have in respect of the latest claim culture scourge "holiday sickness" - if more claims ended up with the no win/no fee claimant in prison and the companies supporting them out of pocket....
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Where clip board clowns ban anything & everything from behind their desks issuing non-sensical blanket policies on matters they have poorly evaluated - yes For the rest of the world, free from suffocation by cotton wool and bubble wrap - no Society (and this forum on occassion) too often confuse H&S management with insurance loss prevention.
Unfortunately as most work claims are paid without challenge there is no driver to break the cycle Pity no one is lobbying in the same manner as the travel companies recently have in respect of the latest claim culture scourge "holiday sickness" - if more claims ended up with the no win/no fee claimant in prison and the companies supporting them out of pocket....
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Two very strong words for me are 'Reasonable' and 'Proportianality' you do not need to take it too far at all employers simply need to protect the Safety, Health and Welfare at people at work.
If no one has died/injured themsleves severley from tripping over a box why would you do a root cause analysis, why not simply ask what happened and then just communicate this incident, carry out inspections (not you but a responsible manager) to ensure it doesnt happen and communicate that it is unacceptable?
It isn't about wrapping people in cotton wool it's about doing what is reasonable.
Edited by user 30 October 2017 13:54:44(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
2 users thanked georgiaredmayne for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I don't think we've gone too far. You say risk assess this and that but that is not what the law says and not what is required to keep people safe. At present I am working in a brass foundry. We risk assess the furnaces in great detail but don't assess the risk of operating the photocopier other than to ensure that it is in good order. There are tasks that come between those two extremes and people have to exercise their judgement. One of the things that I have learned over the years is that if anything goes wrong your insurance company and loss adjustoers will want to see a lot of thorough documentation. I think proportianilty, as one of the other contributors mentioned, is something we could write book on.
|
2 users thanked DavidGault for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: DavidGault I don't think we've gone too far. You say risk assess this and that but that is not what the law says and not what is required to keep people safe. At present I am working in a brass foundry. We risk assess the furnaces in great detail but don't assess the risk of operating the photocopier other than to ensure that it is in good order. There are tasks that come between those two extremes and people have to exercise their judgement. One of the things that I have learned over the years is that if anything goes wrong your insurance company and loss adjustoers will want to see a lot of thorough documentation. I think proportianilty, as one of the other contributors mentioned, is something we could write book on.
And sadly that is it, I spent 10 years in a prison as a h&S manager, we had steel fabrication, we built windows, car maintenance, bricklaying etc workshops all managed and very few injuries unfortunately I spent more time dealing with claims for the reasons given in my earlier post, I never wrote any for them but the time taken up by these claims was enourmous. If it was only prisoners that would be one thing but it also came from employees. Unfortunately our own soliticitors and insurance were as bad, they came to do a presentation to managers and one of the managers mentioned he had trapped his finger in the clips of the file and our own solitior immediately turned to me and asked where was the risk assessment and safe system of work, I laughed and said we didn't have one and all they said was well there is a claim.
I don't think we as a profesasion has gone to far but the fact that companies will settle early and not fight due to advice from solicitors has forced safety in the wrong direction. We should be looking at the prevention of deaths and injuries not if the water is too hot to make tea with.
|
2 users thanked Invictus for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with proportionality, reasonableness, etc. However, very often the drivers for these OTT requirements are out of the control of h&s practitioners. For example, when I have worked on major projects clients often make unreasonable demands including a full scale investigation for every minor event, plus loads of unnecessary actions, including the ubiquitous TBT.
|
3 users thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I’m with Invictus I’m afraid… We have become the Nanny State Police who are expected to prevent grown adults causing themselves the sort of harm that we used to expect small children not to expose themselves to not so many years ago. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still a passionate believer in “proper” workplace health and safety, but I am tired of all the things Invictus mentions and more. When I first entered the profession, we were generally expected to identify hazards, assess risks and then manage it – simples. Nowadays however, we are expected to be “experts” in just about everything ! As examples (and I’m sure I’m not alone here), I’m expected to be involved in return to work interviews (and over-rule medical professionals on occasions) so I’m a Doctor. For COSHH, I’m a Scientist, Chemist, Physicist etc. I’m expected to deal with Solictors etc on an equal footing (so I’m a Legal expert), yet deal with building work and contractors etc (so I’ll remove my courtroom wig and wear my Building Control/FM hardhat instead). To look after our environmental aspects I have to be an “Eco-warrior”, and from more recent guidance, I’m expected to be a Mental Health expert…. Need I go on ? How many other jobs require one person to take on so many levels of responsibility ? Despite loving the job and the profession (sometimes !), and whilst still firmly attached to the principles of keeping people safe from real harm in the workplace – yes, I DO think it’s gone too far…
|
2 users thanked Elfin Davy 09 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Elfin Davy 09 I’m with Invictus I’m afraid… We have become the Nanny State Police who are expected to prevent grown adults causing themselves the sort of harm that we used to expect small children not to expose themselves to not so many years ago. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still a passionate believer in “proper” workplace health and safety, but I am tired of all the things Invictus mentions and more. When I first entered the profession, we were generally expected to identify hazards, assess risks and then manage it – simples. Nowadays however, we are expected to be “experts” in just about everything ! As examples (and I’m sure I’m not alone here), I’m expected to be involved in return to work interviews (and over-rule medical professionals on occasions) so I’m a Doctor. For COSHH, I’m a Scientist, Chemist, Physicist etc. I’m expected to deal with Solictors etc on an equal footing (so I’m a Legal expert), yet deal with building work and contractors etc (so I’ll remove my courtroom wig and wear my Building Control/FM hardhat instead). To look after our environmental aspects I have to be an “Eco-warrior”, and from more recent guidance, I’m expected to be a Mental Health expert…. Need I go on ? How many other jobs require one person to take on so many levels of responsibility ? Despite loving the job and the profession (sometimes !), and whilst still firmly attached to the principles of keeping people safe from real harm in the workplace – yes, I DO think it’s gone too far…
And to top that all off the pay is (generally) lousy!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
As Someone who travels a fair bit with work and pleasure. I feel that we are the safest country in the world by far. It is so easy as a safetybod to feel down trodden when the old cant do that coz of health and Safety mate quote comes out, genrally because of laziness.
No we have not gone to far, its just we tend to listen to people who say it has. If you get my drift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe that the H&S legislation is about right, but often the way its applied is often way over the top! For example: I was involved in planning an emergency exercise recently. Part of it involved 25 staff leaving head office and walking half a mile to another one of our sites. This is not an unusual practise as staff do this regularly. But I was tasked to perform a RA for grown adults who needed to walk along a pavement in central London, including crossing one road via traffic lights to reach their destination. I grumbled (very loudly) that a RA was excessive, but was told by a frightened and ill-informed manager that it was necessary to 'cover our backsides'. It wasn't a difficult job, but I find producing and circulating such a patronising document embarrassing and likely to damage my reputation as being pragmatic and applying common sense. Relevance and proportionality at all times is key if we are not going to be seen as a load of jobsworths and disengagement with those we are trying to protect
|
2 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In many areas - yes - for the reasons mentioned by other posters. CDM missing from the above- the pointless and endless verification organisations, is my bug bear.
Hence why I gave up with IOSH & occupational health and safety. Process safety/safety engineering is much more relevant/satisfactory, in my opinion - no RIDDOR. no daft questionaires, no paper cuts etc etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Messey I believe that the H&S legislation is about right, but often the way its applied is often way over the top! For example: I was involved in planning an emergency exercise recently. Part of it involved 25 staff leaving head office and walking half a mile to another one of our sites. This is not an unusual practise as staff do this regularly. But I was tasked to perform a RA for grown adults who needed to walk along a pavement in central London, including crossing one road via traffic lights to reach their destination. I grumbled (very loudly) that a RA was excessive, but was told by a frightened and ill-informed manager that it was necessary to 'cover our backsides'. It wasn't a difficult job, but I find producing and circulating such a patronising document embarrassing and likely to damage my reputation as being pragmatic and applying common sense. Relevance and proportionality at all times is key if we are not going to be seen as a load of jobsworths and disengagement with those we are trying to protect
I had a very similar experience more than 10 years ago (it stayed with me!). I was told by a member of staff that walking 400 yards from the company HQ to an auditorium was too dangerous - despite the fact we were walking on our own company road and the very people who would normally drive on that road (to and from work) were the people walking to the auditorium! We didn't see a single vehicle on that particular expedition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The problem we seem to have is “amateurs” who stick their noses in H&S issues without realising just what they are asking for- the people who see healthy as an a**e covering exercise and ask for risk assessments for using a photocopier (they create ozone apparently) and a policy on walking up and down stairs and always give into spurious civil claims. The worry about over the top H&S is that there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water, if we suggesting cutting back on regulations. I know from reading this forum that a lot of people are uncomfortable with COSHH and some would like it to disappear. Chemicals are potentially a very serious and insidious hazard and should not be ignored just because they are “complicated”. There are ergonomic issues that are being ignored (not just DSE) plus all those hard to crack organisational issues that people ignore (usually the same people who winge about the photocopier in their office-yes HR I am taking about you!) So we actually need more H&S but the right H&S delivered by trained people who understand what they are meant to be doing and why.
|
8 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In terms of applying otherwise sensible H&S approaches (e.g. risk assessment), but to trivial matters, then, "yes", we have gone too far. Who the "we" is can vary, but I have come across some supposed "H&S professionals" who are fault here.
Edited by user 31 October 2017 11:42:48(UTC)
| Reason: Extra line
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
In Criminal law there is a thing called 'A person of reasonable firmness'. For example, 'A Person of Reasonable Firmness, present at the scene would fear for his or her personal safety'. This imaginary person is used to assess if behaviour exhibited by an offender would be for example 'Threatening'. You may think this opens up a whole can of worms but in truth this 'person of reasonable firmness' has been applied mostly successfully by the police and the judiciary quite successfully for a very long time. I have always thought that if there was something similar in the world of OSH then it could help with the claims culture. In the example of someone tripping over a kerb that has always been there or an uneven pavement. Person falls, person claims, solicitor looks at it and applies the 'Reasonable person would be expected to watch where they were going in the real world' rule which cuts out many of the more spurious claims. There has to be a definition of everything. This line removes the actual 'Person' and inserts an instruction that there be an obective examination of the facts. 'the person of reasonable firmness imports an objective standard to be applied to the facts of the case' It is a huge subject and I am no expert but does this already exist the world of OSH or something like it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Very interesting topic and some great replies.
When I read about prosecutions on the HSE Website and others, there is always a main reason why (inset name here) died or was injured, never are companies prosecuted for not risk assessing a photocopier or the water was too hot in a kettle, its because inspections on plant and lifting equipment hadn't been done, gaurds removed on machinery, heck even sometimes the HSE has warned a company on a certain task and they still go ahead.
My point is, never do I read a company being taken to court over a trivial matter, all deaths and serious injuries are easily preventable, so have we went too far? I dont think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think that the example of a trip hazard on pavement a poor one, based on a number of misapprehensions: 1. People can always be one hundred percent aware of their environment. Well no: you generally assume that a pavement is fit for walking on and that there are no unexpected potholes or raised edges or slip hazards. You do not walk down the street examining every inch you walk on. 2. Things change: pavements wear out, paving stones settle they become uneven over time and eventually, left to their own devices they become a trip hazard. According your theory people should be aware of this and adjust accordingly. This is great for local authorities (who would no longer have a legal duty to make pavements fit to walk on) and not so good for anyone that trips up in the street. 3. That everybody is equally capable of adjusting to any potential trip hazard: somewhat about the mobility impaired, those with eyesight issues or just old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As a consultant I regularly get offered a bit of work from local businesses, mainly manufacturers or building contractors, who say they need to have a safety policy and documented safe systems of work - usually they want this advice because their main clients have audited them and not been impressed - NOT because they think oooh it's not safe here somebody could get ill or injured. Some of the work conditions I find are alarming - old machines unguarded especially drills and grinders, new machines with guards missing or interlock disabled, joiners with no LEV for sawdust, paint spraying with no LEV, builders with little care when working at height, premises with blocked escape routes at the back, welders with insufficient LEV, loading yards with no pedestrian management, conveyor systems with no guarding to prevent hands/arms being drawn in................ I even found a lifting company, who operated huge cranes and hoists, who had no LOLER examination certificates - they said they were a lifting company and maintained their equipment themselves......... So I don't think UK H&S is doing enough to ensure employers have safe systems of work.
Read through just one week of HSE press releases, often around 20 serious court cases dealing with fatalities or seriuous injury - and check the dates - often all those serious 20 twenty incidents happened in one month 2 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Jamie_Doxey Very interesting topic and some great replies.
When I read about prosecutions on the HSE Website and others, there is always a main reason why (inset name here) died or was injured, never are companies prosecuted for not risk assessing a photocopier or the water was too hot in a kettle, its because inspections on plant and lifting equipment hadn't been done, gaurds removed on machinery, heck even sometimes the HSE has warned a company on a certain task and they still go ahead.
My point is, never do I read a company being taken to court over a trivial matter, all deaths and serious injuries are easily preventable, so have we went too far? I dont think so.
and the reason is it is cheaper to settle than to go through the courts. The big ones you fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
https://www.dwharris.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/care_workers_compensation_claim_upheld.html
I wonder how this person got around the streets of Glasgow perhaps she flew for the weeks that the snow and ice had formed on the streets and low and behold when she feel it was a companies fault for not supplying special shoes. Strange how she didn't complain about falling up until it was in works time. Remember this is not an exclusive worksite this is a public footpath that she probably travele don everyday
|
1 user thanked Invictus for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Invictus https://www.dwharris.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/care_workers_compensation_claim_upheld.html
I wonder how this person got around the streets of Glasgow perhaps she flew for the weeks that the snow and ice had formed on the streets and low and behold when she feel it was a companies fault for not supplying special shoes. Strange how she didn't complain about falling up until it was in works time. Remember this is not an exclusive worksite this is a public footpath that she probably travele don everyday
Wouldnt it be great it these where the only stories we read of? Unfortunately its not therefore I beleive H&S hasnt come far enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Jamie_Doxey Originally Posted by: Invictus https://www.dwharris.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/care_workers_compensation_claim_upheld.html
I wonder how this person got around the streets of Glasgow perhaps she flew for the weeks that the snow and ice had formed on the streets and low and behold when she feel it was a companies fault for not supplying special shoes. Strange how she didn't complain about falling up until it was in works time. Remember this is not an exclusive worksite this is a public footpath that she probably travele don everyday
Wouldnt it be great it these where the only stories we read of? Unfortunately its not therefore I beleive H&S hasnt come far enough.
Not sure how that works, the person walked around or flew for weeks prior to the incident and then the company needed to supply shoes she she didn't slip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Invictus https://www.dwharris.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/care_workers_compensation_claim_upheld.html
I wonder how this person got around the streets of Glasgow perhaps she flew for the weeks that the snow and ice had formed on the streets and low and behold when she feel it was a companies fault for not supplying special shoes. Strange how she didn't complain about falling up until it was in works time. Remember this is not an exclusive worksite this is a public footpath that she probably travele don everyday
The issue in this case was that it was the person's job to visit people at home, whatever the weather conditions. If I decide to go to the pub on a frosty night and slip on some ice that is my decision and my problem. If I have to go up an ice path then it is the employer’s duty to makes sure that I can do it safely. That is what this case decided.
Edited by user 31 October 2017 14:23:54(UTC)
| Reason: spelling error
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Originally Posted by: Invictus https://www.dwharris.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/care_workers_compensation_claim_upheld.html
I wonder how this person got around the streets of Glasgow perhaps she flew for the weeks that the snow and ice had formed on the streets and low and behold when she feel it was a companies fault for not supplying special shoes. Strange how she didn't complain about falling up until it was in works time. Remember this is not an exclusive worksite this is a public footpath that she probably travele don everyday
The issue in this case was that it was the person's job to visit people at home, whatever the weather conditions. If I decide to go to the pub on a frosty night and slip on some ice that is my decision and my problem. If I have to go up an ice path then it is the employer’s duty to makes sure that I can do it safely. That is what this case decided.
and in my opinion that's why it has gone to far
|
1 user thanked Invictus for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So if in the slipping on ice case, if the person had refused to go up the path as it was too slippery, should they have been sacked or should the employer said ok, don’t bother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel So if in the slipping on ice case, if the person had refused to go up the path as it was too slippery, should they have been sacked or should the employer said ok, don’t bother.
Lets split hairs the person pulled up to the public path and that is where she slipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And without wishing to offend or argue with anyone who holds a different opinion, the case in question backs up my own opinion that we’ve gone too far in some instances (and just to clarify my position further, I agree with other posters that in some instances we’ve still got some way to go to get the safety message across so I’m not “anti” real health and safety that actually helps to save lives – and is why I’m still involved in the profession despite my moans !), but our “cause” isn’t helped – in my humble opinion – by cases such as this one.
The circumstances of the case states “There had been severe winter weather for some weeks and there was snow and ice lying on the ground” so the employee was well aware of the weather conditions. Why should an employer have to bear the brunt of “Acts of God” (ie the weather) in all cases ? Had her employer insisted that she turn out in a raging blizzard, that’s different – I would be the first to stand on my soapbox and argue that the employer certainly had a “duty of care”. However, I maintain that the worker had to take responsibility in this case. Section 7 of the HSAW Act clearly states that “It shall be the duty of every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of him/her self and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work”. In this particular incident (and following “severe winter weather for some weeks”), might it not have been prudent for a worker who needs to work outdoors to get themselves a pair of winter shoes? People fall down on snow and ice (I know, I’ve been there !) and it’s a simple fact of life. Unless an employer is directly responsible (and I don’t believe they were in this instance), they shouldn’t be punished.
As I said in my original post, we are dealing with grown adults not children, and I despair at decisions such as this one if I’m honest.
|
2 users thanked Elfin Davy 09 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In my opinion the real problem is that H&S is not cohesive enough. The two extremes are both alive and well, from the employer who views H&S as a load of old rubbish that anyone with 'common sense' doesn't need to worry themselves with, to the employer who will insist that a seven page RA is completed before you can make a cup-of-tea. Both are detrimental.
Fundamentally, H&S is there for all of us to try to ensure that we all go home safe at the end of the working day - not too much to ask. The laws are the same for all of us, and they were written to create a level playing field. Sadly, with badly written legislation e.g. CDM, RIDDOR & DSE regs (three that stand out to me (I'm sure you all have your own worst)) and toothless 'so-called' enforcing authorities - has lead to a great deal of variance in workplace safety standards.
The public perception is that H&S is either ignored or too intrusive, with plenty happy to allow H&S to be the scapegoat for unpopular employer workplace decisions.Whilst on the other hand as you can see from the last dozen or so posts , we, the designated few, spend far too much time trying to argue and picking-the-bones out of every-little-detail, ignoring always, the bigger picture
So H&S eithe goes too far or not far enough. Depends on who you work for really.
|
3 users thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. at least we are not USA, just read a women is suing here neighbours as she decided to steel paving stones from outside her house and hurt her back.
|
1 user thanked Invictus for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the US the legal system is an affront to common sense and rationality. This is because 1) they still use juries in negligence cases and 2) they are allowed to award punitive damages as well as damages for loss etc. These often provide the bulk of the money paid out (and money for the lawyers). Most profitable of all is the are class actions, where a group of lawyers set themselves up as representing a class of person who many have suffered a loss and then suing on their behalf. The defendant agrees to the claims and sets up a fund to compensate the claimants, who have not yet come forward, and the lawyers then find people in that class and share out the money to anybody who can prove that they are of the class of person being represented. Any money left over is shared out between the lawyers. See the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for an example for how the system works. Interestingly one area where this does to take place is workplace accident claims, which are usually dealt with under a state-wide workplace compensation scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Andrew, I could make a good case for all the actions you list. I would put my faith in a jury-however there is the problem in the US of jury selection with which I would take issue. Mind you, I would prefer strict liability anyway to negligence as its simpler and more effective-which is why its now gone from OHS generally
As to punitive damages what would you do if a company made a decision to accept any number of fatalities rather than provide a safe product because it would cost too much to change their process, design or assembly [remember the Ford Pinto case from way back] It's one way of 'taxing away' an unfair profit, distribution of the proceeds is admittedly unsavoury -but as you know the only people who consistently win in the courts are the lawyers [US UK]. However we do need good ones.
We do have an equivalent here but they are called exemplary damages.
Class actions I would also support as a cogent forceful case can be made on behalf of a number of claimants who would otherwise be unable to proceed as individuals -eg South Afican asbestos miners, and any number of cases here say, environmental protesters, etc
It's no where near perfect of course as what government would go for something really effective-ie a vote every 5 years is democracy-yeah right
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the UK punitive (exemplary) damages can only be paid out if there has been an gross abuse of power. The last case I know of was man who was kept in prison for over a year because he had a similar name to a man wanted by the Dutch police. The UK authorities made no attempt to ascertain if he was the suspect or check-up with the Dutch until over a year had passed from his arrest. He got exemplary damages, but they are not used routinely. In the UK we have the Health and Safety at Work Act as a way of deterring employers and rightly this is part of criminal law and companies can be subject to unlimited fines. These are much higher that the rather puny fines imposed by the OSHA in the US. As to why some people think H&S as gone too far it is largely down to people’s perceptions. You need to appreciate that most people don’t care about stuff until it happens to them. They go to work, come home, do their thing and go to sleep and go back to work. As long as it does not impinge on them then they don’t really care. This leads to things like the City of London worker, who complains of government interference, when they try to regulate whatever fiscal transaction he is trying to set up but at the same time expects the train he takes to work every day to be 100% safe. But he will complain if he is expected to contribute more to modernising the rail system whether through higher taxes or higher fares. This double-think is very common and most people do quite unconsciously. The hysterical reaction to the Buncefield fire was another example, with some commentators actually saying we should ban such facilities-so no more petrol for you then. They only got agitated because the smoke plume was visible across London. Had this happened somewhere else the reaction would have been more muted. So when you say Health and Safety most people will probably sneer, but they will still expect someone to ensure that workplaces were safe and that slagheaps don’t collapse onto schools and people are not exposed to asbestos etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In response to the original question, yes, we have gone too far and that is why after 25 years in H&S I finally called time on working in general health and safety last year. There will never be a time when the powers that be sit back and say 'yep, I think we have enough now'. And to be fair to employers it wasn't just them, one of the strongest feelings which made me walk away was an overwhelming boredom with constantly telling stupid people 'don't do that or you will get injured' and have them keep arguing about the most basic premise just because they wanted to - I just wanted to stand there and say 'I really really don't care how many fingers you have, you've been told what to do and what the risk is and why you are being told this, you are an adult so it's your choice, off you trot' but you can't do that sadly!
There are also too many utter numpties working in H&S, people whom I suspect their employers didn't know what to do with but wanted them out of the way so parked them over in the 'H&S stuff'. The types who told me I needed a high vis jacket to walk from my car to the reception door through a bog-standard car park (twice - once in a food factory in Lincolnshire, and once in a printers in Leeds); or the one where I was sitting in a trailer parked in a closed off goods yard (with the gate closed and only me sitting in the trailer in it), working on a computer at a desk where I would be all day, and was told he had to stop the job as I wasn't wearing toe-capped shoes; or especially the insecure self-justifying H&S types who look at a contractor's risk assessment for a simple job and will not stop making utterly fatuous and irrelevant points about it to justify their meagre pitiful existences to their colleagues. The types who mistake the focus of H&S as being the production of lots of lovely thick documents rather than making meaningful change for the people at risk. These H&S people need taking round theback of a deserted factory and given a good slap then sent home with a P45. And breathe...
|
5 users thanked Jackson43278 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jackson43278
I hope you feel better for getting that off your chest ! :-)
It’s difficult to argue with many/most of your sentiments though, and I think most of us have come across the people you describe at some point in our careers (usually just before we start banging our heads off the nearest brick wall !)
|
2 users thanked Elfin Davy 09 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unlike some of the misanthropes on this thread I like H&S, I enjoy interacting with “stupid people”. I particularly love that moment when the light suddenly dawns and they realise that what I have been saying is not just a load of guff but something that will make them and their colleagues safer. It would be wonderful if everybody agreed with me all of the time and realised that my thoughts are perfectly formed pearls of Health and Safety wisdom, but they don’t and know what sometimes I am wrong having made assumptions which are inappropriate for the circumstances. My job is a Health and Safety adviser: I advise people, guide them, and explain things to them; I do not tell them how to do their job. Yes there are too many people who have their H&S heads stuck up where the sun does not shine and spend to much time and effort trying to impose stupid restrictions. Usually these are poorly trained people who are probably trying to do the right thing but have gotten the wrong end of the stick. We have seen people contact this forum to ask about IOSH Managing Safely courses assuming that this will prepare you for a significant H&S role. It won’t. But businesses are not willing to spend the money that it necessary to provide real H&S training to staff and to be honest some providers are fairly rubbish.
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jackson, think we have all met at least one of them, I had a H&S manager who told to write a R/A for opening an office door just in case someone was bending down when the door was opened, I was also told to tell employees about water being hot when the kettle was boiled. I was about to walk away then and sometimes wish I had but 12 years later still having the same arguements, as I put it same head just a different wall.
|
1 user thanked Invictus for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.