Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Learned friends, I wanted to canvass some opinions regarding a subject often mentioned in cases involving falling from height. As most will notice " Lack Of Appropriate Supervision" is often mentioned and i wondered what fellow professionals view that as and WHAT they personally deem as appropriate supervision, for instance in their opinion if you have a two man job working at height should there also be a supervisor with them if not how do they ensre the appropriate supervision ?
Thanks in advance, Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I wouldn't interpret "supervision" as "someone standing there watching them as they do the job". Supervision could be someone making spot checks or a regular tour of the work area, seeing what is going on and talking to them about it (positives as well as negatives), and being available to report to if there are any difficulties or questions about the work.
More easily said than done in the case of mobile contractors doing short duration jobs on customer sites, of course.
|
 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Make the least stupid one a supervisor! Sorry one of those days. But could one be trained as a supervisor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think “Lack of Supervision” is a cop out. There was a case a few years ago where a lift engineer whose work was by its very nature peripatetic, fell down a shaft and was injured. The local council who prosecuted the case put it down to a “Lack of Supervision”. But by its very nature how to supervise someone like that. Essentially this is a throwback to Victorian times when mill hands were constantly supervised by the overseers who wold walk up and down the lines making sure everyone was doing the job by the book. The overseers were themselves monitored by managers etc. Very few people work like that nowadays. What we rely on is worker competence – they should know what the job entails and how to do it safely. Ideally they have had a part in deciding how to do the job and know they will get support from their boss even if it they are miles way because the boss trusts them. That’s the ideal anyway. But competence and culture are the key thing not this idea of supervision.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel Thank you for the measured reply and i do understand where you are coming from, I do however lean more towards what Kate said plus lets not forget "reasonably practicable" Its difficult to envisage it being cost effective but it is reasonably practicable to have a system of checking either by manager or safety man.
I also find the competence issue a point you could argue these days if you have a team of two one of them should be supervisor ie SSSTS trained or something like that!! Kate Thanks for input
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: spud  A Kurdziel Thank you for the measured reply and i do understand where you are coming from, I do however lean more towards what Kate said plus lets not forget "reasonably practicable" Its difficult to envisage it being cost effective but it is reasonably practicable to have a system of checking either by manager or safety man.
I also find the competence issue a point you could argue these days if you have a team of two one of them should be supervisor ie SSSTS trained or something like that!! Kate Thanks for input
I did say "ideally" but we all live in a non-ideal world where nobody has time to do it the best way just the quickest and cheapest which includes telling people what do until you are blue in the face and then you give up when they still don’t get it. Resort to crossing fingers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think along the same lines as Kate, that supervision is not neccesarily a full time site presence but rather, someone who is a competent supervisor to esure that operatives are properly trained, their work is properly planned and there are sufficient checks carried out to ensure the work is done according to the plan.
As a Service Manager I used to have a team of mobile workers who were largely out on their own but we did ensure their training was up to date and we did supply them with RAMS, we did do periodic reviews and we did do spot checks on site. In my opinion this constituted adequate supervision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Occasional spot checks - even of peripatetic, mobile, workers - should be considered essential.. Otherwise management can simply have no idea how the job is being done... Many years ago... A member of the crew of a winter roads maintenance (gritter) lorry was killed when he fell from the bulk hopper and the vehicle rear wheels went over him. The crew had become accustomed to the drivers mate climbing from the cab (freezing, icy conditions remember!) clambering from the cab access footplate into the gap between the cab and the hopper, then over the hopper front into the load to use a shovel to free up the load when it froze... And then climb back. All the while the driver still doing 10-15mph along the road... Management were gobsmacked that anyone would be that careless of life... After all, a ladder was available at the rear of the vehicle which was intended for access when the vehicle was stationery!!! Turned out ... All the crews were doing the same. If you don't check you don't know!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.