Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Best news since sliced bread. Note Workplace stress is also within the Safety Practitioner ambit.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ref Bob's comment "Note Workplace stress is also within the Safety Practitioner ambit"
Just a comment: I come across more and more HR people [who work hand in hand with management] getting in on the stress band wagon and even the HSE, when exploring the advice etc that they give, used HR and not H&S as a lead area to work with. I raised the point with the HSE's lead on stress with regards to using HR only to receive a very poor answer.
Time and again I come across cases where the stress RA is undertaken by less than competent people some with no RA training at all in any area, and they use the basic set of questions and answers/ conclusions given on the HSE's web site as against using the full Management Standards [as is advised]and other professional guides to get to grip with the subject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=boblewis]Best news since sliced bread. Note Workplace stress is also within the Safety Practitioner ambit.
Bob
Noun: ambit - an area in which something acts or operates or has power or control
Of course, everyone wants to be in charge but the implication, or perhaps it is just the choice of word, is simply ridiculous.
The 'Safety Practitioner' has within his or her ambit no more or no less that their employer expects. Where stress is specified, or implied, to fall within the remit of the safety adviser/professional/practitioner whatever, then knowledge of a comprehensive approach to RA is no more important and no more valuable or insightful than is the training undertaken by and experience of a qualified HR practitioner.
Working together and pooling individual skills is the key, not this silly belief that a rather generalised training in aspects of safety affords excellence above all others in such complex matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think I agree with Ian, I have co wrote my organisations stress management policy, however I need to be mindful that although I can carry out a risk assessment and make recommendations I do not have the power to offer solutions such as flexible working packages or other HR related tools. Working together to find solutions is the only way forward in my opinion.
Another reason to work closely is that come monitor and audit time, HR hold most of the information I want......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Above and beyond 'territorial' matters, how to influence the management of the 'losing' defendants is relevant to all OSH and HR practitioners.
Allowing for the skilfuly advocacy of the claimant's lawyers and for the fact that the claimant was awarded less than 40% of what he claimed, the defendants made a fairly wild assessment of their financial risks in defending their actions.
For an investment of the order of £15k. would have enabled them to have designed and validated a state-of-the-art system of diversity management, stress managemetnt and performance management. This is a tiny fraction of the award made against them and an very flawed economic judgment when total costs are included.
In the past, I have responded to a request from this particular defendant in a broadly comparable situation and simply got no reply to a detailed competitive offer. Maybe they prefer to play Russian roulette?
And yet, if there are alternative views on how to persuade such an employer to accept a competitive offer of help from a chartered safety/health practitioner, who's also a chartered/regd. occupational psychologist and a chartered HR practitioner, I'd be glad to know how to be more persuasive about enabling them to reduce their organisational risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ian
Note however that I did not state total control. I was however emphasising the point against those practitioners who think they have NO role with respect to disability discrimination, or other diversity issues for that matter.
The use of the word ambit is to imply the general area
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Kieran I know exactly where you are coming from but in a parallel area - that of construction safety where I continually advise contractors in different ways of improving their compliance with current regulations.
It appears that, as in your post the Russian Roulette stance works for most as they do not get caught out, whereas the minority do get stung. It may be considered that the penalty for non compliance is by far the cheaper option financially, in spite of the fact that it is the employee that gets hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.