Rank: Forum user 
|
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel slightly uneasy about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Looks very much like H&S 'risk' is being used to cover the business/financial risk exposure to fines, legal action etc. Having spent significant time living and working in the USA this all looks (sadly) very familiar to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
bob howden wrote:Is it just me, or does anyone else feel slightly uneasy about this?
In what sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
So with the Daily Mail accounting for 50% of these, I have to wonder whether they have a specific journalist who is tasked with writing these stories?
If so I'd bet he/she strenuously avoid attending any H&S training just in case they pick up some facts and they're career is over in an instant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ooer...grammar police; that should be their career and not "they're".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Clairel wrote:bob howden wrote:Is it just me, or does anyone else feel slightly uneasy about this?
In what sense? I can see that in some of these decisions people may have become blinkered and not seen the wider implications of their advice, but I'm concerned that criticism may be levelled at people who are only trying to prevent accidents. Or is accident prevention not part of health & safety anymore? For years we've had safety advice about the dodgems, about only driving round in an anti-clockwise directions and avoiding head on collisions, so why is it in the headlines now? Many, many, many years ago when I was a teenager before all this enlightened risk assessment stuff (even before the '74 Act) I was barred from the dodgems for aggressive driving ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I feel very angry, not uneasy, about this. I work with Wimbledon and know the decision to close Aorangi Hill (correct name) was not taken easily. How Judith Hackett could make such a public criticism at the time with no direct knowledge at all is beyond me and, as an ex-HSE inspector, highly unprofessional.
The decision was based on heavy prolonged rain making the hill very slippy, the time of day and approaching dusk, the unknown length of match and one the match started it would have been extremely difficult to then close it, the hill would almost certainly have deteriorated further during the match, previous history of incidents including several rather serious ones - and more.
maybe we should have simply said there were 'technical' reasons for not showing the match on the big screen viewed from the hill!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes, I feel very uneasy. All this criticism is based solely on newspaper reports as far as I can tell, which are not known for their accuracy. There may well have been valid reasons behind all these decisions, they may be OTT. They may be based on the fact that most parents believe in not wrapping their child in cotton wool up until that child injures themselves and then all hell breaks loose. They may be people using H&S as an excuse. The point is we can't tell from the information we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Yes Wood28983 this is the point.
In 2009 David Cameron publicised his considered view that:
'I’m sure the rise of this over-the-top health and safety culture is one of the reasons why people feel
so angry and frustrated with politics in our country today.'
His quoted 'evidence' came straight from the pages of the Daily Mail et al.
As a result we then got the Policy Exchange's fatuous report Health and Safety - Reducing the Burden. In its opening section it was stated that the report did not cover any benefits of health and safety regulation. It then so badly presented its case the IOSH comments on its inaccuracies, factual errors and misleading statements were nearly as long as the original Policy Exchange report they were reviewing.
We then got Common Sense, Common Safety from David 'you've never had it so good' Young. Again quoting stories from the Daily Mail, presents no evidence of the elusive 'unnecessary burden on business'. However he did consult stakeholders, who came to the view that:
'There was an overriding opinion that the health and safety agenda had been hijacked by the tabloid press,whose reports often contributed to misinterpretation and misunderstandings by regularly exaggerating and ridiculing instances which in reality have little or nothing at all to do with health and safety.'
While David Young made various recommendations in his report the one thing that he did not do was complain to the Press Complaints Commission about this clearly spelt out problem relating to the press.
Mr Young then had to resign and Employment Minister Chris Grayling steps up and announces a 35% cut in HSE expenditure over 4 years; a cut in preventative inspections by 30% (11,000 inspections); a review of health and safety regulation; and HSE will charge for their services. A few months later Mr Grayling then raises his profile by going on telly with Judith Hackitt to tell the world of the slashing of school guidance from 150 pages 8 pages apparently make it easier to protect the nation's children as if teachers and others had not been doing this already!! Yet Mr Grayling has consitently refused to meet an organisation set up by and representing the families of people killed at work.
More recently Mr Grayling stated:
‘We have seen an epidemic of excuses wrongly citing health and safety to prevent pretty harmless things with only very minor risks attached. This has to stop. Health and safety laws should not hamper everyday activities.'
Note: 'wrongly citing health and safety'. The whole of the Government's policy on health and safety is predicated on a myth. The narrow review of health and safety regulation at work is based on 'stories' that - in the main - have nothing to do with health and safety at work. Ottercon you are right to be angry because people should be.
David Cameron then compounds this travesty by making a tenuous link between health and safety and the recent criminal riots! Today I learn that Mr Cameron has given ministers a month to find 'policies to tackle Britain's 'broken society' following the riots. A Downing Street spokesman is quoted as saying:
'It looks at the whole set of issues regarding broken society .... health and safety ...'
Health and safety professionals' working lives are about trying to protect people at work - saving lives. It should be strongly resented that health and safety is being projected as some bothersome bureaucratic burden that stands as one of the underlying issues causing criminals to loot 52" Plasma screens, iPads and designer trainers.
So yes, it should make us feel more than just uneasy!!
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I think Nigel sums up the correct position rather well. Going back to Wimbledon, which I feel pationately about, I assume Chris Grayling took all his evidence on this matter from either a tabloid report or Judith Hackitt. In either case there was presumably no attempt whatsoever to find out the truth behind the decision. Hackitt immediately sending her letter out via the HSE press office was a disgrace, somewhat like telling everyone in the world a person is guilty of an offence even before anyone has started an investigation into whatever it is they are supposed to have done!
We are meant to be proactive and we know that people slip on wet grass - believe me this was very wet with the top surface breaking away in parts and slipping over the subsurface. Taking the reactive approach we have had over the years a number of injuries from people either slipping, or falling on Aorangi Hill and we have had several very serious injuries resulting. To suggest with that history of incidents that the appalling weather and resulting ground conditions and therefore risk should be ignored is ridiculous.
The GREEN GUIDE - our guidance on keeping the public safe at sporting events is a significant dosument that concentrates on spectaor safety. It includes much emphasis on prevention of falls, slips, trips, uncontrolled crowd movements, crush injuries etc etc. Compliance with this guide is linked with the issue every year of the Safety at Sportsgrounds Safety Certificate and both these things were introduced by --- previous Governments to --- prevent injuries to the attending public. I do actually wonder if Hackitt or Grayling have ever read the applicable legislation, the guidance or understand the responsibilities the Safety Certificate loads onto the sporting event
Does protection from litigation come into this? Of course it does and again we have history to illustrate this. We have a wonderful public attendance every year with what must be one of the best behaved and super crowds any sporting event can ask for but as an example of where society in general is today we have already had one ongoing 'discussion' involving a visitor who burnt their hand when they squeezed a normal disposable coffee cup full of coffee and got hot coffee on their hand! In case Ms Hackitt was worried about this - we are unlikely to print 'warning contents may be hot' on the cups.
With the promised Government increased controls of ambulance chasing no win - no fee seemingly not being implemented organisations do have to think carefully about what incidents can happen and if they may result in a claim. I can again make it clear this was not the excuse for turning the large screen off on Aorangi Hill, it was real concern that we would have had injuries with the decison being made by an executive group which includes the Chief Executive, Event Safety Officer (plus his deputy), Silver Police Control and others.
Seeing the comments from our esteem Prime Minister does push me ever closer to leaving safety management for good. Having been a HSE inspector, senior manager in industry and then consultant for over 20 years I am beginning to tell people I am an ergonomics consultant (which I am). At the moment of course I have had quite a number of 'who made the stupid decision at Wimbledon' comments thrown at me. In every case when I have explained each and every person has understood and agreed it was correct. If there is one lesson to learn it is to use 'safety', not 'health and safety' in any messaging.
Geoffrey Laycock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
going back to grammar police - forgive the spelling in that last post! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think we should start a campaign for Judith Hackitt to apologise for both her initial response and more importantly her decision to allow her remarks to be highlighted in this top ten!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Thanks Geoffrey and Nigel for sharing your opinions and information on this. It is refreshing to hear like minded views about this. I too am angry about this - especially when I heard Cameron implicating H&S with the riots. It's such a shame IOSH welcomed Chris Graylings letter as a turning point in the right direction rather than highlighting it for what it was - a further attack on H&S.
Incidentally, have just completed my annual report and thanks to a further corporate push on OHSAS18001 management systems during 2009/2010, especially in terms of senior managers producing detailed H&S reports and auditing scores, injury rates fell by 14% in our organisation. That's it! I've made it public. I'm going to get all sorts of calls from the Daily Mail and BBC wanting to run with my story. And the HSE are going to write a congratulatory letter in the press so as to spread good practice. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Well done to 'BuzzLightYear' but don't wait too long for your congratulatory letter! (s'ok I know you were joking)
One reason I left HSE in the 80s was being told off by my Area Director (actually several time but here is one story). I had worked with/on a large brewery for a few years after finding them pretty appalling in terms of legislative compliance and having feeble safety systems and performance. After what should have been a straightforward inspection visit I almost threw countless summons their way but chose to help them rather than just punish.
They got seriously better! They didn't like me but they did all the hard work up to the point of me going to have a look at their latest investment, a new high speed bottling line. This bottling line really was at the front of technology and the mechanical and electrical/hydraulic safety and noise control were superb. My AD asked to come along with me. I lost him/her at one point to then find him/her on knees looking under a conveyor on a piece of old equipment and commenting that if you stretched enough you could reach a sprocket drive! Now that was not incorrect but he/she then went on to make a huge fuss about it. One mention to the chief engineer would have had it fixed without question. It was a rare mistake for them at this point in time.
In terms of PR - well you should have heard what the MD said to me later - or maybe you shouldn't! He was furious and quite rightly. They had spent millions and improved safety a massive amount along with improving the business (which he recognised I actually had something to do with through making them look again at the whole thing).
Now after my visit I wrote a letter basically saying how pleased I was at the enormous progress over the last 4 years and how impressed I was with the new bottling line. My AD saw that letter before it went out and told me we 'were not there to merely tell people how good they are' or something similar and I must not send it. I sent it anyway and decided time was right for me to get out. There are a few other stories like that I could tell, some are even rather funny.
Which works best: big stick, big carrot? HSE has lost it's way a few times over the last 37-odd years since its' formation, now Government cuts and current leadership seem to me to almost mean it is lost forever. I used to be so proud to be/have been a HSE inspector. Not now and that adds 'sad' to how I feel.
Geoffrey Laycock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That's a sad note to end the week on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you Geoffrey for taking the time to post these well considered points and for presenting them in a measured manner. Once I was proud that we had the HSE in this country but no longer. I think the organsiation will probably continue in some form but the charging regime which be introduced shortly will kill off any residial respect which might still be around. For every beginning there is an end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Geoffrey
Agree that HSE appears to be in terminal decline.
Way back in 1990, the weather in the West of Scotland in the first quarter was dire, but still needed to put yet another prohibition notice on the scaffolding of yet another tenement refurbishment in the East End of Glasgow. Site agent asked me why I didn't go and inspect the adjacent site. Looked down and said that I could see that it was well run and that I had been driving past for three years never needing to go in. Had never seen this contractor from Southern England in Scotland before.
But the head of the Construction National Interest Group in London was on the look out for photos of high standard welfare facilities so I would take the opportunity to go down and get these.
His neighbouring site agent looked shocked when I asked him whether he had these high standard welfare facilities and said "Of course, it's written into our HSQE Plan" - note the date years before CDM.
So I took my photos, before we toured the site in atrocious weather. A single toe-board out of position on one of several scaffolds and a very mild rebuke for not having put each and every one of his at least daily scaffold inspections into the register. He thought that he only had to record a weekly inspection and had done that.
Head of Construction NIG absolutely delighted when I advised that I wanted to send the contractor a letter of congratulations as regards their excellent HSW standards.
....and amused by your tale about your Area Director. We had some colourful individuals including the one who took possession of 1.5 miles of pipeline and the AD who put a "continuing" (An HSE absolute NO NO - hammered home to us in our training) prohibition notice on a leisure centre indicating that in the 36 hour window during which explosives would be intermittently offloaded in nearby dock, occupancy must be limited to a maximum of 600.....so its OK to kill 1% of 600, but not OK to kill !% of 650!?!? Just as well that the dock no longer deals with explosives or this PN would still be in force today, over 30 years later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Buzz
Congratulations and it is good to hear about your success.
Tying this in to Geoffrey's episode with the brewery I had a similar approach in my union.
In addition to providing support for around 25,000 workplace based safety representatives, a number of the Regional Health & Safety Officers, other colleagues and myself each worked with volunteer individual organisations on joint initiatives. These were started on the basis of one criteria being able to measure if we had an impact on raising health and safety standards over time.
After about 4 years we were able to review this and some other joint initiatives and found significant success. We collated the examples, wrote case studies and publicised these in 1999 under the GMB's 'Working Well Together' initiative.
At one of the first conferences in which the successful case studies were presented, questions and comments were invited. A senior convener stood up and proceeded to berate the union, refer unflatteringly to one of the companies which featured as a case study, slandering their managers in general and generally provided a somewhat negative reaction. It turns out the company in question had around 20 sites in the UK and the site he was at had recently been closed and everyone made redundant!
However we continued on promoting joint work, promoting success and getting positive results. At the same time of course the union continued to deal with employers who were not so committed to joint working. Hence the incidents of full time officials having guard dogs set upon them, security operatives threatening to 'break your legs if I see you here again' during one quite interesting recruitment initiative in casinos, along with the intimidatory 'I know where you live.' comment; verbal abuse etc etc.
So, Geoffrey, it's a long way round of saying when dealing with a variety of organisations, some need more stick than carrot, others need more carrot than stick and yet others are not even on the civilised world's radar!!
I'm concerned about the HSE too having seen very committed, experienced, knowledgeable and highly respected individuals get so fed up they have left the HSE and their vocation. There is no doubt that a combination of factors - including the pursuit of the mythical 'unnecessary burden on business' - will have contributed to this. However as far as my memory goes, we have been here before.
When real evidence is evaluated, the improvement in health and safety standards of an organisation contributes not only to a safer and more healthy working environment but a more efficient, profitable and more sustainable organisation too. The Government are aware of this evidence because it was produced by Government Departments paid for by taxpayers money. It's just they choose to ignore it. It is incumbent upon health and safety professionals - and the organisations representing them - to challenge the unsubstantiated stories that this top 10 ban seeks to publicise and promote our successes.
Max maybe not so much a sad point for the end of the week but more of a call to arms.
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for replies to my reply. Just thought that the link to the SHP online that includes IOSH being "delighted" about this might be worth adding to this thread: http://www.shponline.co....h-and-safety-myth-makingIt seems that IOSH and HSE are too fixated on challenging 'conkers bonkers' decisions rather than questioning if they are real decisions in the first place. There was a document from the TUC which went through a lot of these stories back in 2006 -dispelling most as lies or half truths. I think this should be updated and IOSH should do something similar. It seems Chris Grayling is micro-managing the HSE of late so it really has no neutral independent voice anymore. Congratulating him is a bit like congratulating a fox for not eating all the chickens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I absolutely agree with you Nigel, carrot is good but sometimes stick is necessary. Just in case anyone is possibly thinking I may have been a soft touch, one year (in the Construction Group I should add) I took 19 separate prosecutions, yes nineteen. How many is the average these days?
I also love the examples of silly things from others. I think collectively we could produce a quite amusing little book. A short one to finish and lighten the mood for the weekend.
You may guess that I was not enamoured with this particular Area Director. I did originally work with a guy who was brilliant - old school AND brilliant.
Having spent a morning visiting businesses that were all closed (he/she wanted to see a typical day!) I was getting somewhat hacked off with the comments I was having thrown at me .... so ....
I went on a check visit (following up another inspectors letter asking for improvements) We had a big argument on leaving the premises as I refused to join the ADs secret 'who's area has issued the most Notices' game (yes there was competition) and simply told the guy he had 3 days to get quotes for work or it was straight to court (and yes in 3 days time he had done that and the work was completed). Anyway, the AD was very annoyed, even more so when I then announced I had to go back to the office to then go to the Leeds Magistrates Court regarding some summons. Did I care, not really. As we drove back into Leeds I was asked 'what is that smell?' 'I think it's us' I replied as the car heater sprang into life on a cold February afternoon. 'I think you took me there deliberately' I was told! 'Yes', I replied very straightfaced, 'a few other inspectors bet me I wouldn't dare take you on a visit to a fellmongers and they owe me money'. For those of more tender years - fellmongers - place to process animal skins and in this case all the left-over bits of dead animals by putting them in a lovely big boiler. Has to be one of the worst smells going. He/she didn't see the joke.
I did love my job some days - career prospects may have suffered just a little that day?
Geoffrey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Very impressive Andy. This must have taken a lot of work to put together and keep on top of. I wonder if Geoffrey has anything to add to the Wimbledon story?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.