Rank: Forum user 
|
I have been asked to list 3 statutory requirements of health and safety at work act.
I'm not sure if this means the titles of the sections or something else.
Does anyone have any ideas
Thanks
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It rather depends who is asking, and for what purpose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We run courses in welding and fabrication and it is a question for their coursework
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ill defined question. I would go for the two major groups of people for which employers have duties of care, and the duties of people who have control of premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Any question where 3 people read it and give 2 or more different answers is a badly worded question.
Does it mean the requirement to provide a safe place of work, the employers requirement to take care of employees safety and the employees requirements?
Maybe??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Sections 2.2 (a),
2.2 (b)
2.2 (c),
may well answer the question, although my guess is that the examiners would want safe systems, safe use of substances and safety training.
Best advice is to ask the ones who first set the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I assume like David they are after 2.2 A,B,C,D or E (any 3 of the 5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Surely duties are imposed by Section 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. I suppose 9 is also a duty.
Which 3 to pick? As someone said this a poorly drafted question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
This question is typically aimed at employees to identify their duties, rather than employers. The above answers are all true for employers, but there are 3 duties for employees under sections 7 and 8:-
to take reasonable care of themselves and others who might be affected by their acts or omissions
to cooperate with the employer
not to interfere or misuse anything placed in the interests of health and safety
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Baker30611 wrote:This question is typically aimed at employees to identify their duties, rather than employers. The above answers are all true for employers, but there are 3 duties for employees under sections 7 and 8:-
to take reasonable care of themselves and others who might be affected by their acts or omissions
to cooperate with the employer
not to interfere or misuse anything placed in the interests of health and safety
Mike Why 'typically' only employees duties?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
What I mean is that this type of question, asking for just 3 duties, is typically (often, frequently etc) asked of employees, rather than employers, when questioning on the HASAWA. I thought this might be what the OP was referring to rather than Employer duties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Baker30611 wrote:What I mean is that this type of question, asking for just 3 duties, is typically (often, frequently etc) asked of employees, rather than employers, when questioning on the HASAWA. I thought this might be what the OP was referring to rather than Employer duties. Ah mind-reading is not one of my talents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is typical of poorly moderated questions developed by people without real understanding of the topic area they are setting the questions for or alternatively skills at training. It is so easy to think we have the technical skills thus we are competent to do such a simple task as set questions.
It is really the reverse side of the " I have all these qualifications so can I train for such and such?" - no mention of experience! Here the lack is the fundamental competence as a trainer not of experience of the task necessarily.
Competent practitioner does NOT necessarily equal competent trainer or examiner
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
boblewis wrote:It is typical of poorly moderated questions developed by people without real understanding of the topic area they are setting the questions for or alternatively skills at training. It is so easy to think we have the technical skills thus we are competent to do such a simple task as set questions.
It is really the reverse side of the " I have all these qualifications so can I train for such and such?" - no mention of experience! Here the lack is the fundamental competence as a trainer not of experience of the task necessarily.
Competent practitioner does NOT necessarily equal competent trainer or examiner I have in the past tried to produce a useful set of multiple choice questions to back up training. It’s hard to create a set of sensible, testing questions that establish that the training has worked. It’s not something that you can knock off over a couple of minutes. The questions need to be carefully assessed to make sure that they are not ambiguous and that they are a rigorous test of what has been learned. Now days I’d rather buy a training package with questions included. As said testing know ledge is a particular skill and sometimes you need to buy it in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Exactly - competent persons know precisely how difficult these things are. It makes me shudder remembering all the bad one's I have seen over the years. Real problem is when the author does not recognise the problems.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.