Rank: Super forum user 
|
Gunner1 wrote:Ian.Blenkharn wrote:...but it certainly seemed that you were
Anyway, nice to know that you were agreeing with me. In the time since that post I have had 2 messages of support and agreeing with me, from those who did not wish to put their head above the parapet.
You make number 3.
That must be a record!
3 - not so many in agreement then.
How tiresome. I considered saying what I really thought about yet another IOSH member being so predictably sarcastic, AND hiding behind an alias to do so, but an honest response is simply not worth the time and if I said what I really thought about this respondent
it would undoubtedly be considered in breach of the forum rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
'Yes, we seem to be getting there with us all agreeing /not upsetting each other. Hooray!'
Oh dear, where did it all go wrong...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Rayrapp wrote: 'Yes, we seem to be getting there with us all agreeing /not upsetting each other. Hooray!'
Oh dear, where did it all go wrong...?
Maybe being referred to as the postering of the 'we're always right' bridage got some of us going Ray. But, I could be wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Stu
Your proposed uninspiring goal of 'basic legal compliance' may well be the root of the problem you outline.
An alternative strategy lies in offering to provide basic training in 'Positive Organisational Behaviour' to all team leaders across all departments, and raise the aspirations companywide about the business value of safety and health.
Unless you give an innovative lead, is there really much incentive for feet-dragging managers get out of their comfort zone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Apologies Stu, I was strongly implying that your approach to RA in this case was excessive but if HSE are going to take this approach then you are probably correct:
http://www.shponline.co....ures-were-being-followed
HSE inspector Michael Griffiths told SHP that the company has three employees in its health and safety department and around 120 maintenance staff, each of whom carry out between one and 10 maintenance tasks a day. The company had no feedback at all from its maintenance staff on what they were doing in respect of their point-of-work risk assessments and no idea, therefore, if it was fulfilling its legal duty -
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.