I feel your pain Chris!!

I have worked with many a subby like this. In the end I just done their RAMS myself by asking them all the right questions rather than let them write generic stuff that to be honest wasn't really relevant and is just a paper exercise to them.

It's in instances like this that I always ensure supervision on site.

What I have done in the past is built up an archive that has allowed me to give them an appropriate example. I have also produced documents that set out our requirements and controls for them to use. I refuse to do sub-contractors risk assessments for a number of reasons but if they cannot produce a meaningful risk assessment then I question if they can or are capable of controlling the risks.
However I been on the other end where the principal contractor has been so obstinate my director had to step in and telephone the regional manager. This guy was questioning the punctuation and demanding amendments to his own amendments.

I'm happy to help out where I can, assuming they want to be helped. Indeed only this week I sent a lengthy email to a contractor after reviewing their RAMS. Relatively high risk work and the documentation was generally poor, partly due to their lack of knowledge of h&s dcoumentation as well as copying and pasting numerous iterations. The response was very positive, hopefully reflecting the subtle nature of my comments - I can do subtle!

The real problem with h&s documents is that many contractors see it as a 'tick in the box' exercise. If one really analyses the documents (mostly generic) with a h&s hat on they are in the main, rubbish. Moreover, the documentation is rarely followed verbatim. Only when there is a serious incident is the documentation trawled over to reveal what a load of poop it is - too late. On the other hand, I think there is far too much reliance on documentation in industry, where we now cannot see the woods for the trees.

I am not heartless but I genuinely believe that one of the reasons that the profession is in the state that it is now is because too much information etc. has been given away over the years for nothing ----- have U heard of an accountant, lawyer, HR pro, RPA, doctor, designer etc. etc. giving free advice [especially where they could be liable for the advice]?

The only advice I give to such businesses is for the business to obtain competent support as they would for any other part of their business and the term 'Contractors Drive Mercedes' comes to mind as does 'if its too cheap then it is cheap' and many such sayings

please please think of those in the occupation that are out of work / struggling before U give free advice as the more we do it the less people will be employed

Interesting comments from you all on both sides of the fence so to speak, and I don't disagree with any. However that still puts me in two minds on the subject. As I said in this instance the particular subcontracts seem to work safely, and I feel tried to take on board my comments, but without the H&S training, experience and general background knowledge its hard for them to grasp why. I'm sure it feels alien to them.

Ron you comment on what's the point , I assume you mean at this stage of the procurement process. Well the work is actually to put right at their considerable expense and effort, let's call it a booboo on their part. It is an organisation my company has used for years and the original job was let without proper contractor control on our part. In fact I didn't even know the work had been done until I spotted the BooBoo several months after completion. So we are all working to get it right. This BooBoo has attracted external interest !

I feel it is probably best If I help them in this instance, but I suspect when the new paperwork returns to me it will say little, if any more than I said to them on the phone. So they still will not have learnt from this. I have urged several times they seek external consultant help, and that it will save them money in the long run. I think this is a case as Lawlee notes in #5 and that Ray has noted about tick in a box exercise. They have documents with the right headings, but what is underneath is poor to say the least. I also think Ray is correct about the poor enforcement being unhelpful, in my opinion. I can't help but think that their unwillingness to do much about the simple lower grade transgressions, is a bit like us ignoring near miss incidents.

Bob has an interesting take on providing free advice and could very well be right. It probably does the profession no good in the long term. If customers are willing to sort out their legal duties for them why should they bother. There is as noted an issue with free advice as you are not insured to give advice outside your organisation (Are you).

Ironically we are on a discussion forum where we help one another ( I think) and discuss issues to promote further understanding and see others points of view which may alter our own perceptions.

As it is Friday I thought it would be Fun ??? :o) to see if you can tell what work this extract of the Method statement, full sequence of events is describing.

1) Agree and set out area for working and the erection of specialist tools to complete the contract.
2) Install all equipment as per approved locations
3) At all times the awareness of other trades and personnel on site.
4) Commission all equipment after installation.
5) Sign off project to the satisfaction of the client

Build nuclear power plant?
(PS I hope it's actually the fence!!)

helping sub contractors - no problem per se. But what did you ask the main contractor to do in this respect?

A good few years ago now I started site inspections on behalf of the client, a retailer with 250 or so refits going on every year. The job was a good earner for me as I travelled all over the UK visiting the refits, varying from trading stores open to customers to new units fitted out for the first time.

The role was initiated by the designer who had visited a couple of sites and not happy with what he saw.

During my first visit I too was not happy with the standard of H&S put into the work by the PC and their subbys, and I was not well liked because of what I am/was, seen to be - the H&S Inspector.

I decided to help by chatting about what was required, but without wielding the big stick I could have, and offering to provide assistance with their risk assessments and other documents.

There were about six PCs regularly used and I soon got to know their workers well and they gradually accepted me as one who was willing to help as opposed to hinder. Whenever I arrived on site and saw things wrong I would help them to put them right. The scores reflected this as my report was done after any corrections were made.

During the next few years I found my job easy as they all took on board my suggestions. I was scoring the inspections, the first few were around the 50% mark but gradually improved, eventually they were competing for the highest score. The client was interested in the scores and held meetings with the contractors and one actually scored 100% and was presented on site with two cases of beer as a prize.

I stopped doing those visits when the client brought in a large company to take over, two years ago I was then doing the CDM C work until I retired last December.

I now work for one of those PCs as their H&S Consultant.

Chris,

I noted you reference the legal test of suitable and sufficient in a court of law in your last posting.

There's the rub. If it all goes pear-shaped, that subbie won't hesitate to attempt to implicate others for his transgressions.

I have recent examples here - still sub judice.