They are applying their own risk management approaches which clearly differ from yours Invictus. They have ticked the "competent advice" box and chosen to accept the risk of non-compliance. As a consultant it is your job to advice, influence, persuade, cajole, etc etc but not enforce.

Ignoring advice is not really that unusual, regardless of whether you are a consultant or an employee. I recall some years ago a spat with the construction manager on a project who after declining my advice told me how he would like safety managed on the project. Fine with me I said, I will respond in writing confirming that you are now responsible for all health and safety matters including all related accidents and incidents...end of story.

You see this all too frequently on the forum. Why should H&S professionals have to give up their jobs, just because the employer does not want to do what they should. Good on you, but do you think your employer will learn anything from this action, or will they do the same to the next and the next .... Chris

My employers policy is easy enough to understand. If my advice costs under £250 to implement, they will do it eventually. If its more, they will 'park it' on the risk register (virtual waste bin). I just received a huge rollocking today for daring to e-mail (therefore leaving an audit trail) a recommendation which will cost £10,000 One very unhappy Director :)

I got to a point in my previous employment that I could no longer put up with some of things that happened. From the top down, people where quite happy to flaunt even basic H&S requirements. I held on for as long as I could trying to implement a culture change by maintaining my professionalism, but my patience eventually ran out. Too many companies think that because they have a health and safety professional employed that no-one else has to carry any responsibility. Luckily I was able to change jobs with no problems. I'd hate to think that I could still be making my daily commute worrying about the potential for an accident or HSE involvement.

I have been self employed safety consultant for fifteen years and during that time have had many clients, some are really good with me and listen and act on my recommendations, that has led to good practices and a good working relationship. Others I'm afraid have been similar to the reports above who fail to recognise the importance of my advice. They soon found themselves without an adviser as I dropped them fairly soon after realising I was getting nowhere. I find this to be the best option.

To be honest 'nominal' fire doors (25 mm rebate, self closer/perco chain closer) are accepted in most cases as they were accepted at the time of installation as fire doors. Sometimes if in good condition the assessor may advise upgrade during any future refurbishment programme. It all goes to risk assessing and what the risk assessment states and the reasons behind why they have recommended replacing existing doors. This conception ALL fire doors must have cold smoke seals, intumescent strips retrospectively is not correct.

Odd - A number of you above seem to work for the same company as me. Don't think I've seen you around ! Unlike the MD to spend more on H&S than absolutely has to, I'm sure he only employed me to act as cannon fodder /scape goat.

Our construction industry is very low compared to most other EU Countries.

Folks An all too familiar problem! On the flip side, after 20 years in the profession I finally work for an organisation who's corporate values are underpinned with "We never compromise on safety" and in the main they mean it! Makes life soooooo much simpler and more enjoyable. J

I have a sense that better application of conflict resolution skills would solve a lot of these issues. Such issues have long been a part of an OSH practitioner’s working day. However, I have found too often over the years that experts, of any ilk, simply dig in rather than negotiate a solution when their opinion is challenged or simply overlooked. Please note I am not saying this is the case here but simply noting my experience over many years. The nub here seems to be not the perceived malaise of ‘management’. I read it more as frustration that a lower, non-existent or simply different qualification is unlikely ever to provide a suitable, correct or better solution to a technical issue. Thus the reason for taking it must be suspect. Sadly in many eyes just because something is 'right' doesn't mean it is either non-negotiable or absolutely correct. For example, have we never questioned an expert opinion? That places the burden on us IMO and not on the managers. We have to resolve the conflict if we are employed as more than advisory consultants. After all is said and done the pursuit of perfection is littered with imperfections, is it not? p48