Rank: Forum user 
|
A Kurdziel wrote:This thread leads me to ask several questions:
1. Why the fear of the RIDDOR? Is it because organisations use the number of RIDDORS as a benchmark and the H&S team know if they start reporting them they will get it in the neck? This is despite the fact that to be honest many RIDDORS are really quite trivial and I have come across really serious situations which are not RIDDOR reportable.
2. What is the point of RIDDOR? Why do we have it? Well from what I have been able to gather from the HSE it is to enable the HSE to collect statistics about workplace injuries. They use this to produce their reports and to pass onto the EU bodies for their benchmarking. The HSE accept that there is under reporting and so they also relay on surveys for example from A&E departments, who are supposed to report any work related injuries to them. This is why I think that this injury should be reported: the HSE will be interested in the number of bad backs related to work and it could end up being passed onto the HSE any way via A&E or some other route anyway.
3. Producing a RIDDOR is not an admission of guilt or liability-not a question but a statement. Do people think that a RIDDOR will automatically bring down a visit from the inspectors; it did not in the past but it might now that we have the fee for intervention regime?
The fact that H&S still argue about what is and is not a RIDDOR leads me to think that this is an area for reform so that we have a clear idea of what we are and are not supposed to report.
From experience point 1 is why RIDDOR reporting is important. I used to work for one of the biggest companies in the world. They put across a very pro-active H&S ethos and spent a lot of money and resources where safety was concerned. The down side were the monthly h&s sector reports that went to the main gaffers! Woe betide if your sector/contract had a RIDDOR incident, the KPI's.. ...the KPI's!!!!!!! There is also the AFR when tendering for work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
See were your coming from with the AFR when tendering for work, the system doesn't account for non-reportable incidents being reported, what I mean is if you didn't know if it was reportable or not, then you would put them all down when tendering for work in case it is checked.
The HSE would have to have a system in place to inform you that you have submitted something that is not reportable so you can take it off the numbers.
To be honest never thought of it that way, we onlt have couple per year but I will check more carefully from now on.
I still think this one was reportable though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Don’t you just love RIDDOR - worst piece of legislation ever written.
In compliance with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law, I would report it.
Moral reason = Yes report it; this is what the law has been designed for.
Legal reason = Half the people on here are in the yes camp the other half no.
Financial reason = Don’t report it, tenders, increased insurance premiums etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Invictus wrote:See were your coming from with the AFR when tendering for work, the system doesn't account for non-reportable incidents being reported, what I mean is if you didn't know if it was reportable or not, then you would put them all down when tendering for work in case it is checked.
The HSE would have to have a system in place to inform you that you have submitted something that is not reportable so you can take it off the numbers.
To be honest never thought of it that way, we onlt have couple per year but I will check more carefully from now on.
I still think this one was reportable though. I suspect this is the main reason why we get so many RIDDOR enquiries on this forum. The stigma attached to a RIDDOR can be quite daunting and also drives the reporting of incidents underground. A fact that was recognied by a corporate client who has since removed any reference to RIDDORs and AFRs from their tendering process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
To come back to the interesting "if there hadn't been an injury, would you call it an accident?" point.
Normally if some event occurs that could have resulted in an injury but didn't, you would call it a near miss (or a near hit or an incident or non-injury accident or whatever term you use).
Is someone lifting a load always a near miss?
If not, then, ...
On the other point of being measured by RIDDORs - I feel under no pressure at all from my management to under-report. In fact, they are inclined to prompt me to check whether accidents are a RIDDOR injury or dangerous occurrence. But damned if I'm going to over-report 'just in case'! I do my very best each time to report it if it meets the criteria and not to report it if it doesn't. That's part of my job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=Kate]
Is someone lifting a load always a near miss?
If not, then, ...
. Well yes, if they way they were doing it was incorrect. We all lift things in a way we know we should not every now and then, and take the risk. In an earlier post the criteria includes "the way the work was done" therefore if the work was not undertaken correctly then it is reportable. The Op states that they think the person was working to procedure. Of course we are also assuming the procedure is correct ( no offence meant, I just don't know). Leaning over to put something in a van I can imagine that not being a good posture, but for all I know they were just putting it on the edge. I think I agree with Jodie, I would want to know more first. Kate wrote: But damned if I'm going to over-report 'just in case'! I do my very best each time to report it if it meets the criteria and not to report it if it doesn't. That's part of my job. Could not agree more Overall I think from what I know though, I'm swaying towards reporting. As I don't see how you can reach in to a van safely as a 15kg load will be heavy if bent in two. But as said more info needed. I didn't think doctors recommended bed rest for a back twinge any more, so seems a long time off ! Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How come sometimes you get the grey box and sometimes not ?
Chris
You can't post for 19 seconds then
you can't post for 7 seconds then
you can't post for 36 seconds then
you can't post for 14 seconds
Several minutes later
Grrrrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't think that you should over report, the point I was making is that you do not get penalised for reporting if it happens that you didn't need too, but you can if you don't when you should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate wrote:To come back to the interesting "if there hadn't been an injury, would you call it an accident?" point.
Normally if some event occurs that could have resulted in an injury but didn't, you would call it a near miss (or a near hit or an incident or non-injury accident or whatever term you use).
Is someone lifting a load always a near miss?
If not, then, ...
On the other point of being measured by RIDDORs - I feel under no pressure at all from my management to under-report. In fact, they are inclined to prompt me to check whether accidents are a RIDDOR injury or dangerous occurrence. But damned if I'm going to over-report 'just in case'! I do my very best each time to report it if it meets the criteria and not to report it if it doesn't. That's part of my job. It could have ben a minor injury which did not require 7 days off work. Still an injury and an incident - nothing has changed. However I feel we are getting embroiled in semantics and the what if scenario. Kate, you clearly do not work in the construction industry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris42 wrote:How come sometimes you get the grey box and sometimes not ?
Chris
You can't post for 19 seconds then
you can't post for 7 seconds then
you can't post for 36 seconds then
you can't post for 14 seconds
Several minutes later
Grrrrr Agreed, sometimes I have to log out and back in after making 1 post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Correct, I don't work in the construction industry. My point is that although an organisation might have targets for RIDDORs and have to acknowledge them to potential customers who are assessing them (it is a favourite question on supplier assessment questionnaires) - the decision not to report a particular incident is not necessarily due to pressure not to report and it is right to make a considered judgement rather than report 'just in case' because there's no 'penalty' (there is a penalty if your stakeholders judge you on it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Kate wrote:Correct, I don't work in the construction industry. My point is that although an organisation might have targets for RIDDORs and have to acknowledge them to potential customers who are assessing them (it is a favourite question on supplier assessment questionnaires) - the decision not to report a particular incident is not necessarily due to pressure not to report and it is right to make a considered judgement rather than report 'just in case' because there's no 'penalty' (there is a penalty if your stakeholders judge you on it). A site manager at company I previously worked for actually hired a private investigator to 'spy' on an employee in order to prevent a RIDDOR being reported! The pressure not to report an incident as RIDDOR was immense, once triggered the individual site within the sector group of sites was seriously KPI'd, a whole H&S team were sent like the A-team to 'investigate' the initial (and always adequate) 'investigation'....it really had to be seen to be believed! A lot of external people trying to impress senior management with the poor site manager put under all sorts of pressure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.