Rank: Forum user 
|
I am aware that the ASSE has some published data on ratios of safety managers to headcount and that the IOSH view (which I agree with) is that resourcing should be based on risk assessment including culture and maturity matrices.
I would be really grateful if anyone can share their H&S staffing levels for low risk organisations (banking/finance/insurance etc). My colleagues and I are facing a downsizing from 6 to 1 for 8000 staff spread in the UK which has been based on an external report by a "property" company and no internal consultation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
With an absolutely straight face , I would say that the number of Safety Managers in a safety excellent organisation would be zero. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Nice thing about all these external experts is they get the merest snapshot of a business and assume they have detailed understanding.
With 8000 staff spread across the UK a single H&S bod will probably loose one to two months from their working year on public highways/network rail so the available resource in effect is 0.75 or 1/8th of current support.
Have you briefed the decision makers on the Sentencing Guidelines?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nice thing about all these external experts is they get the merest snapshot of a business and assume they have detailed understanding.
With 8000 staff spread across the UK a single H&S bod will probably loose one to two months from their working year on public highways/network rail so the available resource in effect is 0.75 or 1/8th of current support.
Have you briefed the decision makers on the Sentencing Guidelines?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What is the role of the H&S bods? If it is to do all the R/As, accident investigation, inspections, inductions, manage and deliver safety training etc etc then 1 person is clearly inadequate.
If however the single H&S person directs and oversees what the local site management should be doing, 1 could well be enough.
It's office work, not high-risk pharmaceuticals or construction or agriculture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
quite often the perception of Health and Safety is for Health and Safety bods "its not my Job mentality" despite what a policy JD or procedure says...... I think some people expect a health and safety Bod per person!
just a thought
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Marriott,
I am not sure if it is helpful but in his judgment in the R -v- New Look Retail case the judge said that one fire safety manager for 2,000 staff (please don't quote me on the exact number) was totally innadequate. I therefore suspect the courts would have a similar view in your situation.
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
interesting from djupnorth. Not been able to find where this was said.
Surely ratios will depend on the organisation - not just in employee numbers, but in locations, and activities, plus public risk. That is for any adviser (manager?) fire or H&S. This 'ratio' question comes up quite a bit.
Strategic H&S can be done by one very competent H&S specialist in any sized organisation, but requires a robust network of competent and accountable implementers. Often, if the business is large, complex, or geographically diverse, there may be a need for other specialists dispersed at suitable levels to help the implementation. But if all H&S is expected to be 'done' by specialists, then you will need dozens!
However, Marriott, you indicate a low risk business, so I am not surprised the review came up with a suggestion of only 1. As even 6 cannot 'DO' all the H&S for 8000 staff, there must be a delegation model already. The problem is, getting that model to actually work. You will have developed systems to suit the size of the resource. Managing change to those systems will be a new workload in itself.
Many local authorities, with similar staff ratios have been cutting H&S teams in a similar way, from 8 to 2 or even none. Any consequence is not yet apparent, and may never be, if the implementation and delegation was done well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sadlass, Unfortunately I don't have access to the court transcripts at home but I will look up the case when I am back in the office and post the paragraph number. Note however that the comments were made by the original trial judge and not by the Court of Appeal.
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Correct about local authorities.. It's only compliance after all.... Something I have heard so often . We are there in local authorities and unless we add value our posts will go..... Worried for staff such as waste collectors etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I meant to add that there may never be any apparent consequence of cutting the safety team due to luck.
Lets face it, in general the frequency of incidents (real incidents, not 'felt a twinge' reports) is low.
It is chance (bad luck) which may convert one of these to severe or fatal, and until that happens, management will be quite content with any savings made.
Equally, I am not convinced that more safety specialists equals safer.
It is the quality of approach by safety bods which influences those in charge of, or doing, dodgy jobs, not their mere existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.