Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1 Posted : 06 September 2018 20:30:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Over the years we have seen many initiatives, schemes, certificates and accreditations. Responding to one recent post I was recalling a little scheme called "Investors in People" and the pretty little plastic plaque firms could obtain to adorn their receptions and spotted at the bottom of this web site we have the Crystal Mark for Plain English.

These forums show a breadth of opinion over the simplest of employment "safety" matters and yet.. and the purpose of this post.. what is Industry Best Practice? I have recently been to a meeting to be advised we are adopting a new policy with "industry best practice" unfortunately my cynical side notes this to be a frankenstein of several other businesses determinations cut, copied and pasted in to a single document.

By example take the provision of domestic TV/broadband/phone - the technology is the same, the place of installation is not unique and yet the approach the engineers are forced by US health & safety professionals varies considerably to common tasks.

One firm insist their engineers damage properties affixing an eyebolt to strap a ladder used to lift the engineer some 2 - 3 feet in to the air to drill four bolt holes. Not only that but they have to wear a harness and a climbers style hard hat - Overkill?

Another firm have their engineers wearing hard hats whilst they are the only person working in the vicinity at ground level with absolutely NOTHING going on over head.

I have just seen another firm using gas detectors for an "excavation" some 12" in to the ground to run a cable.

And all of them are wearing steel toe caps trapsing through customer houses!

You can just imagine what my employer would now deem "best pratice" if we were installing such products.

I do appreciate that "lowest common denominator" can never be the real answer to best practice as this will always revert to what a single employer thinks they can get away with without prosecution but as an organisation with "Crystal Mark" should we be challenging overkill and promoting real pragmatism?

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Charlie Brown on 08/09/2018(UTC), Messey on 09/09/2018(UTC), Charlie Brown on 08/09/2018(UTC), Messey on 09/09/2018(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 06 September 2018 20:30:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Over the years we have seen many initiatives, schemes, certificates and accreditations. Responding to one recent post I was recalling a little scheme called "Investors in People" and the pretty little plastic plaque firms could obtain to adorn their receptions and spotted at the bottom of this web site we have the Crystal Mark for Plain English.

These forums show a breadth of opinion over the simplest of employment "safety" matters and yet.. and the purpose of this post.. what is Industry Best Practice? I have recently been to a meeting to be advised we are adopting a new policy with "industry best practice" unfortunately my cynical side notes this to be a frankenstein of several other businesses determinations cut, copied and pasted in to a single document.

By example take the provision of domestic TV/broadband/phone - the technology is the same, the place of installation is not unique and yet the approach the engineers are forced by US health & safety professionals varies considerably to common tasks.

One firm insist their engineers damage properties affixing an eyebolt to strap a ladder used to lift the engineer some 2 - 3 feet in to the air to drill four bolt holes. Not only that but they have to wear a harness and a climbers style hard hat - Overkill?

Another firm have their engineers wearing hard hats whilst they are the only person working in the vicinity at ground level with absolutely NOTHING going on over head.

I have just seen another firm using gas detectors for an "excavation" some 12" in to the ground to run a cable.

And all of them are wearing steel toe caps trapsing through customer houses!

You can just imagine what my employer would now deem "best pratice" if we were installing such products.

I do appreciate that "lowest common denominator" can never be the real answer to best practice as this will always revert to what a single employer thinks they can get away with without prosecution but as an organisation with "Crystal Mark" should we be challenging overkill and promoting real pragmatism?

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Charlie Brown on 08/09/2018(UTC), Messey on 09/09/2018(UTC), Charlie Brown on 08/09/2018(UTC), Messey on 09/09/2018(UTC)
RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 08 September 2018 09:59:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

One of the better posts...during my time in H&S I have advocated sensible health and safety. However, the lines have been blurred for a number of reasons, I'm not sure I can cite them in all in one post but here goes.

The Emporer's new clothes - adopted by many companies as so-called 'good/best practice'. Most liked by clients, especially corporate clients who insist their rules must be ahered to unless it suits them to ignore! I recall a client's H&S adviser insisted we provide edge protection for two train pit roads we were refurbishing even though the work entailed working in the pit with step acces at either end. When I pointed out that train fitters were walking past these all day long without edge protection it fell on deaf ears. Hence the work was suspended until we arranged chapter 8 barriers to cover both sides of two 400ft of pit roads!

Fear factor - too many people are unwilling to be pragmatic because of the fear something might go wrong unless every concievable hazard is addressed. Zero harm and other similar mantras perpetuate the notion that everyone must be wrapped up to the eyeballs in PPE, as if this alone was the panacea for safety. The doom and gloom brigade will always quote a serious incident...yes, we know cr@p happens from time to time, thanks.

Goldplating EU Directives - I will also add to this the HSE's penchant for over zealous ACOPs and Guidance. Yes, the HSE have produced a plethora of regulations and guidance which has turned H&S into an art form. I recall the 2007 CDM ACOP being nearly 200 pages, which when you get down to the business end could have been cut to a fraction of the size. Kept someone in a job I suppose.

Cash cows - too many to cite I'm afraid but just about every aspect of H&S has an accreditation scheme often with 'training' involved which quite frankly many of these schemes adopted by respected instituions do next to nothing for safety. 

Time for a round of golf.  

thanks 3 users thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
Charlie Brown on 08/09/2018(UTC), Messey on 09/09/2018(UTC), toe on 10/09/2018(UTC)
Charlie Brown  
#4 Posted : 08 September 2018 18:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Charlie Brown

Another thing that drives all this is insurance companies who require a premium from companies who do not bubble wrap employees even though they have no real concept of the work being carried out.

Messey  
#5 Posted : 09 September 2018 08:39:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

My role is fire safety rather than H&S, but I get increasingly irritated by over the top control measures and 'zero harm' fantasies

I recall the ERIC PD accronym in relation to the aim of introducing control measures, with the primary aim ('E') being to eliminate the risk. I hate this approach as it ends up with conkers/bonkers ideas such as eyebolts and hardhats everywhere. I attempt to reverse that accronym and eliminate as a last resort

Sure the skill, enjoyment and pride in working in a saftey role is to be able to apply proportionate meaures to reduce risk to a tolerable level. If we were tasked just to eliminate ALL & ANY risk, you could employ trained monkeys to do it. Perhaps some employers already do ;)

A Kurdziel  
#6 Posted : 10 September 2018 10:35:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The quality manager at my last place of employment had several things to say about "Investors in People". The key one as that the fore mentioned logo usually appear on the side of the crappiest looking van you have ever seen.  

Anyway the issue is essentially this: people do not understand the idea of risk assessment. What the law requires you to do is to look at YOUR workplace end YOUR procedures and decide what the best way to manage YOUR risks is. Instead they are looking for ready-made rules and take them from wherever they can find them and apply them to their workplace.   It like that idea of ‘common sense’ that people often fall back on. Until you understand what you are actually trying to do there is no sense to be common about.  So we have stupid, over the top things for working at height at height and then they miss out health related things connect to, for example, the substances that they are using.

And I support the idea of looking at eliminating the hazard in the first place if practicable. All too often people do things in particular way because they have always done it this way. Eliminate means asking the question is there an alternative eg rather than use a ladders to access a fragile roof could you use a drone mounted camera. Note, it’s not, that you must do it this way, it’s can you do it this way.  

andybz  
#7 Posted : 11 September 2018 07:56:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
andybz

Sorry Messey, but you have got this completely wrong.  Eye bolts and hard hats have nothing to do with eliminating hazards.  You must be using a different interpretation??

I would suggest the bit you (and most people to be honest) are missing is that risk should always we balanced against benefit.  This allows us to do very high risk activities in our private lives if we choose to because we see the benefit.  We don't like other people to expose us to high risks, which is why controls put on work activities have to be so much more stringent. 

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 11 September 2018 08:18:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I would concur that eliminate is wrongly applied - the rush for employee protection through visible PPE ticking the "have I done what is reasonable and practicable" box is far too common.

Keeping with the dish installation why is the worker at height necessitating controls?

Because the current bracket design needs to be mounted high up the wall.

To eliminate the hazard of working at height we could of course re-design the bracket to allow ground level installation (but then we wouldn't need all that PPE).

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 11/09/2018(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/09/2018(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 11 September 2018 08:18:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I would concur that eliminate is wrongly applied - the rush for employee protection through visible PPE ticking the "have I done what is reasonable and practicable" box is far too common.

Keeping with the dish installation why is the worker at height necessitating controls?

Because the current bracket design needs to be mounted high up the wall.

To eliminate the hazard of working at height we could of course re-design the bracket to allow ground level installation (but then we wouldn't need all that PPE).

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 11/09/2018(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/09/2018(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.