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

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
joanjones  
#1 Posted : 11 May 2020 09:53:51(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
joanjones

Hi All,

Hope you are keeping safe and well. I've been through the HSE and goverment guidlines and nothing is appaerant for returning to work for offices in terms of guidance such as the CLC guidance

Does anyone have any material RA's or procedures that are dowmloadable?

TIA

Kate  
#2 Posted : 11 May 2020 10:00:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

The government has indicated they will publish some guidance this week.  Until then we are all waiting!

Holliday42333  
#3 Posted : 11 May 2020 11:36:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Domonic Raab has suggested Tuesday for the new 'rules' (the word guidance has stopped being used).

I think we can all speculate it will be on the lines of the current social distancing 'rules'.

Extra hygiene (read the cleaning rules carefully, 72hr quarantined waste, PPE and strength of cleaning products etc).

Workstation and traffic route separation (there is no point in having desks 2m apart if them people have to walk between them to move around the office).

All in all, offices, and other worklaces, may be allowed to open but can they operate 'covid secure' will be the real test.

thanks 3 users thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
rs10 on 11/05/2020(UTC), RebbekahT on 11/05/2020(UTC), chris42 on 11/05/2020(UTC)
rs10  
#4 Posted : 11 May 2020 13:24:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rs10

I would also recommend that you read SHP Online article by Simon Joynston-Bechal in terms of Health & Safety criminal law obligations - some good tips in the article.

thanks 1 user thanked rs10 for this useful post.
peterhosie on 11/05/2020(UTC)
peterhosie  
#5 Posted : 11 May 2020 14:18:52(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
peterhosie

Originally Posted by: rs10 Go to Quoted Post

I would also recommend that you read SHP Online article by Simon Joynston-Bechal in terms of Health & Safety criminal law obligations - some good tips in the article.

This is a great webinar by Dr Joynston-Bechal:

https://www.posturite.co.uk/webinars/2020-webinars/planning-to-return-to-work-factors-to-be-considered

chris42  
#6 Posted : 11 May 2020 14:20:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

Extra hygiene (read the cleaning rules carefully, 72hr quarantined waste, PPE and strength of cleaning products etc).

What Document are you referring to please ?

is it just this one 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-decontamination-in-non-healthcare-settings/covid-19-decontamination-in-non-healthcare-settings

Chris

Edited by user 11 May 2020 14:48:01(UTC)  | Reason: missed link

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 11 May 2020 14:48:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Any idea what "covid-secure" entails?

To my literal mind this means an area where covid cannot enter which by extension, and in the absence of a vaccine, means no humans are present.

Another non-sensical use of the English language which beggars the question have the cabinet been watching Monty Python and decided upon establishing a Ministry of Silly Talks?

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 11/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/05/2020(UTC), biker1 on 12/05/2020(UTC), Kate on 11/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/05/2020(UTC), biker1 on 12/05/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 11 May 2020 14:48:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Any idea what "covid-secure" entails?

To my literal mind this means an area where covid cannot enter which by extension, and in the absence of a vaccine, means no humans are present.

Another non-sensical use of the English language which beggars the question have the cabinet been watching Monty Python and decided upon establishing a Ministry of Silly Talks?

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 11/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/05/2020(UTC), biker1 on 12/05/2020(UTC), Kate on 11/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/05/2020(UTC), biker1 on 12/05/2020(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#9 Posted : 11 May 2020 14:58:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Holliday42333

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Go to Quoted Post

Extra hygiene (read the cleaning rules carefully, 72hr quarantined waste, PPE and strength of cleaning products etc).

What Document are you referring to please ?

is it just this one 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-decontamination-in-non-healthcare-settings/covid-19-decontamination-in-non-healthcare-settings

Chris

Thats the one

I Know you are going to say this is only for cleaning if there has been someone with symptoms, however there is no other cleaning guidance/rules and clear warning of asymptomatic individuals.

Edited by user 11 May 2020 15:02:58(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

A Kurdziel  
#10 Posted : 11 May 2020 15:09:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I have just read the piece from Simon Joynston-Bechal and I just don’t think he is right. If he is right then the way we do H&S will dramatically change. We have always assumed that H&S duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act only arise due to risks caused directly by the work activity. In the case of Covid-19 (we have discussed this on the forum) the legal duty only covers those situations where some is directly exposed due their work. For example working in lab testing for the virus or working with people known or suspected of having the virus in a health care or social care setting.

What the author of this article seems to be proposing is that the employer is responsible for ALL risks in the workplace even those that are caused by a public health issue like the current pandemic. We have always said that someone coming into work with a cold and spreading it about is not a risk that has to be managed by the employer under H&S law.  If it is, then all such risks will in future have to be managed including, for example, violence amongst staff. So if Fred is having it off with Jack’s wife and Jack assaults Fred, at work the employer could be liable as they should have known and taken steps to prevent any risk to Fred. This could be a real can of worms.

People will of course say that Covid-19 is more serious than a cold or a punch up over Fred’s missus but the law is not about the seriousness of the risk, it is about the type of risk and in particular whether the work activity creates the risk. Where does the risk stop; can the employer be held liable for locating their works near a busy road with no safe place to cross?

thanks 4 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
RVThompson on 12/05/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 12/05/2020(UTC), flysafe on 12/05/2020(UTC), nic168 on 14/05/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 11 May 2020 15:14:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

How do you know if someone is an asymptomatic carrier? This means that everywhere should be applying such measures or do they mean something else?

chris42  
#12 Posted : 11 May 2020 15:51:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

I have just read the piece from Simon Joynston-Bechal and I just don’t think he is right. If he is right then the way we do H&S will dramatically change. We have always assumed that H&S duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act only arise due to risks caused directly by the work activity. In the case of Covid-19 (we have discussed this on the forum) the legal duty only covers those situations where some is directly exposed due their work. For example working in lab testing for the virus or working with people known or suspected of having the virus in a health care or social care setting.

It is an interesting point and previous discussion on this point, but would it not be similar to someone working near a river and lake where a work risk assessment would consider weil’s disease. A disease brought into the environment by a creature you expect to be there, but this would not be part of your actual task (unless you are employed as a rat herder). So, would it not be similar now we know this virus is brought in to our work areas by a creature we expect to be there!

I’m sure the other day on one of the news programs, there was a discussion on this point and it suggested there was a legal duty. Again, this morning they were interviewing someone from a trade union, who were suggesting that people in a union should walk out if appropriate controls to cover employer’s duty of care were not in place and the union would back them.

Now it will be hard to prove where covid 19 was actually caught, but easy enough to suggest workplace controls were inadequate and so employer negligent in their approach.

Chris

jennielouises  
#13 Posted : 11 May 2020 15:55:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jennielouises

Surely there is a legal duty for us to do what is reasonable and practical. So sorting out social distancing etc. But we can't do things like test everyone every day!

chris.packham  
#14 Posted : 11 May 2020 16:55:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

As I understand it there is a difference between 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and 'the balance of probabilities' so we might not have to worry too much about a criminal prosecution but about a civil law case. 

Having read the HSE guidance on RIDDOR I tend to feel that unless there is some fairly substantial evidence that the infection was due to the actual work being done, e.g. caring for COVID sufferers in a hospital setting, and it could be shown that the employer had implemented measures to manage the risk in the workplace they would be unlikely to prosecute.  But then, I am not a lawyer!

Roundtuit  
#15 Posted : 11 May 2020 16:56:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Can we please stop with this social distancing in the workplace hang-up.

It is not practicable unless we significantly alter all existing buildings, production lines, transport modes, infrastruture etc.. and then duplicate them all to make up for the less efficient use of space and equipment.

The only positive from reduced numbers in existing workplaces is we can move away from the welfare debate about 11m3 per employee.

Teachers cannot socially distance from pupils particularly where such pupils have special needs or are very young (particularly those who mum & dad have failed to toilet train before dumping their off-spring on state sponsored child care). If teachers cannot distance then parents cannot work.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
RVThompson on 12/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 12/05/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 12/05/2020(UTC), RVThompson on 12/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 12/05/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 12/05/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 11 May 2020 16:56:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Can we please stop with this social distancing in the workplace hang-up.

It is not practicable unless we significantly alter all existing buildings, production lines, transport modes, infrastruture etc.. and then duplicate them all to make up for the less efficient use of space and equipment.

The only positive from reduced numbers in existing workplaces is we can move away from the welfare debate about 11m3 per employee.

Teachers cannot socially distance from pupils particularly where such pupils have special needs or are very young (particularly those who mum & dad have failed to toilet train before dumping their off-spring on state sponsored child care). If teachers cannot distance then parents cannot work.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
RVThompson on 12/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 12/05/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 12/05/2020(UTC), RVThompson on 12/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 12/05/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 12/05/2020(UTC)
Accidentia  
#17 Posted : 12 May 2020 09:26:44(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Accidentia

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Can we please stop with this social distancing in the workplace hang-up.

It is not practicable unless we significantly alter all existing buildings, production lines, transport modes, infrastruture etc.. and then duplicate them all to make up for the less efficient use of space and equipment.

Social distancing and the altering of workplaces to accommodate it is exactly what is now expected. See examples in the government guidance at

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19

It is something all workplaces are now going to have to get to grips with and make adjustments for the foreseeable future. The general message from this guidance is that: "workplaces should make every reasonable effort to comply with the social distancing guidelines..." and "Where the social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full, in relation to a particular activity, businesses should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate, and if so, take all the mitigating actions possible to reduce the risk of transmission between their staff." I suspect that in workplaces where this guidance is not followed there will be significant resistance from employees and union representatives.
thanks 2 users thanked Accidentia for this useful post.
Kate on 12/05/2020(UTC), rs10 on 12/05/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#18 Posted : 12 May 2020 09:48:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Accidentia Go to Quoted Post

Social distancing and the altering of workplaces to accommodate it is exactly what is now expected. See examples in the government guidance at

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19

Yes, and it's a mix of the patently obvious and the completely impractical.  It tells me for example, that it will usually be becesary for offices to provide more car parking.  Oh, OK, I'll just whip out my spare car-park, shall I?

thanks 3 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 12/05/2020(UTC), RVThompson on 12/05/2020(UTC), N Hancock on 12/05/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#19 Posted : 12 May 2020 10:29:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Chris

The thing about a public health issue is that it effects everybody and as such any measures are applicable to everybody. In the case of for example Weill’s disease, the employer has “chosen” to work in or near water courses that may harbour the disease, just as a hospital “choses” to work with infected individuals. Normally employers don’t “chose” to work with people who may be carrying a disease it’s just there. This is a quote from the guidance I have just read on getting back to work in research labs:” Workplaces should not encourage the precautionary use of extra PPE to protect against COVID-19 outside clinical settings or when responding to a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19. Unless you are in a situation where the risk of COVID-19 transmission is very high, your risk assessment should reflect the fact that the role of PPE in providing additional protection is extremely limited. “So the government here is making the distinction between work related and public health issues.

When I worked for the National Bee Unit, we often asked the question if someone was stung, was it one of our bees in which case we had to investigate as it was work related or was it just a normal public bee, in which case it was not a work related issue.

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Kate on 12/05/2020(UTC), aud on 12/05/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#20 Posted : 12 May 2020 11:08:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

I presume that all the bees carried photography ID?

thanks 1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
jonc on 13/05/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#21 Posted : 12 May 2020 11:11:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Accidentia Go to Quoted Post
I suspect that in workplaces where this guidance is not followed there will be significant resistance from employees and union representatives.

Personally I suspect the workplaces where the guidance is not followed hire and fire on a whim and have no union representation. Unscrupulous businesses are using this event to trim their workforce and get rid of trouble makers and the non-productive given business downturn is a suitable defence against dismissal claims.

I see in construction news trades are being asked to take a 30% cut in rates

Roundtuit  
#22 Posted : 12 May 2020 11:11:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Accidentia Go to Quoted Post
I suspect that in workplaces where this guidance is not followed there will be significant resistance from employees and union representatives.

Personally I suspect the workplaces where the guidance is not followed hire and fire on a whim and have no union representation. Unscrupulous businesses are using this event to trim their workforce and get rid of trouble makers and the non-productive given business downturn is a suitable defence against dismissal claims.

I see in construction news trades are being asked to take a 30% cut in rates

chris42  
#23 Posted : 12 May 2020 11:31:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

The thing about a public health issue is that it effects everybody and as such any measures are applicable to everybody. In the case of for example Weill’s disease, the employer has “chosen” to work in or near water courses that may harbour the disease, just as a hospital “choses” to work with infected individuals. Normally employers don’t “chose” to work with people who may be carrying a disease it’s just there.

However, if you completely take that logic then no other employer, other than those who chose to work with infected individuals, has to take any measures, as they have no duty. I didn’t mention PPE in my post, as measures could be screens, different walk routes, altered work methods etc. On the tv yesterday a news program showed an electronics factory in mid wales where they have put a one way walk route through their factory, 50 hand wash stations, they had made moveable screens to stand in to approach someone closer than 2m, they had even made some bracket to attach to near the bottom of the toilet door so they can use their foot to open, to prevent people having to touch it with their hands. This was all very inventive, but are you saying unnecessary as no employer has any duty?

As Roundtuit and others note, lots of buildings are not capable of such measures as they simply were designed in a different era. We frequently see questions on here about how to jam as many people in as small a space as possible. However, if we are saying no duty to protect workforce from covid-19, why have the government produced back to work guidance for different types of industries (apparently due tomorrow, just after people have already returned).

I think this is far from clear cut. The HSE web site includes

“Where HSE identifies employers who are not taking action to comply with the relevant public health legislation and guidance to control public health risks, eg employers not taking appropriate action to socially distance or ensure workers in the shielded category can follow the NHS advice to self-isolate for the period specified, we will consider taking a range of actions to improve control of workplace risks. These actions include the provision of specific advice to employers through to issuing enforcement notices to help secure improvements with the guidance.”

This would indicate there is a duty.

Chris

biker1  
#24 Posted : 12 May 2020 12:02:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Some of the problems in complying with guidance and the call to get back to work are down to the way we work and accepted norms in society. Some workplaces might lend themselves to social distancing, many will not. I suspect the only other way is the use of face masks/coverings, not to protect the wearer but protect others from the wearer. Interesting to read an account of the social measures put in during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic; which included the promotion of face masks.

Part of the drive to get children back to school is to enable parents to go back to work, since for many the schools have become childcare facilities. Will we need to change this?

Ideally, a return to work for all who cannot work from home would have been delayed until we could conclude that the coronavirus crisis was over, which is not the case at the moment, but economic considerations are now taking front centre. I thought it was only a matter of time for the much trumpeted furlough scheme to be wound down, forcing people to re-enter workplaces of varying degrees of safety.

I am sure the legal fraternity will jump on the bandwagon of employer liabilities; it will be just too tempting a target for the civil law lawyers. As for criminal law liabilities, who knows?

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 13/05/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#25 Posted : 12 May 2020 12:06:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The guidance does answer one of the age old forum debates "who a risk assessment is written for" - this states it should be shared with the employees and even suggests publishing to a company web site where there are more than 50 employees.

Roundtuit  
#26 Posted : 12 May 2020 12:06:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The guidance does answer one of the age old forum debates "who a risk assessment is written for" - this states it should be shared with the employees and even suggests publishing to a company web site where there are more than 50 employees.

Natasha.Graham  
#27 Posted : 12 May 2020 12:18:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Natasha.Graham

I see today that there will be measures taken in schools to ensure that the risk of transmission is reduced - for example, cutting class sizes in half, staggered drop off and pick up times, and arrangement of desks in classrooms. 

My organisation has already taken measures to implement return to work protocols, such as social distancing by reducing the number of desks that can be used, one way pedestrian traffic routes etc.  

In relation to car parking, whilst only a handful of people are in the office people are maintaining distance with their parking.  However, if your organisation has a reverse parking policy then when the office is at full capacity again, there should be no need to alter parking arrangements.  Given that a parking space is recommended to be a minimum of 2.4m x 4.8m that means if everyone adheres to the reverse parking policy they will be at the required social distance.

achrn  
#28 Posted : 12 May 2020 12:43:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Natasha.Graham Go to Quoted Post

In relation to car parking, whilst only a handful of people are in the office people are maintaining distance with their parking.  However, if your organisation has a reverse parking policy then when the office is at full capacity again, there should be no need to alter parking arrangements.  Given that a parking space is recommended to be a minimum of 2.4m x 4.8m that means if everyone adheres to the reverse parking policy they will be at the required social distance.

I think the issue with car parking is that if no-one is using public transport and no-one is car-sharing, there are going to be twice as many cars turning up, not the spacing of the drivers.

Natasha.Graham  
#29 Posted : 12 May 2020 14:35:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Natasha.Graham

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

I think the issue with car parking is that if no-one is using public transport and no-one is car-sharing, there are going to be twice as many cars turning up, not the spacing of the drivers.

I understand that but from my experience those who take public transport do so because they can't drive or don't have a car themselves.  Therefore that shouldn't change in this situation.

Also the guidance is still work from home wherever possible.  So for an office not necessarily a problem.  When it comes to manufacturing I think that the onus is on the employer to look at how the workplace is structured to reduce the number of people on site as much as possible.  For organisations that can amend working practices by either splitting the shifts and reducing building capacity it still shouldn't be an issue. 

The only issue would be if there are organisations that can't implement these measures - even then HR departments will be the first to inform staff that provision of parking is a privilege and not a contractual right and is therefore on a first come, first served basis (I've had that said to me before!).  What would those businesses that don't offer parking do?! 

jennielouises  
#30 Posted : 12 May 2020 17:13:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jennielouises

The thing I found with the guidance is it didn't make it clear what they define as a critical worker in an office. So I guess that is open for debate. We are managing as a company working at home and have found ways around things but there are a number of workers struggling with it. Either because of personal circumstances (e.g. one person is in the call centre but her other half works nights and needs to sleep during the day in a flat, or their mental health), or because they don't have very good internet access where they live. It's not critical that those roles are done in the office but it would make their lives easier. But where do you draw the line? Should we actually tell these people they have to continue working from home until the government advices us differently? it could be over a year until we have a vaccine or a treatment. So we just leave our offices sitting empty until then?

Roundtuit  
#31 Posted : 12 May 2020 17:31:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

In some parts of the country the local authority extorts a tax upon workplace parking spaces so you do find some people who can drive but had chosen to travel by public transport to avoid this taxation.

Reverse parking systems forget that certain vehicles have tail gates and/or lifts which need additional space beyond the bumper line for access. Thankfully I no longer work where rapid car park evacuation is required so am free to park naturally.

Roundtuit  
#32 Posted : 12 May 2020 17:31:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

In some parts of the country the local authority extorts a tax upon workplace parking spaces so you do find some people who can drive but had chosen to travel by public transport to avoid this taxation.

Reverse parking systems forget that certain vehicles have tail gates and/or lifts which need additional space beyond the bumper line for access. Thankfully I no longer work where rapid car park evacuation is required so am free to park naturally.

aud  
#33 Posted : 12 May 2020 20:05:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

The guidance does answer one of the age old forum debates "who a risk assessment is written for" - this states it should be shared with the employees and even suggests publishing to a company web site where there are more than 50 employees.

I think we can see the influence of the TUC there, I'm not sure they ever took the view that RA is a management decision-making process. They have been 'calling' for 'published risk assessments' to be 'in place' whatever that means for a couple of weeks.

The HSE guide plays down emphasis on RA, but does push INFORMATION. They say: "You need to think about: ˜ providing people (including workers and others) with information on procedures, guidance or ways of working that have been introduced; ˜ sharing this information with them before they start work; ˜ sharing this information with others who are not your workers (for example visitors, customers or contractors), where required. This could include signs or notices;   ..."                   My emphasis

achrn  
#34 Posted : 12 May 2020 20:59:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Natasha.Graham Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

I think the issue with car parking is that if no-one is using public transport and no-one is car-sharing, there are going to be twice as many cars turning up, not the spacing of the drivers.

I understand that but from my experience those who take public transport do so because they can't drive or don't have a car themselves.  Therefore that shouldn't change in this situation.

Not in my workplace - it's lack of parking (the office I am in has parking for about 10% of the people in the building, if they are one-per-car) and comparative ease of public transport that means people don't drive. Those that can't park at the building park in  public car-parks, but they will now be filling up, and our clever-clogs government has published a document saying employers should provide parking for workers - offices will usually need to do so, it says.

Some of our city-centre offices don't have any car-parking at all - the vast majority of staff in those offices arrive by public transport (a few walk or cycle).

Natasha.Graham  
#35 Posted : 12 May 2020 21:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Natasha.Graham

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

Not in my workplace - it's lack of parking (the office I am in has parking for about 10% of the people in the building, if they are one-per-car) and comparative ease of public transport that means people don't drive. Those that can't park at the building park in  public car-parks, but they will now be filling up, and our clever-clogs government has published a document saying employers should provide parking for workers - offices will usually need to do so, it says.

Some of our city-centre offices don't have any car-parking at all - the vast majority of staff in those offices arrive by public transport (a few walk or cycle).

I must be really lucky then! My site has almost enough parking for everyone so lack of parking isn't an issue we've experienced. If an organisation doesn't have parking facilities then they can't be expected to magiv spaces up from thin air! Unless the organisation is expected to pay for parking in a public car park instead?! 

achrn  
#36 Posted : 13 May 2020 09:35:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Natasha.Graham Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

Not in my workplace - it's lack of parking (the office I am in has parking for about 10% of the people in the building, if they are one-per-car) and comparative ease of public transport that means people don't drive. Those that can't park at the building park in  public car-parks, but they will now be filling up, and our clever-clogs government has published a document saying employers should provide parking for workers - offices will usually need to do so, it says.

Some of our city-centre offices don't have any car-parking at all - the vast majority of staff in those offices arrive by public transport (a few walk or cycle).

I must be really lucky then! My site has almost enough parking for everyone so lack of parking isn't an issue we've experienced. If an organisation doesn't have parking facilities then they can't be expected to magiv spaces up from thin air! Unless the organisation is expected to pay for parking in a public car park instead?! 

That's exactly what I'm concerned about - employee now announcing that the government says employers should provide parking - claiming that it's in the government guidance, and the government televised briefing said that only rogue employers will not follow this guidance (and those rogue employers are going to have enforcement action taken against them).

Access to the limited on-site parking already caused large amounts of grief before the government decided to announce that employers should provide additional parking.

rs10  
#37 Posted : 13 May 2020 10:07:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rs10

Have your organisations now started displaying COVID secure posters?  Also, the Government documents state if more than 50 employees it expects the RA to be published on your website.  

chris42  
#38 Posted : 13 May 2020 10:34:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I thought the Gov announced that you should go back to work if you can’t work at home. You should try to avoid public transport when possible and to walk or cycle to work. I haven’t actually seen a statement you should necessarily drive. They have acknowledged people will. My personal preference would be to car share with a colleague, who I may be interacting with through the day anyway, than use public transport with god knows how many others (and those on the trip before you). Of course, where are you going to put all the bicycles as well as the extra cars, then sweaty employees for the day. For a decade now people have been pushed to go further and further to get a job and can only realistically do it via public transport, people even buy hoses based on closeness to a train /bus route. They live in a different world to the rest of us though.

 I try to watch all the briefings including the 5pm one.  I like watching them try and slither out of answering the question asked, which is normally waffle waffle, umm and arrr a bit.  Then answer a completely different question than was asked, as by this point everyone watching has forgotten the question anyway. They then cut off the person and go to the next. One day I would like to of them to ask “what is the point of asking you any questions as you don’t answer what was asked anyway” – of course they will never be allowed to ask another question ever again, but would go down in history.

Just wait for the chaos this new app will bring (anyone know how close you have to be for it to register? one person on the train or bus, the office, the next isle over in the supermarket then 14 days at home for everyone on ssp). So, you could lose your entire office staff in one go. I’m so glad they have thought this through.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#39 Posted : 13 May 2020 10:44:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: rs10 Go to Quoted Post
Have your organisations now started displaying COVID secure posters?

A very bold, very dangerous claim, and yet another ineffective placebo.

To make such a statement will lead to a false sense of security and when someone frequenting the premises catches Covid a lengthly legal battle.

You should not declare unknowns at this moment in time you will never know if those present have or do not have the virus.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 13/05/2020(UTC), chris42 on 13/05/2020(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 14/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 13/05/2020(UTC), chris42 on 13/05/2020(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 14/05/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#40 Posted : 13 May 2020 10:44:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: rs10 Go to Quoted Post
Have your organisations now started displaying COVID secure posters?

A very bold, very dangerous claim, and yet another ineffective placebo.

To make such a statement will lead to a false sense of security and when someone frequenting the premises catches Covid a lengthly legal battle.

You should not declare unknowns at this moment in time you will never know if those present have or do not have the virus.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 13/05/2020(UTC), chris42 on 13/05/2020(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 14/05/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 13/05/2020(UTC), chris42 on 13/05/2020(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 14/05/2020(UTC)
chris42  
#41 Posted : 13 May 2020 10:58:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: rs10 Go to Quoted Post
Have your organisations now started displaying COVID secure posters?

A very bold, very dangerous claim, and yet another ineffective placebo.

To make such a statement will lead to a false sense of security and when someone frequenting the premises catches Covid a lengthly legal battle.

You should not declare unknowns at this moment in time you will never know if those present have or do not have the virus.

The guidance states you should display it – “should” not “must” and no particular mention as to where it must be displayed. Therefore, to quote a bit from Douglas Adams

“But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

I wondered if you were meant to display in a window or glass door so can be seen from the outside, so the HSE to see from the road and skip visiting you? Just a thought. I think they have been given some extra funding for this.

Chris

CptBeaky  
#42 Posted : 13 May 2020 11:03:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: rs10 Go to Quoted Post

Also, the Government documents state if more than 50 employees it expects the RA to be published on your website.  

Can you share a source of this, I can't find mention of it anywhere? Our website hasn't been updated in years, so this could be fun ;)

chris42  
#43 Posted : 13 May 2020 11:12:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: rs10 Go to Quoted Post

Also, the Government documents state if more than 50 employees it expects the RA to be published on your website.  

Can you share a source of this, I can't find mention of it anywhere? Our website hasn't been updated in years, so this could be fun ;)

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19

CptBeaky  
#44 Posted : 13 May 2020 11:23:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I found the mention in the document, thanks. I feel this is yet another of those government "ideas" that they haven't thought through. Many companies still don't use the internet like that.

Still makes it easy for other companies to just "borrow" somebody else's RA now.

biker1  
#45 Posted : 13 May 2020 11:50:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

As a keen cyclist, I think it is a golden opportunity to promote cycling, and the current growth in traffic is not sustainable anyway. However, I have had jobs in the recent past with commutes of forty miles each way, which is not realistic for cycling unless you're a Tour de France competitor. They did have a 'walk to work' initiative at one place, and I told them if they gave me a couple of days, stout boots and a tent, I'd have a go.

SupraEdd  
#46 Posted : 13 May 2020 15:05:36(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
SupraEdd

The new guidelines quote

"safety representative selected by a recognised trade union or, if there isn’t one, a representative chosen by workers. As an employer, you cannot decide who the representative will be. "

Does every company need this? For example our company, we are an insurance broker of about 150 people. We has a H&S manager (me) but do we still need a rep appointed by the workers? - I cant find anything on HSE saying thats a requirement for low risk companies.

Thanks in advance

Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
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.