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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 05 March 2001 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Forster For those of you who produce various guidance ,codes of practise etc for your employer do you have a natty phrase,that you include, regarding consultation/involving the union safety rep?Can you top HSE ?! From the Management regs ACOP we have- "Remember to consult with Safety Repesentatives' as their experience of workplace conditions and their commitment to health and safety means they often identify problem areas.This allows you to take prompt action.They can also have an important part to play in explaining safety measures to the workforce and gaining commitment"
Admin  
#2 Posted : 05 March 2001 10:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Preston I don't include a standard phrase (If I did I think it would be hard to top the HSE's phrase) rather I try to assure that this aspect is written in to each piece of guidance in a way which suits that topic - eg for lone workers... "It’s always useful to involve your staff and their representatives in risk assessments, but it’s particularly important in the case of lone workers. They are the ones that experience the risks and the problems - often, because of their isolation, they are problems that nobody else in the organisation can fully appreciate." I want involvement and consultation to be an integral part in the process of safety management (just a safety should be an integral part of day to day management) If I used a standard phrase - with perhaps a standard heading like "Consulation" then after a couple of encounters I think readers will be inclined to skip it If it's written into the process in a way that has particular relevance to that process, then it's less likely to be seen as a "bolt on", or an onerous legal obligation. I produce our guidance in hypertext so I have the luxury of being able to link to guidance on our legal obligations under S.2(4), SRSC regs and Consulation Regs whenevere I want to - that's a little more clumsy if you attempt it with footnotes in paper documents.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 05 March 2001 11:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper I was alway told in my youth that, accountants take account of the risk, designers actually design the type of risk, managers manage the risk supervisors supervise the risk and....... the guy doing the job knows the risk. I was then told to prove the person who told me this was wrong. Hope this helps and sorry to the brickie with one finger missing who gave me this ditty, for forgetting his name and never proving him wrong. Regards Ian H
Admin  
#4 Posted : 05 March 2001 13:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Cooper Richard, I am inclined to agree with Mark Preston and include references within the relevant documentation. However, the following is a form of words that I have used in the past: "As an employer, you have a legal obligation to consult with recognised trade union safety representatives over arrangments for health and safety. Whilst safety representatives do not lessen your responsibilities as an employer, they can provide valuable help in communicating and monitoring new or existing safety arrangements. As such, good lines of communication are invaluable and should be maintained at all times." As an afterthought and if you are dealing with a specific Trade Union, why not ask the Branch Secretary / Chairman to give you a quotation. If nothing else it may help to foster/maintain good realtions! Regards, Frank Cooper
Admin  
#5 Posted : 05 March 2001 16:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Ian, considering the number of people killed and injured each year your ditty maybe should read: "the guy doing the job takes the risk". Here is a point for discussion on the earlier parts of the ditty, and generally.If we consider that risk is the likelihood (calculated or otherwise) of an event occuring, then whether it happens or not is based to a large extent on chance. An if chance is a factor in work operations, can we really say that the operation is being managed suficiently? Regards, Philip
Admin  
#6 Posted : 05 March 2001 16:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper Think of the context in which I explained I heard the ditty. As for managers effectivly managing the risk, well, you'll never know cos you never saw the task taking place! The importance is the perception of peoples roles in relation to risk from the point of view of the person doing it. If you change the ditty to "the workers endure the risk" then what motivates managers to consult with them? The point is I use it to demonstrate how everyone fits into risk management and how it should be a collective process, but use it as you will, its not copyrighted!!
Admin  
#7 Posted : 05 March 2001 21:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Dawson Phillip you are surely not saying that only when there is zero risk is H&S properly managed. There is always a risk!
Admin  
#8 Posted : 06 March 2001 10:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Forster Zero risk-?Sounds like a book title(One for Mr.St.John-Holt!)Zero risk would put a lot of people out of work and life,frankly, would be dull(no rugby?!)Thanks for your input folks,as usual I seem to have started an interesting thread.We are reviewing upward of 30 'local codes of practise'none of which even mention consultation.We do need a standard catch all phrase/soundbite/whatevever and of course the theme of consultation should flow /permeate/whatever through the document(s).With minor adaptations we shall plump for HSE (sensible chap!)Thanks once again.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 06 March 2001 21:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Richard. What an interesting topic. As a point, perhaps you should consider the construction industry, an area where union representation is particularly poor, and consider this in light of the construction industry having the poorest safety record throughout industry generally. it might be interesting to make a comparrison study between industry union representation and levels of industrial incident/accident records in those sectors to try and guage the perceived effectiveness of union representation in industry. Any Degree students reading this fancy a thesis subject !! Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#10 Posted : 07 March 2001 12:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Bennett I am a trade union health and safety representative. Our Unions logo/motto is purely and simply: "WORKING TOGETHER" Lee.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 21 March 2001 12:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip McAleenan Brian, I am saying that a managed operation is one in which all the hazards have been considered and controls put in place so that the operation itself is without risk. If risk continues to exist, then there are insufficient controls, and that may be because of a variety of reasons, e.g. the nature of the hazard is not fully understood, the likelihood of an injurious event is perceived as remote (and therefore an acceptable risk), the costs of controlling the operation far outweigh the cost of an injury/fatality, a belief that risk cannot be eliminated. Bear in mind that a risk is basically the element of chance in an activity, whether it is 50:50 or 1:1,000,000. Every week millions of people put their money on lesser odds in the Lottery and most weeks one or more come up trumps. Work environments where the element of chance is retained (for whatever reason) are environments where every week someone's number comes up. And that is why risk costs the UK more the £20bn and the USA more than $127bn every year. And no matter what the odds are, no matter how well "managed" the activity, the next time could be that one in a million time because there is no chance rule that says that the activity has to be done a million times before the accident. In fact every time could theoretically be a one in a million time. "Risk Management" simply tries to improve the odds, I would suggest that proper work management removes the risk. I am happy to take my chances every week on the lottery where I stand to lose £1, but I don't want someone else giving me those odds when what I stand to lose is my life. I agree, there is always a risk when the operation is not properly managed. Manage it, and there is no risk. Regards, Philip
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.