Posted By Lesley McDonald
I suppose because some people may be led by money rather than the laws there to protect them . We have to remember why the laws were made in the first place - plus some industries are a lot more hazardous than others and (some) young people are just not mature enough . What industry are you in by the way ?
Lesley

Posted By brett arundel
thanks for your responce lesley, but i think that you have take the money issue as being the major point. what i am trying to get at is that you can not judge all 16-18 year olds as being the same, plus they are NEVER left unattended until such a time that we and the trainee feel that they are at a level of competance which is set out from day one.what i would suggest is that is left up to the parents, trainee and employer as to whether the trainee is capable of what we are asking. also some areas of work are more dangerouse than others, ie mine is textiles, the difference being before you start looking to the skyes is that we have a modern purpose built building,an unblemished safety record ect ect ect, other textile firms are an absolute joke in terms of h&s, so how can we be classed in the same light.
one more point, we are an expanding company within a declining industry, one major factor contributes to this and thats running 7 days per week 24 hrs a day.
i dont want to appear bullish about this and i know why these laws were set down the safety of all at work is no1 priority.
we as a company are now restricted in the employment of 16-18year old . we were looking at introducing 10-15 within this age group within the next 6months, my question now is what do we do now.
brett

Posted By brett arundel
lesley,allan and martyn
thanks for all your replies, from what you are saying there would be no back down from the hse on individual cases. if this is so then we carnt employ this age group. very very sad.
one last question how would we fare in a court hearing if we were to fight this ruling. what would we have to prove that the catering industry doesnt.
oh and martyn the point i get but as im sure you will be aware not all industrys have chimneys, and i would call it discimination to class all employers as exploitists.

Posted By brett arundel
lesley
that would be an easy option, to employ at 18. what are they going to do till they are 18. also you will loose a lot of very good youngsters if you only employ at 18.
to keep you informed of our plite we had a meeting with the hse this morning, and i could see that in some of our arguments that they agreed whith what we are saying, but as they pointed out they are only the policing authority of health&safety, not the law makers. so now we have to move onto the DTI.
ONWARDS & UPWARDS
BRETT

Posted By Robert Paterson
Brett

I have read all the comments on your thread with interest and agree with some of the points. It is a duty of the Employer to provide training not give it as a privlege as you seem to think. I wonder if the HSE would agree with you if you contravene some of the legislation applicable to young persons who are at work.

I suggest that you research a little bit further exploring the various legislation put in place since the early 1900's to prevent maltreatment of young children from unscrupulous Employers. Croners and Greens publications will help you research the legislation that was introduced in earlier times


It might also be time for you to look at the work patterns within your workplace to see if you can devise a better method of working and trying to stick to the 48 hour week as laid down by legislation.

Young people should be encouraged to work I agree but should also be encouraged to work safely under current legislation

Kind Regards

Robert Paterson

Posted By Jay Joshi
Definitions of young people and children by age--extracts from HS(G)165

A YOUNG PERSON is anyone under eighteen years of age

a CHILD is anyone who is not over compulsory school age. He or she has not yet reached the official age at which they may leave school. This is generally referred to as the minimum school leaving age (MSLA) {Just before or just after their 16th birthday.}

a YOUNG WORKER is below eighteen years of age and above the MSLA.

Yes, employers must comply with health and safety legislation in context of young persons, but there is a diffrence between the definition of a child and young persons

Posted By Cathy Ricketts
I totally support the view taken by Pat Burns the law is there to protect the psychological and physiological development of the young person as well as the health and safety legislation

I work for an organisation involved with the placing of young people into employment and have in the past seen young people throw away the opportunity of going to night school to increase their job searching opportunities because they were working nights and had become dependent on the "extra cash".

I have a daughter who was working long hours for a fast food company and eventually took the wise route of giving it up and settling for less money as it was effecting her health. She now works part time and attends college the rest of the time and has an active social life.

I was horrified to read your comments about training being a privilege. Training is a fundamental element of ensuring that your staff are valued and cared for and work in a safe environment. It is also an excellent way of ensuring that you dont loose good employees as if you develope the ethos of personal development then you should find your staff retention rates significantly improve.

The 16-18 year old age group have a tremendous amount to give dont turn them off employment by pushing them into situations they are not ready for however mature they may seem I welcome the restrictions on their working hours

Posted By Ian Mycroft
Brett

What I don't understand is why you say you can't employ 16-18 year olds if they can't work the continental shifts. They can work day shift whilst being trained and move onto the continental shifts when they are 18 and fully trained. This worked well for the company that I did my apprenticeship with back in the 1960s, when I started my working life at the ripe old age of 15.

Ian

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Brett,

I know that sometimes safety advisers can be seen as pedants, but, the facts of life are that laws once enacted are difficult to change even if there is considerable evidence that they are not working properly. (Admitting they've got it wrong does not come easy to either politicians or civil servants)

If you feel strongly enough about an issue change is more likely by involving your trade association/body. If you can gain their support you are more likely to have "clout" with the legislators.

The other way of influenceing the law is during the consultation process (before the law is drafted) again most influence is likely to be via trade association representation.

I must state that I do not agree with you views but accept your right to lobby for change.