Posted By shaun allport
KWs statement is to be ignored with the contempt it deserves!

I have not only witnessed a tragedy in my time but also have been a victim of a industrial accident myself, both of which could of been avoided if "someone" did what we HSE indviduals do now. Lookout for others welfare & improve the standards that are adopted within industry...... and we are looked upon as a racket?

KW needs to be reminded in his walk of life, someone, somewhere, looked out for him! he would be 1st to shout if something happened to him or someone close to him i am sure.

shaun

Posted By Lewis T Roberts
I think Sir Anthony Hidden QC summed up sone appropriate words after the Clapham rail 'accident' when he said:

'' It has to be said that concern for safety which is sincerely held and repeatedly expressed, but nevertheless is not carried through into action is as much protection from danger as no concrn at all''

As long as so called responsible persons continue to ignore advice from safty proffessionals and common sense in favour or instead of of production then health and safety will still be seen as a burden, bureaucratic and boring.

Lew

Posted By Derek Rooney MIOSH MIIRSM
I'm sick of these 'ignorant idiots', many companies put productivity & profit before the Health of there colleagues. If these idiots knew anything they would realise that Health & Safety is a way of life (i bet KW has smoke alarms fitted at home) - everything they do they Risk Assess . There are many benefits to good health and safety management which could save companies a lot of money & increase there productivity & therefore their profits.

Posted By Merv Newman
I am currently working as a consultant for a site of a large (40 factories) group. They think they are good (accident rate less than 10% of the average). Monday of this week there was a fatal accident at another site. This was a sickening shock for everyone and they are now hoping that "senior management" will now focus on workplace safety instead of "public image".

Merv Newman

Posted By Philosophical
And there was me thinking I was alone in my views, well said Christopher! Isn't it time that we started to lead rather than lamely follow? I would hate to see this profession and its direction be determined by the press as will happen if we don't get our act together!

We cannot doggedly continue down the path of justifying our existence on failure, we have to innovate and be dynamic. There is no point constantly moaning that no-one listens to us, make them, there is a way, but the way isn't by constantly quoting the rule book and reliving and requoting terrible accidents. One only has to read some of the threads in this discussion forum to understand what I am saying.

If you aren't succeeding in improving health and safety it is always very easy to blame senior management - sometimes we should look to ourselves to see what it is we are doing wrong, there is always more than one way to skin a cat!

Posted By Carl Anders
I have to agree with the sentiments in support of this statement. I feel that unfortunatley a large portion of safety professionals do not help our image and add to the impressions of HS being a burden and a pain in the ar*e.

I have worked for a couple of consultancy services and am appalled at the general lack of understanding and application that I have witnessed amongst my (now ex) colleagues. This resulted in embarrassingly substandard reports, training sessions and advice given by "consultants". Emplyers pay alot of money for these services yet 9 times out of 10 all they receive is a generic report cut and pasted from a different generic report with no more useful information or help contained in the recommendations than can be gained from general guidance documents.

In addition I have come across far too many safety practioners working within a company who again lack general understanding of basic principles and application of safety.

It really boils down to the fact that the term "so far as is reasonably practicable" is not being applied or understood where it is needed and instead generic and often unsuitable/onerous controls are imposed by safety professionals.

Maybe the press and general feeling is a bit misplaced given what many of us are striving to do. However, we have to look at ourselves and how we may have contributed to this image before we go on the defensive.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
This is becoming a fruitful thread in many ways. The media seem very interested in our failures and yet seem able to portray people undertaking high risk activities in a manner conducive to injury as perfectly normal and OK. My mind went immediately to the Grand Designs programme last night on the box. The demolition operative was carefully using an alloy tower to carry out a garage demolition. As part of the building came free the tower skated away across the concrete slab. The tower at quick glance also had a single rail, no toeboards and no internal bracing. I have long ago realised however that it is fundamentally pointless in trying to commment to the organisation concerned. What we ultimately see is an exagerated concern for gloves, facemasks and goggles for all DIY tasks at the expense of many of the real issues.

We are really on a hiding to nothing with most of the media, and as other contributors have indicated the Police type attitude is only serving to reinforce perceptions of what we are doing. The incident with the changing of the light bulbs is a prime example of this in my view. If an organisation had assessed the task activities of their workers correctly then they could be relatively easily trained to perform a range of domestic tasks safely without overzealous paperwork and supervision.

Safety is a business priority and is one amongst many directors must face but can we justify always saying it must be number 1? We need to assess all our business risks in a holistic manner and allocate the priorities in an appropriate manner. This was the fundamental philosophy for As Far As Reasonably Practicable - but even the courts are blurring this line at times. There may be safety risks that are at No 1 priority but there may be those at No 101 - It is a matter of business judgement.

Bob

Posted By Philosophical
I think the answer to that question is to put them in perspective and then refute them as appropriate.

Maybe is also a question that is better answered by IOSH, after all it is they who are meant to represent us and fly the professional flag!

For what it is worth, I think it is about us becoming more professional and not jumping on every "health and safety" bandwagon going. We need to educate more and not just accept everything at face value, as I said earlier, we seem to be the partially sighted being led by the blind - maybe it's a simple issue of leadership which makes sure that we as safety professionals are consulted regarding these issues.

I have never seen an IOSH statement that endeavours to put these issues into context with the real world, and make the point that sometimes these things are nothing to do with us. Maybe it's time!

Posted By Brett Day
Something I find increasingly frustrating is how H&S is given as the reason for generating reams of paperwork, and banning or curtailing activities/processes that lend themselves to wanton litigation.

As a Planning Supervisor I've come across hudreds of Designer's risk assessments - they look impressive, but when read they don't help the poor contractor who has to deal with the mess (Sorry, award winning design) that they are lumbered with. But really only read to try and fend off potential litigation.

As a Safety Engineer I see risk asessments and method statements that are detailed to the nth degree, what happened to recording 'signifcant hazards' ? rather than lets throw everything at it and hope it works.

A lot of contractors do not want to read War and Peace to find out what the specific risks to thier job, so why do certain involved parties (unfortunately including some 'Safety Professionals' I've come across) persist in this manner of working ?

My other bugbears - the media, has anyone seen Demolition Day ? they have 'The Enforcer' to moniter H&S whilst the teams get on with thier work. 'The stroppy sod on site' would be a more apt title, all of the things she has picked up on I agree with but her approach has a lot to be desired - aggresive, adversarial & Loud. I can think of a few sites where that approach would earn a smack on the nose !! Unfortunately, I auditioned for this role and was told after my performance that they were specifically looking for someone aggresive in their approach. If that is how the media is looking to portray us then how do we alter that view.

Which brings me onto my next bugbear, professional bodies - a little while ago IOSH sent out consultations to TechSP members asking thier views on changes to membership. I made additional enquiries and was told that TechSP was here to stay, funny page 52 of the April SHP seems to indicate otherwise. It's no good becoming a 'Professional' body if you do not recognise that the profession you represent covers all areas of work with different required levels of expertise.

TechSP is used as benchmark in the construction industry, an industry I have a good deal of experience in, however, because of it's often temporary and transient nature companies do not spend a great deal of time (or money) on CPD. Many practitioners, myself included spend a great deal of time reading articles and keeping up to date through the likes of Croner's, Jordan's and Barbour Index. CPD - well I've tried IOSH CPD and found it very expensive compared to RoSPA and other providers so I no longer use them. Oops that means I can't acrue CPD points, that's me knackered for STech (Safety Technician, the proposed replacement for TechSP).

Slightly digressing but It angers me that a body that is supposed to be supporting and advancing H&S is not recognising it's members in it's quest to become a professional body in vein of others such as FRICS or ICE.

A little bit of a rant but this a subject I feel very strongly about.

Posted By CHRISTOPHER HAYWARD
The last correspondent makes a very sound point about some insurers but then having no insurance or a hike in premiums concentrates minds.

The posting about membership issues merits a response. The changes in IOSH grades shouldn't be seen in isolation from the evidence given by IOSH to the Commons Select Committee. IOSH and ROSPA are calling for H&S advisors to be licenced (SHP page 3). I don't see anyone but the two highest grades getting licenced, do you? The old drawbridge is being raised again.

Does anyone think that the reason why H&S is viewed with suspicion by most SME's (and some larger organisations)is because IOSH haven't upgraded their membership grades?

A more likely cause is that, as shown else where in SHP this month (page 34), a survey found that nearly all employers want proportionate ANSWERS to THEIR problems.

And before you ask, I like IOSH and the benefits it brings, that doesn't mean any of us have to agree with everything it says or does.

Also note that the Government wants the HSe put of the Railways and that Gordon Brown's budget speech called for a root and branch look at business regulation and that Construction and Chemicals are first in line. Note also the Government's seeming lack of enthusiasm for a Corporate Killing Law. The times might be a changing.

On the subject of Regulation, the top end sanctions are wholly inadequate. Partnership is one thing but getting off virtually scot free when you blatantly fail to discharge your duties isn't acceptable.

Finally, when reading articles on H&S count the number of times the EU gets a kicking from her Majesty's Press. Pitching into seemingly daft H&S rules is only a means to an end..

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear all,

I'm sorry to say that to a large extend I agree with the sentiments expressed by Keith Waterhouse. The Health and Safety industry is to a large extend a self-serving industry, administered by a priesthood that is divorced from those whom they serve. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that many health and safety organisations main purpose is to serve their own ends and not to further health and safety.

If we go along believing that all is well and denying that they're any problems then we will not progress any further.

Many safety professionals, including in house safety officers, consultants and enforcers appear to believe that safety is delivered by paper based safety systems. My experience is that these systems make it easier for the person to justify their job, but make it harder for the people on the shop floor to work safely, because they lose focus on what is and what is not important.

I have seen recently two companies where consultants had delivered giant tomes of health and safety policies and procedures, to small businesses with simple business operations. In one case, a small brick layering company, their policies and procedures were 64 pages long. Whilst these documents looked impressive, they won't get read, don't relate to reality and worse of all give the impression that the first priority of a safety person, is "keep the paperwork safe" and not "Keep people safe". Record keeping is important, only so far as it reinforces and assists health and safety.

We should remind ourselves that we are the servants and not the masters. Furthermore my belief is that our raison d’être is to help keep people healthy and safe by providing advice and assistance, not by keeping the paperwork and being a policeman.

Regards Adrian Watson.

Posted By Chris Abbott
I tend to agree with some of the statements present above, but I have never believed that I couldn't make a differences in safety - perhaps that's why I still enjoy the challenge. In my experience, however much a company tries to make out it wants to promote a proactive safety culture, it is simply that an insurance inspection has highlighted certain inadequacies within the management of certain risks, that result in "action" from the responsible Director/Manager.

Even in my low risk industry I have seen this trend, but that hasn't and still doesn't stop me communicating with my management team. I do think that if you have a cynical view of insurance companies and senior management, this is likely to effect your judgement - that's why I stay neutral, investigate the claims made by insurance companies (especially Left Insurances Inspections.) Last one we had "suggested" an improvement of the bunding in our machine room, and a mechanised system of manually bringing the life to a halt if and when it was unable to automatically be done. £10k min. Company said "do it" - but I wasn't so sure - I investigated with an independent lift maintenance firm and found that the bunding we had was suitable, and we already HAD the suggested device in use on the lifts. When I questioned the insurance inspector on this, he replied "oh, that's my standard sign off on a document...."

Posted By Hilary Charlton
Perhaps health and safety is bureaucratic, a burden and boring to those who don't understand it - before I started doing it I didn't really understand the ins and outs of it and found it terribly dull, obviously once you start delving deeper and learning more it becomes interesting, fascinating and draws you in. As for bureaucratic - just how many Laws and Regulations are there? I know I discovered a new one today - Solvent Emissions Regulations - opened up SHP and there it was!

However, why are we beating ourselves up over it? Surely what Keith Waterhouse says should be like water off a duck's back to us. We are employed to ensure that the people and businesses we work for are complying with the Regulations as laid down by our Government. We have to learn to stop whingeing because Keith Waterhouse said this or the Guardian ran an article on that or the BBC showed the other - I mean, who cares really? I'm sure Joe Public couldn't give a stuff, the Government is not going to be interested and neither is the EU so why waste all this effort getting riled?

The beauty of living in this country is the benefit of free thought and free speech - Keith Waterhouse was expressing his opinion - you don't have to like it but he has the absolute right to express it. I should imagine that the rest of the world has forgotten what he said earlier today let alone yesterday or last week, the only people keeping this comment alive are us! How pathetic do we look!!! I bet he'd be rolling in the aisles if he could see what a furore one throwaway comment has caused!!

Posted By John Vernon
Just a few observations, I like what Laurie said about H&SW Act 1974, However there are still employers, companies, even industries that still do not recognise the Act never mind comply with it and it as been in force 30 years and still the main reason for compliance is the possibility of legal action and for the bigger companies were financial penalties are no deterent, corporate image appears to work better. As for the case for defending H&S professionals
when people quote one of the most important phrases withih the Act you woyld expect them to get it right "As far as reasonably practicable" should read "As far as is reasonably practicable". JV

Posted By Hazel Harvey
Bit of picking holes here. The revisions are out for consultation it is merely the tense that I used. When you are dealing with things on a day to day basis like I have too it can be easy to do this.

Posted By Nick Radley
Hi,

I am new to Health & Safety and can tell you one of the first statements our consultant said.

"Health & Safety is a job with no praise, respect or interest to others. They will say we do nothing, they say they see nothing and it is a wasted exercise. Companies that take H&S seriously (and sensibly) will have H&S Officers that can back this up. The only reason people cant see our work is because they dont see us at the site of an accident due to us preventing it"

Nick