Posted By John Murgatroyd
Well, not really.
They're not saying that H&S is a bag of crap, just that the over-liberal interpretation of it IS.
And they're right.
There has been a dramatic increase in those advising about H&S and a dramatic lack of any accidents prevented.
Far too many, a majority of massive size, of the H&S consultants have no interest in the H&S of those who DO work and far too much interest in the financial side of H&S. Their fees, that is.
Maybe it wouldn't be politic to mention that bastion of H&S, the HSE ?
An organisation so far up its own a**e with so many research regimes running, that it has little money remaining to pay for inspectors ?
If I had to rely on either H&S consultants or the HSE for my basic safety at work, I'd be long-dead by now.
And the amount of people suffering from debilitating industrially-caused disease is increasing.
Work that one out.

Posted By PaulA
Good old Jeremy.. you either love him or hate the guy.. I love his humour as the majority of it is to prevoke a response......
I dont remember the exact incident but I'm sure that the producer in charge of a show a few years ago whereby a member of the public fell to their death live on TV through scaffold during a stunt that went wrong had wished he had carried out a more thorough risk assessment...

It may also interesting to note that Jeremys' flight in an F15 was nearly bullet proof due to the safe systems of work implemented in military aviation... if the aircraft had just gone through a deep maintenance package, by a group of YTS lads and on its check test flight....the TV rating figures would have been greater than Eastenders...

Posted By John Allen

As safety professionals our job is to make the case for health and safety at work and for risks arising out of work activities. As I have said before on this site, as a society we are moving from a risk ignorant one to a risk averse one. At one end of the spectrum we have the dark dispiriting place inhabited by Mr Murgatroyd and at the other the “4 people to change a light bulb” scenario. Neither state is ideal. We need to move on to become a risk managing one.

Both risk ignorant and risk averse conditions depend for their continued existence on a lack of information and understanding. In the former case it is lack of awareness of the risk itself; in the latter fear of the risk, especially the consequences no matter how remote, paralyses thought and prevents any activity from taking place. Poor management will use any excuse to prevent making a decision and in many places safety issues now provide the perfect cover. It’s poor, untrained management that people should be concentrating on; if they can’t make decisions on safety issues what confidence can we have in other areas of their “skills”?

Mr Murgatroyd fires his scatter gun of vitriol at inspectors and consultants. Having been one and now the other I feel qualified to reply. Firstly, unless he wants to see the return of the “gentleman inspector”, no one today works for anything other than money and why shouldn’t any profession get a fee for its service commensurate with qualifications, experience and value to the business (which in the case of safety is considerable – prevent accidents and save business costs – but that’s another thread and way up the food chain from this discussion).

Having spent 9 years (1977-1986) as an inspector I never met another inspector who wasn’t honest, committed to his profession or reasonably hard working. Inspectors I knew were threatened, beaten up, had their cameras smashed and tyres slashed. No one ever offered a bribe to me or anyone I knew. From what I see today I don’t think inspectors have changed other than I don’t think they are as well trained as I was, especially in legal matters where some demonstrate a lack of understanding of the law. Like others they have suffered from the general denigration of public service professions which was instituted in 1979 and continues under the current government. They have also suffered because they are now managed by generalists in the Civil Service rather than a Chief Inspector.

With regard to consultants I have been one for about 4 years. I was forced into this position due to circumstances although now I am glad I did it. I have a family to feed and a roof to keep over my head. I sell my services on the market at the price it will bear. I have a professional code of conduct a system to ensure I remain competent and professional to guide me.


When I first entered this profession 27 years ago I was motivated by a desire to prevent accidents at work and let people go home with the same number of fingers, toes, heads etc as they had when they started work that morning.

I still hold onto that belief.

It can be done by managing risk

Let’s make the case.

Posted By CHRISTOPHER HAYWARD
I would like to agree with almost every point made by John in his various postings in this thread and others

However you only have to read most of the assorted garbage that arrives in the post from most of the H&S industry to realise that he and myself are almost lone voices crying in the wilderness.

We can all quote examples until we are blue in the face and it serves little purpose. However I can only speak for the sector I work in and the geographical area I work in. The inspection rates are woeful. I know of one chemical company (not mine) dealing in a high risk environment that has not had an inspection for seven years and another company that has been trading for 20, employs 28 people, has NEVER had an inspection and doesn't even have an accident book.

Read the HSE enforcement database and prepare to be amazed at the number of those regulations, you lovingly committed to memory on NEBOSH courses, against which not one improvement notice and/or prosecution has ever been recorded.

Welcome to the real world.

Finally I DO CARE. That's why I work for rubbish money and deal with the unacceptable faces of capitalism on a daily basis.

There is an urgent need to get more inspectors on the beat as soon as possible. No more research papers on ever more exotic topics please. People are being maimed or made ill at a SME near you, NOW.

Finally no more pious carping at the "competency" of our fellow professionals in the careers forum. Just be grateful that more people want to join us.

Anyway, enough already, I'm off to find a blanket, it's getting cold out here in the desert.

Posted By Richard Webber
I work with the Construction Industry and have seen many SME's who are prepared to cut corners, put their operatives at risk, seek to maximise their profits at the expense of their workers and who have never met anyone from the HSE.

I know that these employers are responsible for many of the accidents that occur each year and that their complacency directly affects the health and safety of the workforce. I also know that to work for such an employer is to accept the fact that argument will probably result in dismissal.

But I also know that increasing pressure is being brought to bear on such employers by clients and other employers and that safety standards are improving year on year.

I also believe that knowledge is power and that these SMEs, when faced by an informed workforce, will adapt their ways and change their approach.

So, if your employer is an a**e, get hold of authoritive information to prove him wrong, get it from this forum if necessary, and dont be a victim of greed or bullying any longer!!

Jeremy Clarkson provides ammunition to bad employers, the HSE provides ammunition for workers to improve their lot. Why are you sniping at the HSE?

Richard

Posted By Alec Wood
Good old Jeremy, always knows which buttons to push. Many may not like his style of delivery, or the content of his message, but it should, along with the many others we have had from the tabloids recently, make us listen and debate. We do have a problem, or more accurately three (at least)

1. Far too many people are being exposed to unsafe working practises, equipment and environments. The enforcement authorities seem to do little if anything to combat it, largely because of a lack of inspection. Recent HSE blitzes in the South East do nothing to curb the excesses of dickensian employers in the North or anywhere else, in fact it would appear that even in the South East they think the chances of getting caught are slim given the number pulled up in the second construction blitz last year. Many people really are given the "do it or get down the road" choice every day, or at least they perceive that to be their choice. Many companies have no H&S staff at all, responsibility is given to the line managers who day-to-day objectives put H&S at the bottom of the list instead of the top, to managers who themselves perceive safe working practices as obstacles to efficiency. The postings of John M and others make this point eloquently and regularly, and no-one should kid themselves that the type of companes of which they speak are unusual.

2. On the other side of the coin many companies whose activities are largely low risk employ large health & safety departments who, in order to justify their existance, seem to be attempting to ban risk. These professionals may very well soon have the Brecon Beacons criss-crossed with handrails in case a Para on exercise falls over and hurts himself - they will also really believe that banning the use of assault courses, rock climbing, etc would be a perfectly logical and good idea. The reasonable part of "reasonably practicable" has been excised from their conciousness and they will persue the total elimination of risk, no matter how slight, and no matter how ludicrous, or how close it comes to preventing the work activity from continuing in any form. Unfortunately for us, these are always the nutters the tabloids will concentrate on.

3. Lack of inspection leads to lack of prosecution. The derisory penalties dished out by the courts lead to the trivialisation of the offences in the eyes of the public, but what can be done if even the courts appear not to take health & safety law seriously. If the crime is regarded by all as petty then the bringing of the offender to book will be regarded as trivial by press and society at large.

We cannot shy away from the facts - people are dying in some areas, being maimed by machines which they have been ordered to use without guarding, while in others people are prevented from carrying a cup of coffee across the office floor (unless on a tray or fitted with a lid in case of spillage and burns), police really cannot do surveillance work, carers for the elderly really cannot change light bulbs. We need to address the problems, not stick our heads in the sand and blame the tabloids or Mr Clarkson for merely echoing the views and the attitudes that prevail in wider society at this time.

Alec Wood
Samsung Electronics

Posted By John Allen
Thank you Alec. A very accurate summary of the situation. This is the point I have been trying to make for some time and the answer is that we need to change to the management of risk.

With regard to SMEs which are taking the flak for poor performance (probably rightly), larger companies also have a responsibility. The SMEs are frequently their suppliers or contractors. The larger companies have a duty to ensure that risk is being managed in their supply chain.

There is no point in bemoaning the lack of inspections when we have the power to influence things.

I wouldn't get too upset about the tabloids (or tabloid attitudes expressed elsewhere). They have more faces than the town hall clock. The same people who criticise H&S just now will be the first to call for more regulation the next time something goes wrong.

Posted By John Allen
There's no convincing some people. You can't have it both ways. It's OK for the HSE to put pressure on SMEs but not their clients who are paying for the service and would like the risk managed in their supply chain?

The remarks about late payment are a broad generalisation although no doubt plenty of people can come up with an example to support it. I can only say that the companies I work for are in the main reasonably prompt payers. Would you prefer it if the larger companies enforced no standard at all? We work in the HSE field and our job is to manage risk where people are exposed to it. We cannot take responsibility for accounts departments.

I've just had a look at the HSE prosecution data base. Only a small percentage of names on it are well known. I'd guess that the majority of culprits have less than 50 employees judging from the names I recognise from my own area.

Of course this must be a double standard on the part of the HSE to persecute the poor cash strapped SMEs who are er ... creating the risk.

Posted By Sean Fraser
It seems my point has not been explained adequately.

The reason why some (not all) SME's struggle with the H&S issue is due, in part, to a lack of adequate time to understand the subject, especially where they operate on tight margins and cannot afford to appoint an advisor directly, having to rely on consultants who may or may not provide them with a valuable service. Otherwise, it is what they pick up by direct mail or free info - again, some good, some bad.

The point I failed to make adequately was that it is OK to attempt to manage the risk, especially when the exposure is through the supplier, and expect them to be as safety conscious as necessary to manage their own risk. But it is patently unfair not to do something as simple as paying your bills on time, thereby forcing your supplier to sacrifice safety in the name of cost. Resources would be tight enough as it is, without having the bigger and hence more powerful party in the contractual relationship renegue on the most basic of principles - coughing up when the money is due.

SME's struggle with an information overload as it is. With the number of shysters out there who are trying to scare them silly by over-stating the issues of legislative compliance (there is in fact an outright scam going on in the North East of Scotland on this subject) then is it any wonder that H&S has such a poor perception among a growing number of people? My points are consistent and simple:

- adequate knowledge and understanding of the nature of the hazard(s) coupled with a proprotionate appreciation of the risk makes for safer attitudes and behaviours.

Within 5 minutes of talking to anyone will allow you to gauge both their understanding and acceptance of risk - more subjective than some might like but a more accurate representation of what they actually do in the field. No amount of policies and records will compensate for simple and appropriate good sense.