Posted By MarkSMark I have recently assisted in delivering a few new safety initiatives and have been rather disheartened by the lack of enthusiasm by the staff. One safety initiative has been the mandatory wearing of ear defenders in all areas. Staff refused to wear them in areas where the noise was below 70dB(A) and so I have recently been granted the ability to take staff through the disciplinary procedure. This seems to have worked a treat as now I can give a written formal warning to any staff that disobey the rules. The second time they are caught I can suspend them. If I catch them three times I will petition the manager for their dismissal. Since I have suspended four employees last week I have not had any staff not wearing their ear defenders. I have found that by making examples of staff I have been able to improve safety drastically and wondered if it should be included as a recommendation in a HSE publication? Your views appreciated

Posted By Brian McMahon Mark You cannot be serious? I have checked the date on your posting and it is not the 1st April. Your approach is inimical to contemporary safety management, and not consistent with one of the attributes of a professional safety practitioner as a ‘people person / manager’. It belongs more in the realm of, ‘beatings will continue until morale improves!’ Admittedly there is a role for enforcement, but to use such an approach as your dominant strategy will ultimately frustrate your overall health and safety objectives. You may get ‘compliance’ in the short term because of your approach, based as it is on the ‘fear factor’, but is it sustainable? What will you do when you’ve suspended most of the workforce, apart from spending your time looking over your shoulder next time you’re drinking in the pub where they all are!? Brian

Posted By Mark Bywater Mark, Just what piece of legislation have you used to back up your "policy" that staff must wear hearing protection below 70dB(A). We are all aware that the levels are reducing in Feb 2006 but 70dB(A) is a joke. Have you established such a poor rapport with you safety reps and committee members that you are stamping on everything to try to prove who is in charge? These draconian measures do little for our respected profession and to post such a crass idea shows you understand little of what goes to make a half decent professional. You should be working for a local council - your views may hold some credence there but not here, where we firmly believe the view that education of staff, not intimidation is the smart way forward. That said, I can't believe this to be a serious post. I wonder how compliant you are with other legislation? Is PPE your first and only option - why not spend some time and effort reducing the noise in the first place - but 70dB(A)?????????? This has to be a joke!!!!!!! Mark

Posted By David A Jones I'm not suprised you are getting little enthusiam or co-operation from staff if the safety initiatives you are trying to introduce are similar to this one on hearing protection. The standard you are using is completely without basis and may even decrease safety standards (depending on the work environment) as employees may not be able to hear warnings as clearly as they should - I would be extremely concerned if the workplace had vehicles that the employees may now not hear. It's this sort of approach that gives safety a bad name and lowers the standing of the profession. Have you not heard that safety legislation is now predominantely based on risk assessment - i.e. assess the risks and introduce contols proportionate to those risks ensuring that those controls do not have an adverse effect by increasing other risks

Posted By Steve Langston I agree with Mike Craven with regards to the comments made by Mark Bywater. The statement in relation to working for a local Council is almost as ridiculous and outragious as the original posting. Lets be a little bit more proffesional in our approach!!

Posted By Ian Stone Im not commenting on whether Mark is right or wrong on this issue but I am a little shocked as to some of the comments he has recieved. Surely we should be trying to help people rather than making fun or criticising them? Ian

Posted By Hilary Charlton I am, frankly, surprised that you have any workers left to tell the tale. You are, as a health and safety professional, supposed to ensure that your Company stays on the right side of the Law, yes, to a certain extent you should use your discretion - we have a noise threshold of 85dBA above which ear defenders are mandatory, but 70dBA? Have you considered that this request is unreasonable in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Health and Safety At Work Act and no one actually has to comply with it by law. I think you are on a very sticky wicket with this. I should tread very carefully if I were you and if the HSE do adopt this system I shall feel it is time to get out of H&S on the basis that it has become a total ass! Hilary

Posted By Peter MacDonald Not so sure it's a wind up. This guy might work for BP. Peter

Posted By Ken Taylor To introduce a little balance into the response: there is room for an element of 'stick' as well as 'carrot' in some instances for obtaining compliance with reasonable health and safety measures. Life-critical situations, persistent wilful risk to collegues, physically attacking the health and safety manager, etc spring to mind. Consultation, persuasion, training, instruction and reasoned argument have to come to an end eventually when faced with total opposition. However, in considering the disciplinary route in matters of health and safety, I would advise: 1. doing so only in relation to measures supported by legislation or risk assessment based upon published guidance; and 2. getting management and the human relations/personnel people to do it and not the H&S person - who is best not seen as only a tool of management and someone to be feared, avoid or not confide in. And, by the way, this is not a new initiative as it probably dates from the dark ages or earlier.

Posted By Richard L After following this thread and indeed contributing to it myself, I wondered when we were going to see some reaction from the originator. Come on Mark what do you have to say to the responses or have you created a new safety initiative of eliminating the risks from VDU’s by actually switching them off. Yours in anticipation Richard

Posted By MarkSMark Obviously I do not have much support from the respondents, but I must point out that there was a type-o in the original posting I actually meant to say 'noise levels OVER 70dba'. Before I implemented this policy I did consult with a person from the shop floor and they agreed that it would encourage people to wear their ear defenders. I do not agree that this is an outdated way to enforce health and safety. I do infact utilise modern technologies such as CCTV to find those who do not comply. Anyone I find is entered onto a database and is automatically notified by email. When they report to me I can then present them with evidence. I do not agree with 'safety incentives' to encourage people to take their health and safety responsibilities seriously. They have a legal obligation to do so and if they break this obligation they are punished. I must add that this approah is not only used for ear defenders but also other matters such as accident reporting, housekeeping etc. It is also applied to the management, one manager is currently suspended. As to the fire alarm system. We have visual means of alarm and also the alarm is quite clearly audible through the ear defenders. My relationship with the production employees is very open and frank. They know where they stand in relation to health and safety. I do not think that sugar coating any safety issues is beneficial to anyone, and pussyfooting around issues is inefficient in this industry. If I were working in a beauty parlour or the Womens Institute then maybe your approach would work. I do appreciate all the responses, although I do not agree with any of them. I thank those of you who have raised valid points and apologise for this lengthy response and apologise if my opinion on safety offends any of you.

Posted By Steve Langston With Regards to the original posting - why choose the level of "over 70db(A)"? Why not simply the level "over 80db(A)" or "over 85db(A)" as these are the levels recognised as creating potential hearing defects. (depending where in the EU you are) After all non of us wear hearing protetion whilst walking on the footpath by a main road which studies show is around 70db(A)! As i understand it - noise levels double with every 3db(A) on that basis the 70 level is substantially lower than any legal requirement. Just keen to know why 70?

Posted By Jim Walker Mark, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Come on people! Mark might not be toeing the "party line" but lets not descend into playground bullying. By reasoned debate let us give Mark the benifit of our knowledge such that he may modify his stance.

Posted By John Allen Mark raises an interesting point. What he is saying is that working safely should be the norm and not as a result of “atta boy” incentives. Discuss please (1). As a matter of interest in the offshore industry eye protection used to be confined to jobs where there was an obvious risk such as grinding. Then a member of the deck crew doing a non eye protection job lost an eye from a piece of wind blown grit. The old Department of Energy introduced a compulsory eye protection rule for all personnel working outside the accommodation. There was immediate resistance to this from a number of trades who said they couldn’t do their job with eye protection yet today the rule is almost universally obeyed, with I believe a substantial reduction in eye injuries. Most exposure limits are set at a level where the majority of personnel will not be harmed. To protect everyone you have to go lower. Discuss please (2).

Posted By lawrence baldwin John The jury is still out with me as to whether this is a wind up or not but your 2 identified discussion points are very interesting and in my opinion form the nub of this very profession. I am not so sure regarding points raised earlier on "queues to the Employment Tribunal"; if it is part of your employment contract to comply with safety criteria, as is everybodies, and to be in breach is summary dismisal for which one has signed in agreement, (you could not call them unreasonable conditions or an unreasonable contract because such requirements are set in statute particularly to co-operate), irrespective of whether the level is higher than that set by statute, therefore to be in breach and claim "unfair dismissal" would be very difficult . How often do we state or see stated that compliance with the law is a minimum criteria but best practice is a goal that sets greater levels of safety standards for which company x transpires through its safety management to achieve. (1)& (2)A similar analogy would be speed cameras, motorist dislike them intensly and question their effectiveness at accident reduction as opposed to money generators (depending on which side your arguement originates) but what ever your thoughts, they are effective in slowing the majority of traffic down to the speed limit (to the benefit of the majority)(check the brake lights of cars as they approach a camera) particularly when locations of cameras are known. But as is human nature those that will speed will then increase their speed once past the camera, so the camera is therefore effective for that particular stretch only . In Marks' case, where failutre to comply is going to be expensive (loss of job) is compliance only in the region of the camera and are safety glasses et al only being worn when a "suit" is in view or is the whole work force complying with the speed limit. If so, then object achieved. In my experience, regarding safe systems, the problem becomes that of ownership and responsibilities. If you have a beligerent workforce that "speed all the time" and those payed to reduce speeding don't because they "don't have time" or will not accept their responsibilities then one recourse is to terminate such contracts with evidence that shows a breach; if the workforce is co-operative (as I believe most are because no-one wants to go home injured but they want the correct information) then specifics on the reasons behind set "rules" including "blanket rules" can be just as effective. Except of course to the perpetual "speeder" who accepts such consequences as a way of life if and when caught. In walking the line, one learns to adopt, adapt, adept and use whatever means works, be that stick or reward. Lawrence

Posted By Gilly Margrave As a mere woman and therefore eligible for the Women's Institute although not at this time a member; and a big softy working in Local Government I could take one or two remarks in this thread in bad part! On a more serious note I am concerned about the use of CCTV and databases unless it was made quite explicit that they would be used for this purpose before installation. Any thoughts on this anyone from a Data Protection viewpoint? Fats is right you can't bully a workforce into a positive safety culture. Gilly

Posted By Gilly Margrave Forgot to add there have been some developments in DPA issues in relation to CCTV. Have a look at http://www.informationco...uk/eventual.aspx?id=5739 If love and peace won't make Mark think twice maybe the law will. Gilly

Posted By Simone Plaut I would offer a suggestion.....this may only work for brunette females with imposing bustlines (such as myself...note my name is Simone NoT Simon!) Ask the staff if they enjoy football......is it live football or TV......if live....then ask if the roar of the crowd and comments from fellow supporters nearby adds to their fun? Once they agree with that....explain that failing to protect their hearing will deny them this pleasure in later life. They will not be disciplined, but their names taken down and records held preventing them from being allowed to claim for hearing damage in future. Far more reasonable an approach I feel. Please dont insult colleagues. We are here to support each other not bitch. Regards to all Simone Plaut SRP Consultants London Ps this approach has worked a treat for me on many occasions....."I'll just go to the van and fetch my hearing protection..."

Posted By Ken Taylor Jim, many of us would support Simone except for two major points. Is Mark Searle still remaining deaf to our protestations?

Posted By s.micklewright Pardon, eh? Sorry I didnt hear a word of that. Simon