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 October 2005 02:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Derek Holt I would be interested to hear from my learned colleagues as to whether or not you feel that quality is afforded more commitment than safety. I have found that this is generally the case, the common argument being that quality is predominantly focused at external stakeholder satisfaction (customers)without whom the organisation would not be in existance. Therefore I have found that senior/top management in reality tend to be more committed to quality by way of 'actual' intent and provision of resources etc than safety. Is this really the case across the board or have I been blinkered by the organisations I have worked for?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 05 October 2005 07:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By stevehaigh I believe it goes, #QUANTITY,quantity quantity quality,quality safety
Admin  
#3 Posted : 05 October 2005 08:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David.G.C "SAFETY FIRST QUALITY ALWAYS"
Admin  
#4 Posted : 06 October 2005 16:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony Power You cannot have a good quality system without a good safety system or a good safety system without a good quality system.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 October 2005 05:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Derek Holt Perhaps I should have been more blunt. Is it felt that our quality bretheren (departments, managers etc)gain more resources (notice, support, finances, training, acknowledgment, recognition etc)than the H&S equivalentin the same organisation? Would be interesting to hear of some examples where this is perceived to be or actually the case.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 07 October 2005 10:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Any commercial concern has to keep its customers happy - or go bust! Generally customers are only concerned that the price is right and the product or service is good value (Quality). Unfortunately in our avaricious society we don't give a damn if the widget manufacturer has five fatal accidents a year, just so long as the widgets do their job and are cheap. Has anyone, out there, stopped buying goods or services from the convicted killers documented every month in TSP? Does anyone work for a company that has put out a tender and eliminated a contractor entirely on the basis of their safety record? If our society placed compassion before cash, then CO-OP (with its ethical trading policy) would be number one retailer & bank. With the possible exception of Jarvis, who else (directors & shareholders), has suffered as a consequence of safety failings of the big accidents in the past 20 years? We most likely all have company slogans saying safety first - rubbish its job & pay packet first. Unless safety failings really hit the bottom line: the big (only because it was a Scottish court) Transco fine is a fraction of a of their earnings. And hit the directors (a ten year ban from any boardroom would work better than any jail sentence) then all the rest is just empty words.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.