Posted By Sam Dawson Hi, I am working for a Construction company and we are currently changing our approach to Safety. As part of this change we will have our titles changed from Officer to Advisor. Has anyone had any similiar experience? How did your role change? Was it a positive move? Pros & Cons ??? Any comments would be highly appreciated. Sam

Posted By Telfie To Be Honest i moved from officer to adviser this year...to me nothing has changed, i still do the same type work just as i did before the change Telfie

Posted By Robert. What, exactly is an "Officer"? Is it a derivative from one of those sixties civil service type titles and Advisor You hear of financial advisors, advising their best deals etc, but you don't have to listen to them. they don't make things happen unless you want them to! Now, "Safety Manager", there's a nice name.An all encompasing authoritative and respected role, seen as the knowledgable, pragmatic person with sense, reason and sympathy.

Posted By Linda Westrupp We were called Officers and now called Advisers - job not changed, except that it clarified our role as advisory not enforcement, often a problem in Local Authority. The only title I insist on NOT having is Health and Safety Manager, as then everyone thinks you are going to do the line managers/senior managers jobs for them and manage all of H&S i.e. they no longer have any responsibility for it!! Linda p.s. probably pedantic but I also insist on the english spelling of adviser rather than the american advisor but both spellings are listed in the COD as acceptable in modern usage

Posted By RonnieS Worth a debate at least

Posted By Crim When arriving on site how does a Designer introduce himself? How does the Architect introduce himself? How does the Client introduce himself? They do not say they are Officers or Managers or Chartered anything - just what they are! The problem here is we as H & S people have to "tag" something on the end otherwise we could just be known as the "Health and safety".

Posted By Aidan Toner Intro has to made, Dirty Harry like, with - 'I,m the Safety OFFICER-Go ahead make my day punk!!' If we have a sterotype why not use it??

Posted By Ken Taylor This is a re-run of a debate held here (and in other places) many times before. The job title should depend upon the job description and is a matter for the employer to determine. Personally, I have not wanted to be seen as merely to dish out advice - which can be ignored if the recipients wish; or to be there to manage the employer's health and safety duties; so 'officer' has been sufficient to describe a role that includes a wide range of H&S work from advice to training, monitoring, inspecting and enforcement. Do we want to convert the clerical officer to a clerical adviser, the admin officer to an admin adviser, the finance officer to a finance adviser, etc? What about redesignating the occupational hygienist as the OH adviser, the nurse as a nursing adviser, the doctor as a medical adviser? Has 'Adviser' become the latest PC title?

Posted By Robert. As safety manager,I have first hand experience of an external adviser believing that he was competent in a particular field then started to question and advise one of our field operatives. I got the impression that because he was employed by a very, very large company as their safety adviser he thought he could throw his weight around but only at the ground troops. The advice he gave based on his perceived level of risk was badly flawed and imported a greater level of risk. The operative ignored him and reported back to his manager. I challenged the adviser, in a most diplomatic manner, and that was when I found out that that he had neither the skill or knowledge to advise (safety)in that particular field. I nearly got an apology! In our company I manage the general safety and also advise the group managers who advise and manage their safety in accordance with our company adopted procedures. I accept that as the general safety manager I do have limitations in certain fields of expertise and that I must trust the others who are competent and trained in their own field to assess and manage relative areas of risk and identify hazards.The managers and staff do involve me if there are changes to the routine and when there's something they're not sure about. When it comes to the sharp end I believe that an adviser, will have a very good, if not excellent, knowledge of legislation, and also knowledge in a particular field but, overall, cannot advise in all fields of safety as some believe they can, but won't accept it. Not a rant, but my point of view. Not all advisers can manage.

Posted By DaveW Hello Sam, My role has always been officially described as "Advisor", this; since 1997. That designation was decided upon back then, rather than "Officer" because The Company Health and Safety Committee recognised that the term "Officer" could be viewed by some employees as more combative than "Advisor". In 1997, the company that I work for was very keen to create that "Good H&S Culture" within the organisation. The role of "Advisor" seemed to be potentially more employee freindly that "Officer". The Positives: Employees, Managers and Supervisors alike have the sense that I am there to help them rather than to impose upon them and respond more positively as a result of this. My job is to advise and to assist. This; from the newest of employees to the company Managing Directors. My authority does not extend beyond that authorised by Company Managing Directors and often at a very incident or item specific level. Whilst I make appropriate recommendations to the MD's and offer "Advice"; authority to endorse and implement those recommendations remains, essentially, with the company Managintg Directors. It is after all; their company. Negatives: The title of "Advisor" tends to carry less authority though in an organisation that has a good H&S Culture; authoritarianism is rarely required. I still perform those functions as described by RonnieS and find no loss of effectiveness in performing those functions subseqent to my role as "Advisor" rather than "Officer".

Posted By DaveW That's the problem with our definitions TBC. For example, My title is Advisor (Adviser) But: I give advice and make recommendations at all levels within the company. I pursue advice and recommendations at all levels within the company. I encourage compliance at all levels within the company. When authorisation is given by MD's I enforce compliance. Occasionally I have to defer to MD's decisions regardless that they may be contrary to my best advice, I still continue to pursue those issues though. I have a moral and legal obligation to do this simply by merit of the knowledge that I have in just the same manner that a Joe Bloggs operating a machine would have those personal moral and legal obligations given that same knowledge. There's no dimminishing of responsibility as an advisor. The only time that anyone's head is on a block is when they don't do their job properly, regardless of job title.

Posted By TBC Agree with what you say Dave, but we often take on more than we should in our job description and our bosses do take advantage. I would say that you should not be an 'enforcer', that is down to the MD and his managers - I know easier said and done. This is where the MDs and others take advantage and we are often too eager to get on with it and see it through.

Posted By RonnieS Don't see the benifit on taking on more responsibilty if the pay doesn't match the workload

Posted By DaveW As either officer, manager or advisor, from my perspective, it's a case of "accepting" responsibility that exists rather than "taking on" responsibility. My "responsibility" it to promote the health and safety welfare of individuals at whatever level and by whatever neccessary appropriate means. If I feel that I'm not paid enough for that service then that is an issue between myself and the company MD's. It isn't an issue that should cause me to neglect a personal and proffessional moral and legal duty towards individuals. Of course; the circumstances and terms of employment for others may be different to my own but as qualified and competent proffessionals, surely, we will always have that responsibilty to instigate improvements in OSH facilities and to continue in advising and promoting, as appropriate, where we can't instigate those improvements.

Posted By DaveW I'm not suggesting that we carry full responsibility, I'm saying that we have "A Responsibility". I'm also suggesting that someone elses failure to meet their responsibility does not reduce or eliminate our own personal responsibility. Within the company that I work for, instruction with regard to personal responsibilities at all levels has always been integral to Training at all levels. Everyone understands that the "it's not my problem" perspective is unacceptible. If there's a problem, then that problem is, at least in part, a problem for everyone that is aware of it and equally, in part a responsibility for everyone that is aware of it. Failure to recognise and accept such moral and legal obligations and responsibilities, by individuals that know better (via training etc.) and especially in the event of that problem resulting in incident or accident, can very easily be translated as negligence.

Posted By Linda Westrupp Well done for re-negotiating! However, though this may be possible in private industry it is highly unlikely to be possible in public sector. I have been looking at some of the job descriptions attached to job adverts on-line and have come to the conclusion that the job title seems to have very little to do with the duties and responsibilities. Job descriptions which have very similar (and in some cases almost identical) JDs are variously titled 'Adviser', 'Officer', 'Manager' and even 'Co-ordinator'. There are some where 'Manager' is a very different role, but even here some are called 'Manager', some 'Service Manager' and some 'Team Manager'. So this debate, which has appeared on several occasions, is likely to continue appearing, one of the reasons for the title to be a searchable field on SHP4Jobs is a bit meaningless.

Posted By Tony Duff The legal duties with regards to the difference between an office and advisor are significant. As an 'advisor' you have taken the role of the nominated competent person and be careful, you 'advise' on areas of concern at your peril ie. make sure that it is within your area of expertise. An officer is a hands on role, inspecting and monitoring working practices and does not require a professional qualification. Job titles don't matter too much it's the role that counts....what do your D&R within your H&S management system say?

Posted By DaveW .....dependant upon job description detail in Contract of Employment of course. Amusingly; I received a new copy of my contract this morning. An office oversight has resulted in my description now being changed from "Advisor" to "Manager" on schedule 1, I'm later referred to as an "Advisor" in the section detailing managerial control procedures and as an "Officer" in the section within the contract dealing with employees resonsibilities. .... so, as from today I'm an Advisor, a Manager and an Officer all at the same time. Also amusingly; my duties haven't changed at all. What a strange life.

Posted By DaveW That would be nice wouldn't it.... .....but I'm not.

Posted By John Tidyman I would like to add something else into this debate between advisor and officer. On a recent course I did the instructor pointed out a fact that when starting off in health and safety you would be better off trying for a position as an advisor. The reason he gave was that the courts would view a H&S advisor as an advisor, but a H&S officer could be viewed as a directing mind in the eyes of the court, with the obvious implications that could hold. Look forward to reading your views on that statement. John