Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By TonyB
All,
We should all know that their are 3 main drivers for Health and Safety improvements, namely legal, moral and finicial.
Question:
In your opinion, which of the 3 IS the main driver and why?
For this question please don't give a theoretical or academic answer. We should all know that all three are important and the why, but are they truely equal?
Let the debate start.
(IMHO there is no right or wrong answer and all views should be respected)
TonyB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
OK Tony - in my view it is the moral reason.
Why? - if we get the safety culture right, we have a happy safe workforce - lower accident rates and better for tender.
Companies will employ us for our good safety practice and low accident rates so sorts the "financial" side.
And legislation cant touch us cos we ain't breaking the law.
Sorted! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Toe
A good question. I think the answer depends on your position within an organisation to what you perceive as being the most important.
If we buy into the theory that safety has to be driven from the top, directors and senior management then we may think that what drives them is the most important driver. This I believe is the financial aspect of the three.
However, if a worker is injured this certainly effects the moral of the workforce irrespective of the legal implications, which can change their perception of risks. Having said this DH has a very good point and a viewpoint that I hadn't considered before.
I do-not thing think the legal reason is a main driver because most people/Managers do not know all of the laws/regulations and the implication of failing to comply with them. As a safety practitioner when I explain to Managers that they could go to jail if they fail to comply they do not really listen, I have however found that when I show relevant photocopied articles from the practitioner magazines of prosecutions, the reality slowly sinks in.
Sorry for not quite answering the question, but are my views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
This depends where you sit in the organisation. If you are the Boss it is simply financial as that affects your bottom line, followed by legal because that can result in you being procecuted for any breach and thirdly moral because you don't want to lose any of your staff. Quite sinical I know but just a fact of life. Then there is the safety professional view, moral because it would show badly on the arrangements etc if anyone was seriously injured followed by legal because any briech would reflect badly upon you and thirdly financial because the cost is a company thing. Then there is the employee or his union sfaety rep, this is moral first, followed by complyiong with the law because it is the boss who has to ensure he complies or our members would be at risk followed by financial as if the company was to lose that much money it may close down or go bust. But the important thing is they all have equal standing as far as a safety professional stands as all are very important to the well being of both company and employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By justgossip
I think I might opt for the legal, if the other two worked then we would not have all this on going euro legislation.
I do it because the law says I must, I do a few things over and above the law IF I percieve a benifit but that is fairly random and selective.
Moral I am very dubious about that one as it always seems to me that it is used if it fits.
Most people do not care.
Finance, only if you pay the bills out your own wallet.
garry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Swis
I think it will have to be financial and legal equally. I’ll put the morality at the lowest scale. Business are more concerned about accident losses, legal claims, legal notices etc. Although, employers are not aware of all the legislations but they do know and know it very well that breaches of H&S can lead to severe penalties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Y
For me personally - Moral
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
It all rests with the person at the top; as if they are decent they will consider all factors and try to fir them in. However others will only look at £ irrespective of all else
In the same and identical work industry, company size etc I know of one boss who has showers on top of all the other things he does for his staff and another who laughs at the suggestion that the lads should have a toilet [doubt me knot!] and this is 2009!
He says that staff should use public facilities and classes such activities as 'not on paid time' activities; and this attitude prevailed before the recent down turn!. Can you imagine what such a person would have been like to work for in the 1900's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter F.
Bob Shillabeer,
a very narrow minded attitude that if you are a boss it's financial, legal and moral. maybe there are some who realise that if you take the moral stance first then the other two are less of a problem, no accident, no claims, no financial costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gannaway
I would say moral, although many senior managers may reject the humanitarian approach as it doesn't fit well with their self image of basing decisions based on hard nosed financial factors. In reality, making the financial arguement persuasive is difficult given the likliehood of a significant incident, set against the increasing cost of equipment /training. The number of succesful prosecutions set against the number of unsafe activities even in the best of firms, again makes the likliehood of prosecution a risk so low that in terms of business risk, the legal aspect alone is not an deqaute driver. So we are left with the moral argument, essentially organisations, generally, feel a duty to look after their staff, because it is the right thing to do. As with many things in business decion making, sometimes decisons are taken for non business reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jde
A very good question. Imho I believe it is a combination of financial and legal.Unfortunately in the world in which we live and work, the moral standpoint really doesn't front up. Most employers look to the bottom line so it is the costs that drive or hinder.From the legal perspective, I believe the recent changes in legislation has started to focus line management's attention to the real prospect of being prosecuted as individuals and hence more attention is being placed on compliance.It is my experience that many employers are loathe to fully implement occupational health management on cost grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Liesel
Well, in my experience in a past life, "financial" was a major driver. Of course "legal" fed into that, because dealing with formal enforcement action tends to cost money in fines and extra resources to comply with notices. But then I did deal with smaller oufits where it was really about bottom line. That said, once you got established, you could often promote the wider benefits, but if you didn't offer "value for money" first off, you wouldn't get any further. Can be different in larger organisations of course, especially where public image/brand is a factor.
Just my personal opinion tho, and I also have to add that in my current job I do come across many staff who are very much driven on the moral level to make sure their staff go home alive and in good shape at the end of every working day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
I think they are all equal and not divisible. Why? Because any of them can be the primary driver dependent on the organisational culture, the sector in which the business operates, individual experiences and recent history. The most important can change as an organisation develops. Thus, it is of no use attempting to specify which is more important than the next.
What is true today may not be true tomorrow.
I would guess that for many businesses over the coming months it will be a case of the legal minimum? Now is that a moral position or an economic one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By al wood
speaking from my own personal experiences;
if the person at the top (i.e. the M.D.) is swithched on with regards to H&S management he / she will drive the safety culture within that organisation and this will make the H&S professionals job that bit easier, and much more enjoyable/rewarding.
however, if the person at the top views H&S as an obstacle or an unecessary burden then the H&S professional will struggle to develop the necessary H&S culture, and you will start to feel like your banging your head against the wall, when that happens start looking for alternative employment!
regards
Al W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Been exactly there, did exactly that! Spot on, Al.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Tony
In my opinion the main driver for improvements is likely to be a legal compliance with morality a very poor second. Not sure how finance is associated with improvements as finance normally impinges on safety.
Turning the question on its head. I believe there are three main reasons why good health and safety practices are ignored; to save time, money or effort and of course they are not mutually exclusive.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AHS
Im afraid my experience is fear of litigation and prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By justgossip
Can you seperate moral and legal.
Did society not look at its morals and then draft the outcome into H&S law. Hence anything above legal compliance might not be moral, it might be charity, or something like that.
So you could use moral or legal aa the motivator and end up in exactly the same place
just a thought
garry
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.