Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mike Foulds
Driving home last night listening to Radio 2's drive time with Simon Mayo (Chris is on holiday) I was incensed by the interview with a legal firm warning that employers may be in breach of their duty of care if they do not protect their employees from Swine Flu and that employees may have a legal case to sue.
What is the world coming too!
What next, employers in court because someone caught a cold!
I know that everyone can play their part in reducing the chance of passing on or catching swine flu by washing hands, the catch it, bin it, bit but what protection does the employer have from outside influence, like the supermarket, the train, the bus, the kids.
Legal firms should not be allowed to twist the safety at work guidelines to generate income like this.
It would be interesting to see how the first case would be dealt with by the courts.
I can see the list of requirements now, training, risk assessments, welfare, supervision.......
Unless a person is working in an environment where they deal specifically with viruses and special protection can be offered how can an employer be responsible for something so potentially wide spread.
Put the responsibility back on the the individual and stop blaming the employer!
Rant over and I now feel better.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Mike
I know what you mean. I always thought that infections caught incidentally to one's work (catching a cold, or even flu, from a colleague, for example) were not covered; whereas, catching an infection as a direct result of one's work (say, from a needlestick injury) were.
But, then again, I am not a lawyer.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Drum
Funny enough Mike I had our HR Director at me yesterday with the very same warning that appeared in a HR publication dated 20th July.
They wanted to know what additional measures I was taking to prevent the virus spreading. I said I was following NHS and HSE guidance by passing on the good personal hygiene message and informing staff that if they felt they had symptoms they should not come into work. This is a public health issue so I pass on the advice from them. Surely it would be very difficult to pin down source of infection to the workplace - did they use public transport getting to work, stop at supermarket on way home etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Yossarian
Paul,
I can see a scenario where I think "catching an infection as a direct result of one's work" would apply:
Pregnant GP required by practice to treat patients with suspected Swine Flu.
Discuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
I agree, Yossarian
but many, many people will only catch it incidentally.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter F.
I can't see a scenario where you could relate catching the flu directly and only from your work activity for this to happen you would have to be cocooned in the workplace.
People will get the flu or not as the case maybe, from everyday activities.
If it wasn't called swine flu, which incidentally is only another strain of the flu bug, then people would carry on as normal.
The Dr scenario, would be like having hay fever and taking a job in a gardening centre and blaming them because your hayfever is worse.
What do pregnant Dr's do normally when people come in with coughs, flu like symptoms etc. Get on with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I think there could be a scenario where an employer does not follow guidelines and does not send someone home or allows them to come to work and others contract the disease. Employers have a duty of care for their employees and need to take sensible precautions. Those that are pregnant are possibly more vulnerable than some others.
It should be noted that I have always advocated that sick staff with colds etc should not remain at work and infect anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Fine Ray
then they may catch it from the postman when the letters come through the door :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
god, that makes no sense - please ignore!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter F.
I don't think it can be attributed to one area or activity all companies have to do is what is reasonably practicable. Some areas will be worse than others. I haven't stopped going the gym, walking around the shops as much as I dislike it, getting trains and buses, I'm going for a sauna soon and I am still enjoying going to the pub to watch sports and have a drink. So how can I say for definate that I caught it at work.
I don't think people who are ill should attend work., but at this time of year with hay fever runny noses sniffles, sneezes etc. Colds due to the constant change in temperatures, flu and people swinging the led to try and get out of work it's difficult to to manage and of course the people who don't want to loose the good time keeping bonuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Brown
So Fa As is Reasonably Practicable. Where can I buy a good pair of bulls**t deflectors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Martin
Shame, I was ready to respond if someone should suggest I was talking a load of nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Murdy
I can't see how a company can be liable for flu in the general population.
It's stuff like this that leads to the general outrage about heath and safety controls evident in the media.
We are here to make the workplace safer and stop people getting killed. We can help manage the risks for society, sure, but we and our employers can't be held responsible for every general risk!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charles Robinson Tech IOSH
I agree with many of your comments though it may bring home to employers the need for office space I.e. 11 Cubic meters per person
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Foulds
I was talking to a colleague in the canteen at lunch time, this whole swine flu thing has been beefed up (sorry about that) by the media and now the legal vultures see a way of making cash out of it, why are the government spending so much time and effort on what will be for most be a mild flu, they have created panic.
In our organisation we have had no cases yet and have over 400 staff, we have employees who's partners, kids and loved ones are off with the flu and they have not or still have not shown any symptoms yet.
We have briefed all staff about precautions etc.
What about all the other health issues that will cause far more deaths in the UK, Prostate Cancer, DIY accidents, would time and money not be better spent on these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Ray
I was tryng to make a joke but failed miserably - I did not think that you were talking anything other than good sense as normal. But it raises a point - if people who have a cold are to stay at home rather than infecting others, what of swine flu if the worst case scenario occurs? Presumably someone would have been at work and contagious prior to finding out that they had it. If everyone who works with them has therefore been exposed, should they all stay at home? Is there a business continuity plan which is in place for that?
On another note, the Chinese authorities have some of the strictest controls at the moment to stop the spread of the flu. Looks over the top to me but they have had no recorded deaths. Are we being too lax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Martin
No deaths from swine flu in China! Chinese statistics??? I am not even prepared to believe all our own Government's figures.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Good luck with that outlook
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Lane
Paragraphs 48 and 49 from L5 (fifth edition) explains that 'COSHH covers only those circumstances where risks of exposure are work related and not those where they have no direct connection with the work being done, ...for example one employee catching a respiratory infection from another.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Martin
No offence taken. I gathered that something was amiss...even humour. Seriously, 'sensible precautions' by the employer is what I am advocating ie adhering to government guidelines. I fully appreciate that people can catch swine flu out of work but, once they are identified, then the employer needs to show some vigilance. Particularly with respect to hygiene and hot desking.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Angela Hayden
I heard the broadcast also and the way I heard it was the guy wasn't advocating claims or people staying off work etc., quite the opposite. He did state that employers have a duty to inform staff of the precautions and nothing else. He then went on to state that employees have duty to turn up for work unless there was a very justifiable reason not to.
We too have informed our staff of the precautions - and there is always one or two who exasperate the situation - one request I had from an employee was that it was our duty to supply everyone with antibacterial wipes!!
A person is only contagious whilst they are symptomatic and spreading their germs around via coughing and sneezing etc., There is some good advice on the web sites about it which should put people's mind at ease.
No need to panic yet Mr. Mannering, just be sensible and responsible.
Ang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Would it be different due to circumstance? A bus driver and a person managing a dr's surgery waiting room could have the same exposure to the virus, but would both be sent home if they reported having people nearby coughing and sneezing? What would be sensible precautions based on those circumstances that would not interrupt the service provided?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Angela Hayden
People driving buses and in Dr's surgery wouldn't be sent home just because they have been exposed, they would only be sent home if they became symptomatic themselves. it is advised that people who are symptomatic, should stay at home and not expose themselves to other persons whilst they are - including not going to the surgery. This is the general advice given, but of course there are always excpetions and these should be considered.
Ang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
But what of the situation when you are contagious before you become symptomatic? Surely you would have to look at that possibility if you had been in close contact with someone who had just been diagnosed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
If everyone thought they may be contagious ... how can anyone even start to make a decent diagnosis?
The country would come to a standstill if people decided to stay at home.. just in case?
The situation has to be put into context...most people (IF affected) are likely to recover... some people may have complications... a minority in regards to the population.
The guidelines and information is widely available in order to help employers and individuals with regards to prevention and reporting of suspected symptoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Angela Hayden
When are people most infectious?
People are most infectious to others soon after they develop symptoms, although they continue to shed the virus (for example, in coughs and sneezes) for up to five days (seven days in children). People become less infectious as their symptoms subside, and once their symptoms are gone, they are no longer considered infectious to others.
Above is an exerpt from the NHS website.
You won't be contagious BEFORE you are symptomatic - as soon as you display the symptoms you will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Howden
As one those in society who already has underlying health problems I'm obviously a bit nervous about the possibility of catching it.
I'm taking some extra precautions and hope that everyone else around me is doing the same.
I also hope that those who think that this is only a mild infection remember those of us who are more vulnerable and have lowered immune systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Angela Hayden
I agree with you Bob. Hence, people being responsible and ensuring they stay at home and do not intentionally or unintentionally spread the virus to those whom are vulnerable and potentially those who do not even know they are vulnerable until they have the virus.
So for the sake of Bob and everyone else if you are displaying the symptoms call your GP and stay at home!!!
I don't think there is much more to be said really.
Ang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Angela
the NHS advice does not say that you are not infectious before becoming symptomatic - it says 'most' infectious soon after they develop symptoms. It is carefully worded to be read in such a way that it avoids the issue. Information which contradicts NHS advice from the CDC in the USA:
'With seasonal flu, people may be contagious from one day before they develop symptoms to up to 7 days after they get sick. Children, especially younger children, might potentially be contagious for longer periods. People infected with the novel H1N1 are likely to have similar patterns of infectiousness as with seasonal flu.'
Bob - I am in the same boat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Foulds
Sometimes are you sorry you started something......
The point I originally made was that the employer has limited responsibility for the control of swine flu, yes we can all do our bit and yes I am concerned that some groups are more susceptible to some viruses. But in my mind the interview was clear and gave the impression that it was down to the employer, why did the interview take place with a legal firm? why not a doctor, nurse or some health and safety professional.
Why was the interviewee talking about breach of duty of care, my point was that the work place is only a small part of the chain and our business (a pharmaceutical distribution company) could not manage and keep the service levels going if every one stayed at home with a sniffle, hay fever, cold, or is it swine flu? without a blood test which they are now not doing who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Mike
You know the media, they love bad news and they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Even auntie Beeb is resorting to this type of infotainment these days - I think it must be infectious...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By whitesmar
I'm H&S Officer at a school.
Kids are infectious before they show symptoms, so we've a fat chance of keeping infected ones out. Luckily all the kids and teachers are now enjoying their long break (unfortunately this doesn't apply to support staff) so any new infections are all their own.
Come September, however...
I'd already got the cleaners on a "war footing", giving door handles and bannisters priority.
Both first aid rooms have alcohol gel in them, and I've issued smaller bottles of the stuff to individual First Aiders.
I'm advised by the school nurse that I shouldn't bother buying face masks for the First aiders (though I'm in a bit of a quandrary about this - anyone got any ideas?).
Short of shutting the school, which is currently not advised, what more could we br reaonably expected to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By whitesmar
I'm H&S Officer at a school.
Kids are infectious before they show symptoms, so we've a fat chance of keeping infected ones out. Luckily all the kids and teachers are now enjoying their long break (unfortunately this doesn't apply to support staff) so any new infections are all their own.
Come September, however...
I'd already got the cleaners on a "war footing", giving door handles and bannisters priority.
Both first aid rooms have alcohol gel in them, and I've issued smaller bottles of the stuff to individual First Aiders.
I'm advised by the school nurse that I shouldn't bother buying face masks for the First aiders (though I'm in a bit of a quandrary about this - anyone got any ideas?).
Short of shutting the school, which is currently not advised, what more could we br reaonably expected to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Howden
Whilst I agree that implying that employers have some sort of legal duty is misleading, I do however think that employers need to take this seriously.
If this strain of flu is really as contagious as current evidence appears to be indicating what effect will it have on the business if between 30 to 50% of employees are off at one time, what effect will it have on profits or service delivery?
This might sound mercenary, but for me it's all about 'bums on seats'. It's irrelevant where they get the stress or catch the disease from if they are not at work, being a productive unit. Sick pay and agency fees for short term cover are additional costs we could well do without.
For a small outlay employers can do their bit to minimise the spread of swine flu in the workplace and provide employees with simple advice on how to minimise the risks at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
email trailer for an event:
"Dear Colleague,
"It has been widely reported that employers who fail to adequately protect their staff from swine flu could face lawsuits reaching tens of thousands of pounds. Are you doing enough to prevent infection?
Attend the "
no comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Horrocks
In my humble opinion a vast over reaction by the government and the media.
Afterall the government need to distract the public from their other failings and the media need to fill the hours in 24hr rolling news and fill up their printed pages.
Sure, there are vulnerable groups, but the risks to the general population is minimal.
Drop the 'swine' bit and you have just normal flu. In which case nobody would be particularly interested. The media/ill informed like to raise the risk of the virus mutating to something really nasty that could kill lots. Black Death/Plague anyone?
So 30-ish people have died in the UK - in the meantime how man people have been killed at work for other reasons, driving accidents, long term occupational ill health etc.
No sense of proportion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.