As someone not directly involved in day-to-day safety management, I wondered how much room there is for 'common sense' in your decision making process. I compare it to being a football referee in so far as rules and regs are laid out and carried out by the referee - everyone knows that some decisions are ludicrous but the referee carries them out because he is responsible for upholding those laws (no matter if they are outdated) and could be potentially punished for failing to do so. Speak to anyone watching the game and they will consider a referee good if they allow the game/job to run freely without interfering too much or being too picky, but getting the big decisions correct. Just a little bored, and as an outsider looking in I wondered if this was an unfair analogy? So in the H&S world is there room for you to turn a blind eye to allow the job to get done or do you consider the need to follow everything strictly by the book?

Hi Grim, Interesting question - and I suspect you will get a different answer from everyone. My answer would be that it all depends on the risk, and alternative ways round the issue. The law is often not prescriptive about the way things should be done, just that should be done safely - it is individual safety advisors opinions and company policies that decide how to do it. Once it is in a policy it should only be changed with the consent or involvement of all the right people. E.g. The law says that all floors should be free of holes and slopes. Now try imagining a 60 location company spread around the country and trying to keep the warehouse yard completely flat and pothole free all the time. So whilst my overall aim would be to get the yard sorted, I would put a cone (traffic not ice cream) on the hole to force people away. I wouldn't turn a blind eye, but I may let minor technicalties slip if there were more important matters at hand (i.e. not cloud the issue). Did I just waffle or answer the question?

Hi Grim, I can see your point on the analogy but the thought of making ludicrus decisions merely to uphold a law doesn't quite ring true. The laws themselves are usually based on sound principles and a history incidents (often fatalities or serious illnesses) that can be prevented. It is usually the attitudes and behaviours of organisations (and their staff) that decide how they interpret the laws and implement strategies on how to comply. These strategies may be ludicrous, but that does not mean that the law they are trying to comply with is. I have come across control measures that are over the top for the risk involved but which have been implemented by management as it was seen to be the easy option. This would be like a ref stopping play for every tackle, in case one of them was a foul.