Rank: Forum user 
|
I work for a Government Department (I won't say which one!) as a H & S adviser, that has recently appointed a new Chief Executive. It's becoming clear, in the face of the impending public service cuts, that the new Head believes that what we currently do is overkill, and he wants to strip back to only dealing with the minimum statutory requirements.
It's likely that either myself or my colleague (the Fire and Security Adviser) will lose our jobs and one person will be expected to perform all of the duties these roles entail.
Would be interested to hear from others who have been in a similar position and how they have tackled this? We are fast approaching a consultation period, where we will no doubt have to sell ourselves and our worth to the organisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I'm glad to say that I'm not in a similar position (at the moment), but do work in the HE Sector which is also being hit my Government spending cuts. So far, aside from cuts to the non-pay elements of our safety budget, the institution's pay savings have been achieved (for this financial year) through Voluntary Redundancies.
We fight on a daily basis to convince senior management to achieve only the minimum statutory requirements, and a recent prosecution by the HSE has demonstrated this; best practice being only a pipe-dream.
Anyway, the way I'd approach your situation is to establish exactly what the statutory minimum requirements are in relation to your organisation, and state what it is you/your team are doing in contributing to this; and then how not doing them could impact (financially and in other ways) the organisation and its senior managers. Some other organisations I have worked for have expended additional resources over and above statutory minimum requirements simply because they over-estimated the risk. Is this the case in your organisation?
I do find (here especially though lack of understanding) that the mere mention of Corporate Manslaughter to senior management is enough to prick their conscience, even though the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter has existed for some time.
I hope this is of some assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry to hear it but its happening all the time
Firstly talk money, then talk money, and then talk money and so on - explain how proper H&S + fire management saves and even makes money [it should do!]. Forget moral duties as on the whole people do not care and highlight the recent manslaughter judgement and his very personal and real exposure as its only U that act on his behalf
Best of luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bob,
It sounds like you should have marked one of the OA questions. Some more of may have passed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There will be many more redundancies of this nature in the coming months. My authority is looking to combine with several others and save money by reducing officer posts this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apart from all else, Prove that what is in place is not overkill.
You have sell the economic benefits; improved practicable safety leads on to improved performance and quality. If you remove the practical safety side then you reduce quality and performance. Safety is financially beneficial when applied correctly. You know your situation, plan how you can prove that practical safety actually saves and makes money. Show how you are protecting him from prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Ian
The propositions about 'money', quality and performance as dimensions of safety concern how your work is a vital part of creating value in your organisation.
To the extent that you have been conducting regular surveys that reveal how managers do actively value your contributions, you already have the necessary evidence. If you haven't regularly gathered survey data to support an argument about value, it's time to start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I can sympathise with your position, as I too work for a 'Government Department' and know what you are experiencing. It is a difficult position to be in as 'Money' is not the driving force in Departments it is in private industry (Civil claims or fines for example are not funded through your own budget, so don't have the same impact) and so it is a more complex issue trying to convince people to do any more than the minimum necessary.
An angle I sometimes use is to mention that good H&S is a 'Career management' tool. i.e. it can save the person not wanting to invest in H&S !You have to find the 'motivator' when money is not the main concern and it's different for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Wizpete observes that
'You have 'to find the 'motivator' when money is not the main concern and it's different for everyone.
Within the constraints of what is reasonably practicable, a repertory grid is a tool - invented in 1955 - for measuring what individuals indicate motivates them. By gathering data validly with repertory grids, you can then identify what motivations people share and how they differ according to roles and work situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
IanF, I can't help but think that, if your particular part of the workforce is being cut by 50%, you'll have to scale down what you do anyhow.
Of course, if you do get the Chief Exec to deconstruct what's probably a longheld belief that H&S is just a necessary evil, then great. You keep you and your colleague in work and continue to do the utmost.
Either way, that word 'reasonably' is the one that has to guide you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.