Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Frank Penny
Hi folks!
In the course of university life my fellow students and I often discuss ways that we would improve the appalling H&S stats that we see in the construction industry.
From my on site experience of construction projects it appears that quite often the key stakeholders in projects ie client & designers (as project originators) use the mechanisms of CDM to provide a paper chase by which they can abrogate their responsibilities to subordinate levels in the contractual chain.
Where cost is a key issue on a keenly priced project H&S is not given the detailed attention that it should be.
One of the solutions that I feel would help relieve the pressure on the site manager to supervise H&S is to appoint a new breed of permanant / semi perm Clerks of Works with a specific responsibility for advising on & ensuring that construction processes are carried out in the safest manner possible.
Who pays for this? The client, as project originator must take ultimate responsibility!
What do you think folks, would it work? if not why not? What are the alternatives?
I realise that along with this solution there other proactive measures can be taken, changing the attitude and culture through education at site and board room level is essential.
Good night all
Frank Penny
Look forward to reading your opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Whatever attempted abrogation takes place, the Principal Contractor cannot escape the duties imposed by the CDM Regs. It is certainly sensible for him/her to appoint competent people to see that things go safely and properly on site - irrespective of the post title given. Whilst the Client ultimately 'picks up the tab' anyway, I can only see a direct appointment as a dangerous legal situation for both the Client and the Principal Contractor. There is, however, value in Clients with a continuing construction involvement appointing a 'Clerk of Works' type person to represent the Client's interest, liaise with the design team and various parties and monitor the Principal Contractor's performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Penny
Thanks for the insight Ken.
I hadn't thought about the contractual implications, I am sure the QS's and the legal beagles would be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of some fat fees sorting that one out, maybe it would have to be a joint appointment with powers to advise either or both parties of breaches of safety code.
I have a sneaky feeling that government might try to introduce something like this in the near future. I think they will be looking to have a sum set aside as % of the tender cost, to pay for this CoW type person.
Michael Meacher touched upon it in his address to The Construction Safety Summit last month
As government is the largest single procurer of construction works, (33% of industry,£20 billion next financial year), they really should lead by example in the allocation of these sums and appointments of the advisors.
I do stll feel that clients and designers see safety as a problem for the contractor solely, to address once the programme is underway.
In the light of recent promises of more stringent and rigorous prosecution of senior parties to contracts, the appointment of the CofW type safety advisor would safe guard the interest of all stake holders, the appointment of an impartial professional advisor can only be of benefit to the project as a whole. As you are probably aware M&S strive for Zero accidents on all of their works, the closer they get to that the more efficient their projects are becoming. As I understand it M&S have a safety advisor on site every day on major works, with the authority to insist on safer procedures being carried out.
regards
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
About 4 years ago I worked some night shifts on one of their sites. Unless it has changed in that time you need to take what is said and what is done with a pinch of salt.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graham Kearsley
Frank,
Great idea. The big fall down would be paying for the extra person.
Just as a matter of interest, do you have a copy of the CDM amendments? I can't seem to be able to track them down. If you do can you let me know how to get old of them.
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
There will never be a single magic wand solution to safety in the construction or any other industry. Safety has to be a priority for all the players in a construction site from the client down to the most junior operative.
Clearly the client can dictate many of the plays by asking difficult questions of the subcontractors at tender and then backing it up by insisting on safe practices at the construction phase. Subcontractors can refuse to compromise safety to achieve a lower price for their work. Operatives can refuse to perform unsafe practices. However when the chips are down and the pressure is on to meet time and cost targets taking shortcuts and skimping on checks starts to happen with obvious consequences.
Most firms strive for zero accidents. Unfortunately some talk a better story than others!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Larry Meager
I am sure that there are those amongst us that consider that the terms Safety and Construction are mutually exclusive terms.
I think that you are heading in the right direction when you recognise that the client has a moral and legal obligation to set the terms and on site culture when they direct how the contract is to be drafted. Tight construction timelines by themselves encourage risk taking in the people supervising and carrying out the work.
I have seen high risk construction jobs completed on time, under budget with an impeccable safety record when the client, his/her representative and the contractor have a genuine and real committment to achieving safey excellence.
There are many in the construction industry that see safety is a cost not the real benefit it can really be.
Just as mangement sets the tone for a contracts performance, the nature of the inductry generally attracts transient labour. This in itself precludes many employers from being able to invest effort into ensuring that employees have the time and support to take the time to guard their own welfatre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
Your point re successful high risk jobs goes to show that when management and workforces are properly motivated then there are gains in all directions including H&S.
What is often lacking in management is a poor understanding of all the costs and benefits of safety performance. Things like long term insurance claims are frequently written off to overheads or even worse 'it will never happen here'! Some fault lies with the lack of attention paid to this by management professionals as opposed to H&S professionals and the poor focus on this at business schools. I completed my MBA in the last four years so am well able to comment on this subject.
Having said that my dissertation was on a health and safety theme so it had to stand up to the rigours of being criticised from a management perspective as well as being academically sound and making sense from the H&S viewpoint. So it can be done! If H&S was given equal treatment with finance, HR and other management processes then the attitudes of managers may change.
Re the point about transient labour. A basic management process is to select workforces and whether this is by direct recruitment or via labour only subcontractors it can be development and refined to achieve the desired result. So perhaps the desired result is not sound awareness of H&S principles? If so back to the second paragraph!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard
We've tried the CoW approach - it doesn't work. I was in his office complaining about H&S breaches so many times that I was told to stop!!
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.