Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Chizzyhse  
#1 Posted : 17 July 2021 08:29:58(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Chizzyhse

No that advanced techonologies and robots are taking over almost all aspect of manufacturing globally, what then is the fate of Occupational Health and Safety personnels now there are less need or space for human workforce in industries ?.

peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 17 July 2021 10:41:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Chizzy

It has been a feature of technological development over many centuries that people have predicted doom and gloom in terms of employment prospects (for many disciplines).

But that doom and gloom has repeatedly failed to materialise and actually the demand for specialist skills and knowledge has continued to expand.

The need for occupational health and safety professionals is likely to be inversely proportionate to the competence of an organisation in preventing occupational ill health and injuries.

So, if all the workforce are upskilled in health and safety from Board level down to the shopfloor, then you should need less occupational health and safety professionals, but new challenges always turn up to mean that line managers are rarely up to date.

Now, I wrote "occupational ill health" before "injuries" as where the stats are recorded we know that the negative impacts of not effectively managing health and safety are MUCH more in terms of the personal and socio-economic costs of ill health than on accidents.

One of the issues that follows is where those costs fall in terms of the relationship between e.g. Governments and the organisations who create the risks and the subsequent costs.

If the organisations do not have to pay a proportionate amount of the costs of occupational ill health, then they may not adequately focus on the occupational health risks, leaving it to Governments, heathcare agencies and individuals to bear the burden of the costs.

In turn that means that the demand for occupational health and safety professionals may depend signficantly on the regulatory regime in any geography along with "stakeholder" influences e.g. the attitude of shareholders, customers and others.

For example, if a UK purchaser of clothes from a supplier in a developing nation says that it will not tolerate workers being exposed to high levels of respirable and inhalable levels of cotton dust, then a manufacturer in a developing nation may be under much greater pressure to manage risks, which might not result in ill health until months, years or decades after their worker has left their employment. 

In turn that UK purchaser's decisions may be impacted by the attitudes of its customers. I can choose not to buy from suppliers who do not influence better workplace standards and increasingly consumers do precisely this.

CptBeaky  
#3 Posted : 19 July 2021 07:35:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Someone has to maintain the robots....

chris.packham  
#4 Posted : 19 July 2021 09:02:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

There will always be some form of interaction between equipment and persons. Some of it will be planned, some unplanned, i.e. the unexpected problem. The health and safety person/team can work with the company to ensure that the planned interaction is as safe as it can be made (and this will include the potential for health issues). Much more difficult is to plan for the unplanned! With safety, trying to assess the potential for the unexpected will be difficult enough. Now consider trying to plan for the unknown health effect of a new chemical process, or biological hazard (think SARS-CoV-2!) where the hazards of the chemical(s) or micro-organisms will vary during use/presence and where the consequences may not become apparent (or even known about) for some considerable time, possibly years. As Prof. Brian Cox has written: ‘In science, there are no universal truths, just views of the world that have yet to be shown to be false.’  In my own field I am frequently having to amend my views/position as new information comes to light about how the skin (and the body) interacts with a chemical composition. I still have reservations about the extent to which AI will be able to replace the human ability to react to totally unexpected situations and the unpredictability of human reactions, both physical and emotive, to new situations. So I think that there will be a need for a human presence in the health and safety field for many years to come.

A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 19 July 2021 09:45:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Robots have existing in manufacturing for nearly 50 years. From the H&S point of view the idea has been to isolate the robots from the people but now we are looking at COBOTS- collaborative robots. Theses are machine that interact directly with people and work along side them.  What we will need to do is work out how this can been done safely. This will probably be achieved by both looking at how we design the machines but also how we train people to work with the machines. This will not just be something in manufacturing but will affect all workplaces. There is also, the psychological issue of work with and to an extent for machines. New types of stress etc will emerge, I am pretty certain.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.