Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Learned friends I wanted to canvass opinion on furloughing Safety Professionals during the current COVID 19 epidemic As i am sure most of you are in the same or similar position and as a safety professional this is one of the busiest and stressful times i have ever ancountered in our trade. I am aware of a company that is furloughing its "only" safety professional while all works are still being completed on the front line including "Construction" without going into great detail he is obviously the one dealing directly with clients and visiting the odd site to make sure the relevant measures are in place and speaking with front line workers and managers who are working on essential front line works where COVID 19 is a major concern. He is the one that all levels of staff come too and creates all procedures and policies and ensures they are suitable, sufficient and working. Bearing in mind the above ....................
What is your opinons overall on furloughing safety professional in companies that are still working ? Has furloughing happened to other fellow professionals you know of ? Do you think the company and its directors are leaving themselves in a very vulnerable postion ? What doea it say about a companies committment to safety when this happens ? Thanks in advance and look forward to as much input as possible please Kind Regards Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Companies are not obliged to employ a "safety professional" just as they are not obliged to employ an accountant, tax expert, lawyer etc.. Regarding construction or any industry (other than consultancy) safety is always a cost not a revenue stream.
In the current situation where a firm is trying to assure and maximise cash flow unless the Safety Professional is also on the tools or similar contributing to the bottom line it does make sense they may be furloughed (which from their personal perspective is better than being dismissed or made redundant).
I would be more concerned of those firms that use the current situation as a back door to permanent staff reductions. Furloughing shows the company is committed to H&S as they are trying to retain the employees future services under difficult circumstances.
The problem with furlough is psychologically it is akin to notice of redundancy - the realisation their service is not as critical to the success of the organisation as they presume themself to be.
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
spud on 17/04/2020(UTC), spud on 17/04/2020(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Companies are not obliged to employ a "safety professional" just as they are not obliged to employ an accountant, tax expert, lawyer etc.. Regarding construction or any industry (other than consultancy) safety is always a cost not a revenue stream.
In the current situation where a firm is trying to assure and maximise cash flow unless the Safety Professional is also on the tools or similar contributing to the bottom line it does make sense they may be furloughed (which from their personal perspective is better than being dismissed or made redundant).
I would be more concerned of those firms that use the current situation as a back door to permanent staff reductions. Furloughing shows the company is committed to H&S as they are trying to retain the employees future services under difficult circumstances.
The problem with furlough is psychologically it is akin to notice of redundancy - the realisation their service is not as critical to the success of the organisation as they presume themself to be.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
spud on 17/04/2020(UTC), spud on 17/04/2020(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have no problem with this as long as it is understood that he not working. If they expect them to provide the usual H&S advice etc he should only be providing the 80% he is being paid for. So you do the risk assessment and identify risk etc but don’t fill in the bit where you actually tell people what they need to do.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for reply but a couple of points if I may I understand your stance up to a point and maybe even more if it is a company with many safety professionals/competent people or a consultant but to me if its an company internal safety professional (if only one at the company) its slightly if not much different.
For instance firstly its my understanding and the same as if a PQQ is completed one of the questions you ask is "Where do you get your competent safety advice" It was always my understanding it was a pivotal and legislative requirement through The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) which require an employer to appoint one or more competent people to help them implement the measures they need to take to comply with the legal requirements. So if that person is the only competent person within that business then surely that is relevant in this ? Secondly our work in my humble opinion is often the only defence that Director will have if that man has been needed before and all works are continuing along with the extra COVID 19 issues and busier than ever then why wouldnt he be needed now ? Surely that would be a "Reasonable Practicability" question if in front of the man with a curly wig!! and surely he would ask if your competent safety man was important before why isnt he now, especially in the current climate ? Maybe I look at this the wrong way but if I am a director the safety man if only competent person at the company would be the last person i would furlough as he is the one possibly going to keep me out of Prison So really thats why in the grand scheme of things i think furloughing a safety professional in the above circumstance does not show satisfactory commitment to safety, just my thoughts but always open to debate Alan Originally Posted by: Roundtuit 
Companies are not obliged to employ a "safety professional" just as they are not obliged to employ an accountant, tax expert, lawyer etc.. Regarding construction or any industry (other than consultancy) safety is always a cost not a revenue stream.
In the current situation where a firm is trying to assure and maximise cash flow unless the Safety Professional is also on the tools or similar contributing to the bottom line it does make sense they may be furloughed (which from their personal perspective is better than being dismissed or made redundant).
I would be more concerned of those firms that use the current situation as a back door to permanent staff reductions. Furloughing shows the company is committed to H&S as they are trying to retain the employees future services under difficult circumstances.
The problem with furlough is psychologically it is akin to notice of redundancy - the realisation their service is not as critical to the success of the organisation as they presume themself to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi my friend, thanks for feedback but thats the whole point of why they shouldnt furlough you are not allowed to do anything, not take a phone call or write an email nothing to do with company work.
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel
I have no problem with this as long as it is understood that he not working. If they expect them to provide the usual H&S advice etc he should only be providing the 80% he is being paid for. So you do the risk assessment and identify risk etc but don’t fill in the bit where you actually tell people what they need to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Absolutely, furlough means no work for or on behalf of the employer, no calls, no quick RA updates, nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
appointing and employing are two distinct activities
Nothing in legislation dictates a safety professional must be employed as it is down to the employers assessment as to what suits their needs otherwise (and I have said this in a similar post) we would have small enterprises in breach of the law due to being unable to afford a direct employee along with a lot of unemployed safety consultants. http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t129819-Coronavirus-Furlough
A PQQ is not a regulated document and the question you refer to merely seeks to clarify who is providing advice to the firm providing tender. As many involved in completing such documents have found so long as something is written in the space it generally gets the tick and it is a cold day in hell if anybody actually verifes any answers. Often for smaller firms this "competence" is drawn from consultants not employees. Furloughing under the UK governments scheme (as currently published) is in blocks of a minimum duration of three weeks - if your safety man is on vacation for a fortnights holiday the firm could be without advice for a similar duration. Break a major bone and they could be out for two furlough periods or longer.
If they have been effective in their role then the rest of the business should be capable of continuing to work by following implemented procedures without daily interference. BUT when on furlough they must not be contacted for purposes of work (advice, site visits, completing PQQ's). Edited by user 17 April 2020 16:11:24(UTC)
| Reason: added link
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
spud on 17/04/2020(UTC), spud on 17/04/2020(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
appointing and employing are two distinct activities
Nothing in legislation dictates a safety professional must be employed as it is down to the employers assessment as to what suits their needs otherwise (and I have said this in a similar post) we would have small enterprises in breach of the law due to being unable to afford a direct employee along with a lot of unemployed safety consultants. http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t129819-Coronavirus-Furlough
A PQQ is not a regulated document and the question you refer to merely seeks to clarify who is providing advice to the firm providing tender. As many involved in completing such documents have found so long as something is written in the space it generally gets the tick and it is a cold day in hell if anybody actually verifes any answers. Often for smaller firms this "competence" is drawn from consultants not employees. Furloughing under the UK governments scheme (as currently published) is in blocks of a minimum duration of three weeks - if your safety man is on vacation for a fortnights holiday the firm could be without advice for a similar duration. Break a major bone and they could be out for two furlough periods or longer.
If they have been effective in their role then the rest of the business should be capable of continuing to work by following implemented procedures without daily interference. BUT when on furlough they must not be contacted for purposes of work (advice, site visits, completing PQQ's). Edited by user 17 April 2020 16:11:24(UTC)
| Reason: added link
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
spud on 17/04/2020(UTC), spud on 17/04/2020(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Alan - not clear whether you are that furloughed safety professional or writing about someone else. My immediate comments are that: 1. The health and safety professional shouldn't usually be the one who talks to the client. 2. They also shouldn't be the one who keeps the Director out of court. If the health and safety professional is doing an effective job (whether employed or an external adviser) AND works within an environment where H&S is managed as an integral part of the management function, then the organisation should have the right policies and procedures in place + appropriately trained and competent people to get along nicely. Then the role of that H&S professional starts to become one of advising on more complex issues, to enable MANAGERS decide what to do.
Fully understand that many organisations have not reached that level of maturity and might be over-reliant on the health and safety professional doing things that should be done by others. But ultimately the H&S professional is not the expert on what happens at the front line and until those who are at the front line are effectively involved in risk assessent and mitigation, nothing is likely to work as well as the law requires. So, is it OK for the single H&S professional to be furloughed for a relatively short time. Probably - as already pointed out, presumably they occasionally go off on holiday (and hopefully avoid the temptations to respond to emails then). All assumes that H&S responsibilites are appropriately allocated. ...and should that furloughed person be dealing with enquiries during furlough? NO. If the organisation can't cope without them, then they shouldn't have furloughed them in the first place. A case of doing a proper assessment of what resources are needed during a time of difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel I have no problem with this as long as it is understood that he not working. If they expect them to provide the usual H&S advice etc he should only be providing the 80% he is being paid for. So you do the risk assessment and identify risk etc but don’t fill in the bit where you actually tell people what they need to do.
If furloughed the employee is not allowed to do ANY work for the employerat all, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.