Our assessments have tracked government guidance ergo as the governments roll back restrictions so too these have been removed in our workplaces.

The one carry over is that anyone who chooses can continue to use face coverings.

As to maintaining the plethora of burdens it was never going to be financially justified as a business case to permanently implement one way systems, increase factory and office space or construct additional facilities to permit distancing.

Were Covid so called risk assessments EVER a legal requirement?

1. Covid is  not a workplace hazard but a public health issue-see what the COSHH ACoP says abut workplace infections

2. There was no option to choose  controls based on this “risk assessment” which were specific to your workplace: you simply had to adopt the lot.

3. The “risk assessment” had to be published so the whole world could see what you were doing. That has never been required under any regulations.  Could it just be a sop  to the unions and others who  were complaining about people returning to work

4. If you believe that the guidance on Covid risk assessment was actually correct is anybody intending to extend this to every conceivable workplace hazard which is not in  your control: do you check to make sure that nobody brings peanuts or other allergens in their lunch box; do you check to make sure that that there are no feuds between employees that might lead to violence; do you worry about someone being stung by a bee or wasp or attacked by a stoat?

Very interesting.  Aren't we supposed to keep employees safe in their workplace and to that end I believe Covid assessments and controls are necessary.  If nothing else it may help to keep employees from going off sick and depleting the workforce.

What a fantastic summery A.

Unfortunatly we appaer to have forgotten what the W in HASAW stands for. As i have said may times this has always been a public health issue and should never have been seen as a H&S issue. I wait to see what the guidance is. Unfortuantly i think the "its your duty to protect me" culture will prevail. Just like people tell me i should be responsible for the weather while the commute to work, but feal they should be free to live where they want many will continue to expect us to have coviod secure workplace - while they happily go to the pub with their mates on a Friday! (Rant over)

I think some things will remain for ever, but not all of it.

We've already dropped the one-way systems in our office.  They weren't ever a useful control measure anyway in our situation - we don't get bunches or crowding that is alleviated by having one-way systems.  I don't believe that passing someone on the stairs is a significant transmission risk, and walking the whole length of the building to go down the other staircase to walk the whole length of the building back to talk to someone whose desk is almost directly below mine one floor down is an annoyance.

We introduced electronic logging of office attendance and that will probably stay forever.  Actually, our security system was always capable of it, but there were staff sensitivities (fear of time-clocks logging whether you did your hours).  I think partly staff have overcome that fear, and partly management have had to recognise the reality that the staff aren't all liable to goof off as soon as their backs are turned.

We've made changes to our aircon, and that will stay a long time (though it increases our energy consumption - so we're slightly safer from Covid, but destroying the planet slightly quicker).  Hmm.  I am reminded of https://i0.wp.com/mackay...0-0311-NATrevised2sm.jpg (which, incidentally, is the version by the cartoonist that started the meme, I believe).

I think hand sanitiser bottles will probably stay scattered around the office for a long time, as will occasionally wiping down the photocopier buttons.

Currently we are still asking for face coverings in communal areas of the building. I was hopeful that the government would have a reasoned approach to withdrawing measures and we would pin withdrawing our face covering requirements on that.  Unfortunately, Boris needed something to try and distract people so that hasn't happened.  I'm now not sure what we will use as a criteria for removing that, but I don't feel like dropping it now - hospital admission rate is still at half the April 2020 peak, and we still have hundreds of deaths a day

I suspect that the nonsense of public health and generally ciruclating infectious disesases being added into thinsg that an employer is epxcected to control is here to stay, if only becasue they won't be able to come up with a rationale for removing it. 

All very interesting and valid responses in my opinion. In fact, I have had a number of internal conversations with people about all of the aspects above. There does appear to be a growing viewpoint from both employees and senior management that the covid controls can all go, if not now, soon. To be honest walkways have gone, distancing was always a problem, I suspect cleaning regimes lapse when I’m not looking.  Yes, I have places both in England and Wales which have had some differences, just to make things easier.

Just looked at the latest Gov data and it is showing deaths within 28 days of a positive test to be higher that at any point between the 1st of Sep 2021 and the end of the year. As noted by others, hundreds of people a day. Then you have Scotland wanting to chop the bottom off classroom doors for ventilation but are showing much lower levels of Covid than England, who think everything is good, lets scrap the domestic rules and have a party.

I think most of us agree with A Kurdziel, that it is a public health issue, but the Government made it our problem. I don’t believe they will ever go back on that, so are we stuck with putting such controls in place. If you look back the last 4 or 5 years the number of questions about how many people is it ok to squash in an office If I have some hanging from the ceiling in a rota, and one will always be in the loo or making coffee.

I hope Kate has heard correctly and at least official guidance will be changed, but as for opportunity to improve things, well when has that actually ever happened. People come into work because they fear for their job, or they consider themselves indispensable or making a point “well I managed it”.

I guess part of the question will be if we stopped all of it, so what. If someone gets Covid prove it was the workplace. What could they do? bring a civil suit of negligence, can’t see that would succeed. Can’t see the HSE would have any desire to do anything either.

Chris

Originally Posted by: Kate

I am supposing that there will be guidance that it's better not to insist that people suffering from an infectious respiratory disease go in to work.

Every employment contract I have held always stipulated employees should not attend work if they have a transmissible disease.

Presenteeism is a managerial mind set, and because they do everyone who works for them should as well.

This issue is ultimately part of the H&S Policy the person at the top of the corporate ladder signs - they need to set about managing the managers.

Further to this topic I was asked the other day if the HSE ( or others on their behalf are still making workplace visits. Early on 4 of our 10 places had visits, but none recently. I had assumed they had stopped, but the HSE website still appears to suggest you could still get a visit. Has anyone in England or Wales had a recent visit?

“She conducted that visit stood outside our front door - did not want to enter the building.” Is that because she was worried that they work place was riddled with Covid-19 and other horrendous  hazards or she had been given a list of places to visit that day  and they only way to tick them off the list is to not actually enter the premises! 

Our main office had a visit 'on behalf of the HSE' last month.

Cursary at best and dealt with by the receptionist.

As for what will happen after Boris' big announcement, assuming the guidance doesn't have specifics, I have already amended the arrangements of the safety policy to include a basic section on infectious disease (hand washing, sanitiser, cleaning, not turning up ill).  The plan is to drop the specific risk assessment(s) unless really pushed as they were never risk assessments in the first place and the company won't be routinely trying to manage public health issues.

Edited by user 16 February 2022 16:27:00(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling etc

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

I have already amended the arrangements of the safety policy to include a basic section on infectious disease (hand washing, sanitiser, cleaning, not turning up ill). 

Actually, that is a very good idea that I will borrow. Thanks

Which would have been a good idea pre-covid anyway

How exactly would you then define “ill” in the statement “don’t come into work ill.”

Something transmissible to others? if so then does that mean if you have full on Flu or a slight sniffle or if you cough more than once in any 1 hour period.

Then you will get the ones that will push the boundaries in both directions, ie the skivers vs those that feel they can work through anything. Then there will be those that fear for their jobs and those that simply can’t afford t be off ill.

Love the Idea but the practice not so sure about it. I admit I hate it when at the supermarket checkout the person is obviously unwell, nose red and running, then touching my food and items.

Chris

Yes I agree and I bet a number of us H&S types have been in work hugging the nice hot mug of max strength Lemsip (other products are available, but I feel having max on the packet helps even if it is the same stuff as the own brand).

But having something in a policy you can’t actually define could make it meaningless or unenforceable or open to abuse

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

I have already amended the arrangements of the safety policy to include a basic section on infectious disease (hand washing, sanitiser, cleaning, not turning up ill). 

Actually, that is a very good idea that I will borrow. Thanks

Which would have been a good idea pre-covid anyway

It was in place just didn't feel the need to document it (there are enough meaningless words in documents as it is).  It is only now documented in anticipation of some nonsense guidance reccomending it.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

“She conducted that visit stood outside our front door - did not want to enter the building.” Is that because she was worried that they work place was riddled with Covid-19 and other horrendous  hazards or she had been given a list of places to visit that day  and they only way to tick them off the list is to not actually enter the premises! 

Did you invite her in and what was her answer.  How could she carryout a vist by staying outside 

Originally Posted by: firesafety101

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

“She conducted that visit stood outside our front door - did not want to enter the building.” Is that because she was worried that they work place was riddled with Covid-19 and other horrendous  hazards or she had been given a list of places to visit that day  and they only way to tick them off the list is to not actually enter the premises! 

Did you invite her in and what was her answer.  How could she carryout a vist by staying outside 

Yes i did invite her in - but she just wanted to ask teh same question as they do on the phone. Clearly just working to a script!

Originally Posted by: Kate

From what I've heard, the government will issue new (and presumably weakened) guidance for employers to coincide with the intended dropping of legal restrictions.

Anyone aware of any new guidence just yet both England and Wales?

Chris

Originally Posted by: Kate

The latest updates for England are dated 24 February.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-covid-19

Indeed, and Boris' 'plan for living with Covid' says "From 1 April, the Government will replace the existing set of ‘Working Safely’ guidance with new public health guidance."  I'm not sure if  'from 1 April' means new guidance will actually be published before, after or on 1 April. 

The only information I've seen about what the differences will be compared to current guidance is (same document) "From 1 April, the Government will remove the health and safety requirement for every employer to explicitly consider COVID-19 in their risk assessments."

Welfare is a part of health and safety law and includes many things that an employer is expected to provide that don't relate to the work itself. Even before Covid, this included hand washing facilities and ventilation.

Given what we know now about the spread of this virus, I see a strong case for requiring employers to provide adequate ventilation to reduce airborne virus transmission in indoor workplaces, as a welfare measure rather than a health measure under COSHH.

Adequate ventilation is already a legal requirement in workplaces - it would just be a case of making the definition of this a bit stricter.

However good your ventilation was, you almost certainly wouldn't know whether a respiratory infection was picked up in the workplace or not.  But this wouldn't matter, as there is no investigation to do, no RIDDOR report to make and no breach of a duty of care that could give rise to a compensation claim.