Elf and Safety

[Robbo]

I think it's an extraordinary complex problem not so much in terms of any intellectual endeavour but because we have a convoluted mish-mash of responsibilities and testimonial evidence that tends to resist anyone trying to nail down a specific problem of responsibility.
I think one thing that emerges is that if all health and Safety people were more like John [Return of the Silver Fox] then we'd all be in a better place that's for sure.
What cannot be denied is ... there must be some organisation that is ultimately responsible for the health and safety ... that being the case, I think it's obvious that responsibility should fall onto the shoulders of the HSE.

I think it's their job now to do a total review of their rules and protocols and they MUST consult with the industry beforehand so they have a practical handle on the effects of some of their findings before they enshrine any changes to the rule book.

The slate needs to be wiped clean and then the HSE has to enforce these rules .... this won't happen of course but that comes as no suprise I suppose ....

 

[Tom Allen]

here she is, the tv fall girl. Oh yes and H&S on that haircut, ffs...

 

[Tom Allen]

I think it's an extraordinary complex problem not so much in terms of any intellectual endeavour but because we have a convoluted mish-mash of responsibilities and testimonial evidence that tends to resist anyone trying to nail down a specific problem of responsibility.
I think one thing that emerges is that if all health and Safety people were more like John [Return of the Silver Fox] then we'd all be in a better place that's for sure.
What cannot be denied is ... there must be some organisation that is ultimately responsible for the health and safety ... that being the case, I think it's obvious that responsibility should fall onto the shoulders of the HSE.

I think it's their job now to do a total review of their rules and protocols and they MUST consult with the industry beforehand so they have a practical handle on the effects of some of their findings before they enshrine any changes to the rule book.

The slate needs to be wiped clean and then the HSE has to enforce these rules .... this won't happen of course but that comes as no suprise I suppose ....

They'd have to spend a year risk assessing the method of wiping that slate clean.

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

I think it's an extraordinary complex problem not so much in terms of any intellectual endeavour but because we have a convoluted mish-mash of responsibilities and testimonial evidence that tends to resist anyone trying to nail down a specific problem of responsibility.
I think one thing that emerges is that if all health and Safety people were more like John [Return of the Silver Fox] then we'd all be in a better place that's for sure.
What cannot be denied is ... there must be some organisation that is ultimately responsible for the health and safety ... that being the case, I think it's obvious that responsibility should fall onto the shoulders of the HSE.

I think it's their job now to do a total review of their rules and protocols and they MUST consult with the industry beforehand so they have a practical handle on the effects of some of their findings before they enshrine any changes to the rule book.

The slate needs to be wiped clean and then the HSE has to enforce these rules .... this won't happen of course but that comes as no suprise I suppose ....

Pete,

Think you may be looking towards the wrong people. The HSE provide consultation on every piece of legislation they introduce. Lord Young recognised that in his government review. He put the blame squarely on those failing to give competant advice and those who use H&S as an excuse.

The HSE are clear in their codes of practice - they provide guidance but there is nothing wrong with applying your own solutions providing they don't fall below expected minimum standards - the common sense stuff we all refer to. It should be possible for a switched on employer to comply with a lot regs without even looking at them just by assessing a job. Something they will do as a matter of course.

For me the major problem is the H&S training providers who are happy enough to take substantial amounts of money but do not train in the practicalities of implementation. The current H&S training is aimed at academics and ability to apply the regs and guidance in a practicle manner doesn't feature. Successful H&S people have had practicle experience and use their ears more than their mouths when decision making.

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

Tester for you all - whats the first written account of H&S findings/suggestions?

 

[Bolter]

I remember an advert that was on quite a while ago, where a woman walked into an office, slipped and fell injuring her knee. The ad was for one of those no win no fee sharks that rape and pillage within the legal system that we have created.
The thing that stuck in my mind was, she was wearing tiny shoes that were probably an H&S issue due the the "largeness of her frame", it reminded me of a hippo in ballet shoes. This was the example this company gave for a rock solid case where you could claim thousands, because you were basically thick and couldn't see where you were walking, and H&S would back this as there should have been warnings for her to see. There should have been a warning from the shoe shop, saying, if you're fat and dull don't buy these shoes.

Do you remember the guy who said something like "I was carrying a hot bucket of tar, and I tripped and poured it all over my arms"?

This guy, who is so thick he carries a full bucket of tar with no lid, and doesnt look where he is going, deserves everything he gets (injury wise) and shouldnt be allowed compensation. In fact, lets call it stupid tax. At the end of the day, if he didnt work in the industry, it would be a much safer place to work.

 

[Tom]

i have my 2 brothers both in H and S in the oil industry. i feel from what they and other offshore workers tell me it is vilified because of the silly things that restrict work and make a job take twice as long.

one story as an example.
one man walking across a canteen on a off shore rig is stopped just as hes about to sit down. the health and saftey officer asks him what hes just done wrong. turns out his coffee didnt have a lid on it. he was made to walk back across the room to get a lid. upon questioning why he had to go back accross the room the answer was that if he didnt have a lid and he spilled the coffee someone could sue even tho he would take the lid of to drink it anyway

Which one of your brothers was it that made him walk back and put a lid on it?
PPE is never a solution - it is a matter of reducing the risk of an incident. Even better is to prevent the risk in the first place.

A bad risk assessor will write assessments, fill in the default answers, then harrass the people doing the job.
A good risk assessor will observe, assess and consider the appropriate solutions to prevent the risk, and other measures to minimise the risk - all with a consideration for practicality as if it is impractical it will be ignored.

With hard hats for working at height such as roofers it does not benefit when they are on the roof, but if on a building site they have the risk of falling objects before they get on the roof. So it is a standard measure to haev the hard hat on site. If however there is a risk of falling then there are other measure that should be in place to minmise the chance of falling. If the hard hat is there as a measure in case a roofer falls on their head then it is the wrong PPE.

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

Do you remember the guy who said something like "I was carrying a hot bucket of tar, and I tripped and poured it all over my arms"?

This guy, who is so thick he carries a full bucket of tar with no lid, and doesnt look where he is going, deserves everything he gets (injury wise) and shouldnt be allowed compensation. In fact, lets call it stupid tax. At the end of the day, if he didnt work in the industry, it would be a much safer place to work.

I once defended a claim from a guy who claimed he had suffered industrial deafness through working in the boiler shop. We examined his work history, records of PPE issued, noise surveys, training given etc. All was in order but his audiometry tests showed a definate threshold shift outside what would be expected for his age. Turns out he was a mobile DJ. The strange thing was he had not put this on his claim form. I can only assume he had forgotten

 

[leachy]

here she is, the tv fall girl. Oh yes and H&S on that haircut, ffs...

I've seen that girl fall load's of times, I'd have thought she would have learnt after the first incident. I'd say she was acting just to get compensation. She must be loaded by now.

 

[Tom]

I once defended a claim from a guy who claimed he had suffered industrial deafness through working in the boiler shop. We examined his work history, records of PPE issued, noise surveys, training given etc. All was in order but his audiometry tests showed a definate threshold shift outside what would be expected for his age. Turns out he was a mobile DJ. The strange thing was he had not put this on his claim form. I can only assume he had forgotten

Reminds me of a number of years ago my dads army mates started to suggest they all claim for being half deaf or fully due to having been gunners in the RA - because they heard about a succesful claim. They shut up when my dad pointed out the claim dated to shortly before the army provided ear defenders - and his generation refused to wear them.

My own personal hearing problems relate to my ears spending part of their time filled with in ear headphones, and the rest of the time jumping up and down in front of gig / nightclub speakers.