Thank Goodness!

[noseall]

Why? RAs save lives!

True.

However H&S nowadays is all about financial culpability and avoiding being sued. It has become a cash cow for the cunning slobs of a jealous society.

The main protagonists are money grabbing opportunistic ****** and blood sucking lawyers who are ruining the whole "protection of the worker" ethos that the H&SE was set out to protect.

 

[DIYDANDY]

As part of my last job, I had to do risk assessments. H&S bods then pored over these , then sent them back to me .

Why are you doing the RA? That is the job of the H&S bods. When people without training do RAs, that is when things go wrong or recommendations are made that are not needed.

 

[DIYDANDY]

Why? RAs save lives!

True.

However H&S nowadays is all about financial culpability and avoiding being sued. It has become a cash cow for the cunning slobs of a jealous society.

The main protagonists are money grabbing opportunistic ****** and blood sucking lawyers who are ruining the whole "protection of the worker" ethos that the H&SE was set out to protect.

And that is exactly what Lord Young's report is all about.

 

[noseall]

And that is exactly what Lord Young's report is all about.

Quite so.

By removing the financial benefit or even the opportunity to sue, you then remove a huge chunk of the burden upon the H&SE thus removing the need for pointless and idiotic risk assessments that clogs up and stifles a whole way of life and thus frees us all to use our COMMON SENSE!

 

[joinerjohn]

As part of my last job, I had to do risk assessments. H&S bods then pored over these , then sent them back to me .

Why are you doing the RA? That is the job of the H&S bods. When people without training do RAs, that is when things go wrong or recommendations are made that are not needed.

As the person in charge at a location, remote from headquarters, I had to do the RA's and was responsible for H&S where I was based.
Even when I worked for the local council (as joinery supervisor) I had to do risk assessments on every job we undertook. We had apprentices there and any H&S misdemeanour's were seriously frowned upon.

PS, I never once mentioned that I hadn't been trained in risk assessments, Did I

 

[meadowhog]

Ive spent half an hour watching a video about how to undo a nut after some burk bashed there head with a spanner when a nut unexpectantly came loose. Actually that should read "nuts come loose when you loosen them" or do they?

The best one, was having our hammers taken away from us just incase we hit something.

 

[geraint]

the inception of health and safety happened because of the building industry. and their lack of..

i for one think that it is a good thing for the industry and many others... but since.... it has been hijacked. that is the modern day problem...

 

[joinerjohn]

I think it was industry in general Geraint, including large industries like steelmaking, the building industry and even farming (you'd be surprised at the amounts of fatalities on farms).
As you rightly point out, H&S has been hijacked by some who see problems that didn't exist, or at the least, instances that are very unlikely to happen.

 

[DIYDANDY]

I think it was industry in general Geraint, including large industries like steelmaking, the building industry and even farming (you'd be surprised at the amounts of fatalities on farms).
As you rightly point out, H&S has been hijacked by some who see problems that didn't exist, or at the least, instances that are very unlikely to happen.

From memory, it started out as the Factories Act, then, Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Parts of which are still in force to this day.

 

[meadowhog]

I do risk assessments for all but the regular mundane jobs that have been covered by a general RA. I work for a very large organisation which sees H&S as a very important part of company image and damage limitation.

Our bonus is affected negatively for reportable injuries and positively for reporting risks that can be reduced or eliminated. A good thing.

The problem I see is, if we still carry on heading towards a nanny state people will stop using their common sense as they will believe all risk has been eliminated and if they are unfortunate to have an accident someone is liable and they will get compensation. It is constantly drummed into us that H&S is the responsibility of both the individual and the company but until the law makers put the emphisis on the individual, lawsuites and fear of them will continue to grow.

A good example of a step in the right direction would be the road tests in Holland where all road signs were removed from a particular black spot junction. Drivers had to use their own judgement to navigate complicated junctions where there were there once so many signs it was confusing . Amazingly accidents were drastically reduced.

 

[wreckedit]

Lots of info. here for the over the top H&S

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...&as_q=over+the+top&btnG=Search within results

 

[geraint]

I do risk assessments for all but the regular mundane jobs that have been covered by a general RA. I work for a very large organisation which sees H&S as a very important part of company image and damage limitation.

Our bonus is affected negatively for reportable injuries and positively for reporting risks that can be reduced or eliminated. A good thing.

The problem I see is, if we still carry on heading towards a nanny state people will stop using their common sense as they will believe all risk has been eliminated and if they are unfortunate to have an accident someone is liable and they will get compensation. It is constantly drummed into us that H&S is the responsibility of both the individual and the company but until the law makers put the emphisis on the individual, lawsuites and fear of them will continue to grow.

A good example of a step in the right direction would be the road tests in Holland where all road signs were removed from a particular black spot junction. Drivers had to use their own judgement to navigate complicated junctions where there were there once so many signs it was confusing . Amazingly accidents were drastically reduced.

and sack the safety officer in most companies...

they are employed to do a job.... once done they are redundant
hence more rules and regulations to keep their jobs...

 

[joinerjohn]

I used to have to put up with a woman who came round every Monday morning doing her H&S walkabout. She thought she was picking up on everything. Had to wear hi viz vests and safety shoes. All power tools had to be PAT tested. (she thought once a year was enough, till I told her site power tools should be tested every 3 months). She even asked some of the fitters if their cordless tools had been PAT tested.

One day she brought her boss with her. First thing I asked her was " Since when did open toed sandals become classed as safety footwear?".
She told me that open toed sandals wouldn't be allowed on the shop floor. So I asked her when she was going to do her H&S walkabout in safety footwear instead of open toed sandals.
She reckoned that she wasn't working in our area, till I pointed out that, the H&S walkabout was part of her work, so she was in fact working in an area where safety shoes should and had to be worn.
Her boss was suitably impressed and told her, no more walkabouts until she had safety shoes. Didn't see her too often after that.

 

[meadowhog]

they are employed to do a job.... once done they are redundant
hence more rules and regulations to keep their jobs...

Just like Lawyers encouraging a perpetual blame culture.

 

[oompah]

It is constantly drummed into us that H&S is the responsibility of both the individual and the company but until the law makers put the emphisis on the individual, lawsuites and fear of them will continue to grow.

The individuals responsibility is already covered under section 7 of the 1974 safety at work act.

Under section 7 all employees have a duty while at work to:

Take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and
Co-operate with employers or other persons so far as is necessary to enable them to perform their duties or requirements under the Act