wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:56:48 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Martyn H wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, Bruce wrote:
Some H&S intervention should be welcomed. The HSE people have worked
wonders in the construction industry and have saved hundreds of lives.

very little of the 'elf'n'safetygornmadinnit' comes from the HSE and
much of it would be seen as overkill by a properly trained H+S
practitioner or HSE inspector, but while people think a short course
makes them a H+S practitioner ...


Indeed, the head of the HSE recently went public to explain that most
of the recent H&S nonsense was not the responsibility of HSE.



As you say, the problem comes with people who are given responsibility
for H&S in organisations that don't provide adequate training. They
then feel they have to be proactive in order to justify their job
title ...

Another problem is that while H&S should be the responsibility of
everyone in an organisation, and organisations should ingrain that
attitude into all their staff,

For a time I was the H&S rep at work. What soon became obvious that a
small number of my colleagues would attempt to use H&S as excuse to
attempt to have an easy life and not do the job they were being paid
to do.
We operated a sensible policy in respect of lifting things that could
not repaired on site mainly refrigeration equipment. That meant that
in some cases the same object could be moved by one person if a sack
truck could be got to it and wheeled to a tail lift or it may need two
if access was awkward. It was interesting that it was always the same
people that always required assistance in the Morning and would wait
happily for an hour or so drinking tea while a colleague made their
way to them ,yet in the afternoon seemed to move anything and finish
early rather than wait and go home a bit late despite that being part
of the job providing it did not happen every day.
Time again I warned them that if it genuinely needed two then doing it
by themselves would not look good in any injury claim as they had
broken procedures.
Like herding cats it was.

Yes, "Health and Safety" and "Security" are two blanket reasons for not
permitting something. Both can be perfectly valid, but they are also open to
abuse: some people use them to mean "we can't be bothered to do it so we'll
cite one of these excuses". When I'm faced with H&S or Security reasons, I
challenge the person to describe *exactly* what the issues are and whether
the person is applying the *minimum* restriction that is necessary.

I lost all faith in H&S when our H&S rep at work sanctioned a temporary
scaffolding tower 60 feet high and about 10 feet square to be erected in our
two-storey computer hall so a fluorescent tube could be replaced, when the
tower was placed a couple of feet from a solid door (no window in it) that
was a signed fire exit. When one of us opened the door and it hit the tower,
we phoned the H&S guy who came to look and said "yes, that's OK". He didn't
even demand a warning sign or temporary closure of the door and signing of
an alternate route (there was another door fairly close by).

Lax H&S when restrictions are clearly needed gives H&S a bad name just as
much as over-zealous restrictions when none is needed.

On 01/02/2012 12:10, Mortimer wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:56:48 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Martyn H wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, Bruce wrote:
Some H&S intervention should be welcomed. The HSE people have worked
wonders in the construction industry and have saved hundreds of lives.

very little of the 'elf'n'safetygornmadinnit' comes from the HSE and
much of it would be seen as overkill by a properly trained H+S
practitioner or HSE inspector, but while people think a short course
makes them a H+S practitioner ...


Indeed, the head of the HSE recently went public to explain that most
of the recent H&S nonsense was not the responsibility of HSE.



As you say, the problem comes with people who are given responsibility
for H&S in organisations that don't provide adequate training. They
then feel they have to be proactive in order to justify their job
title ...

Another problem is that while H&S should be the responsibility of
everyone in an organisation, and organisations should ingrain that
attitude into all their staff,

For a time I was the H&S rep at work. What soon became obvious that a
small number of my colleagues would attempt to use H&S as excuse to
attempt to have an easy life and not do the job they were being paid
to do.
We operated a sensible policy in respect of lifting things that could
not repaired on site mainly refrigeration equipment. That meant that
in some cases the same object could be moved by one person if a sack
truck could be got to it and wheeled to a tail lift or it may need two
if access was awkward. It was interesting that it was always the same
people that always required assistance in the Morning and would wait
happily for an hour or so drinking tea while a colleague made their
way to them ,yet in the afternoon seemed to move anything and finish
early rather than wait and go home a bit late despite that being part
of the job providing it did not happen every day.
Time again I warned them that if it genuinely needed two then doing it
by themselves would not look good in any injury claim as they had
broken procedures.
Like herding cats it was.

Yes, "Health and Safety" and "Security" are two blanket reasons for not
permitting something. Both can be perfectly valid, but they are also
open to abuse: some people use them to mean "we can't be bothered to do
it so we'll cite one of these excuses". When I'm faced with H&S or
Security reasons, I challenge the person to describe *exactly* what the
issues are and whether the person is applying the *minimum* restriction
that is necessary.

I lost all faith in H&S when our H&S rep at work sanctioned a temporary
scaffolding tower 60 feet high and about 10 feet square to be erected in
our two-storey computer hall so a fluorescent tube could be replaced,
when the tower was placed a couple of feet from a solid door (no window
in it) that was a signed fire exit. When one of us opened the door and
it hit the tower, we phoned the H&S guy who came to look and said "yes,
that's OK". He didn't even demand a warning sign or temporary closure of
the door and signing of an alternate route (there was another door
fairly close by).

Lax H&S when restrictions are clearly needed gives H&S a bad name just
as much as over-zealous restrictions when none is needed.

I've heard of one gas when the gasman came to read a meter, although it
was mounted high up and required a ladder. When the resident of the
house offered to get a small step ladder, the gasman refused on grounds
that it was unsafe and that he needed proper training.

In reality, however, it was just a simple stepladder.