A Matter of Health and Safety

[black and decker boy]

The HASWA 74 was a true world beating and leading piece of legislation.

 

it is still the prime legislation by which contraventions are prosecuted.

 

there are now layers of regulations that further define specific areas such as PUWER, LOLER, CDM etc. Some, taken to the extreme by over zealous officials can make life hard but on a day to day level remain simple common sense (eg PUWER requires you to inspect your work equipment before use), LOLER requires you to plan how to mechanically lift a load.

 

Working in construction and being responsible for the safety of 100-150 people on a big site, I cannot say there is too much safety legislation. I would not say we need more though.

 

It’s about getting understanding & implementation right. It has and continues to make a big difference. There is simply no reason, in the 21st century, why people should be maimed or killed simply for going to work or for walking or driving about their own life’s. Callous and negligent employers don’t just kill their employees, all too often innocent members of the public (or their property) suffer too.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

29 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

maimed or killed

 

The fact that a very large number of people suffered life-changing injury at work pre-HASAWA  now seems to be increasingly forgotten. We talk about fatalities at work, but for every fatality there were ten or twenty severe injuries, and hundreds of minor injuries.

 

Possibly this is one of those things where those who have grown-up since the legislation, and haven't worked or socialised much with people who had been at work long before it, can't quite conceive of how common it used to be to meet a guy who had lost a finger or two, or (as one of my school teachers) had lost the use of one leg in a steelworks accident, etc. And, chronic conditions like noise-induced deafness, vibration finger, emphysema etc were simply ordinary.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Mike Storey]

The premise of this thread tries to suggest that Elf'n'safety has gone mad.

 

No it has not. Only the wan&ers that try to use it for other purposes.

 

Don't ask me, ask the dead or severely maimed railwaymen I knew both pre- and post the various Acts and Regulations that have reduced serious accidents to the odd back strain (plus the very rare death) these days.

[brianusa]

What you're saying then is that its a good idea but don't let it interfere with what you want to do.

       Brian.

[eastglosmog]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

The fact that a very large number of people suffered life-changing injury at work pre-HASAWA  now seems to be increasingly forgotten. We talk about fatalities at work, but for every fatality there were ten or twenty severe injuries, and hundreds of minor injuries.

 

Possibly this is one of those things where those who have grown-up since the legislation, and haven't worked or socialised much with people who had been at work long before it, can't quite conceive of how common it used to be to meet a guy who had lost a finger or two, or (as one of my school teachers) had lost the use of one leg in a steelworks accident, etc. And, chronic conditions like noise-induced deafness, vibration finger, emphysema etc were simply ordinary.

 

 

I read somewhere that in the 19th Century the experience of tinplate workers was judged on the number of fingers they had lost to the tin shears.

[The Johnster]

Bloke I was at school with in the 60s went to university to study law, specialising in employee claims against employers.  He commented to me that the legislation at that time was based on the principle that, in practice, neither employees' rights nor employers' obligations could be enforced by the civil courts, but employers' rights and employees' obligations could!  HASAWA is a mahoosive improvement on that!

[MrWolf]

5 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

I read somewhere that in the 19th Century the experience of tinplate workers was judged on the number of fingers they had lost to the tin shears.

 

My great uncle used to say the same thing about shunters. (He retired from the railway somewhere around 1965) Another ex railway worker that I know via motorcycles lost his right ring finger to a powered capstan aged 16 in about 1960. 

Having seen first hand how well other countries work (or don't work) I am all for health and safety at work. I have seen plenty of a***hole bosses tell employees to "get on with it, there's a couple of million other people would do your job and for less money" (I am quoting that verbatim) and it still goes on.

Equally there's plenty of lazy b####rds who will use the rules to obfuscate and avoid doing much of anything and plenty of office boys who are told to organise a job and don't really know the first thing about it, so go into H&S meltdown. It's not their fault that their mothers didn't let them get dirty as children.

One thing that I do find worrying is the amount of sole traders that take risks all the time, stupid things like not using goggles and an angle grinder with no guard. They have obviously been lucky. I have had a piece of steel dug out of my eyeball. I don't care to repeat it.

[johnofwessex]

A few pints I might make........

 

Firstly of course accidental deaths and injuries impose a huge cost on society, do we as taxpayers want to end up picking up the bill ?

Secondly as has already been pointed out elsewhere the 'low hanging fruit' of avoidable death and injury have already been picked - as a 'for example' there wasnt an 'on  -  train' passenger fatality from Grayrigg in 2007 until last year, so clearly the inspectors started looking at less obvious risks, for example slips, trips & falls.

Thirdly of course H&S legislation is comprehensive, as a 'for example' the Docks Regulations required safe means of access to ships in port but when the Dockers went home there was nothing to require the same for the crew.  In the same way, until (1963?) there were no regulations covering safety in offices.

Finally there is a real financial cost of injury, imagine what a death or serious injury to a young man or woman with children can cost in terms of loss of earnings let alone pain & suffering, which quite rightly they will wish to recover from the responsible party.

 

All we need to do now is apply it to the roads............

[Fat Controller]

13 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

I read somewhere that in the 19th Century the experience of tinplate workers was judged on the number of fingers they had lost to the tin shears.

And the scars on their legs where the sheets of steel didn't stay on the straight and narrow; my father got his at 14, working at Cwmfelin.

[Neil]

14 hours ago, brianusa said:

What you're saying then is that its a good idea but don't let it interfere with what you want to do.

       Brian.

 

No, it should interfere in what you do where it's appropriate to keep you, your colleagues and the public safe. Much of the stuff it does is to protect employees from themselves, from taking dangerous shortcuts. 

[Wheatley]

Exactly. Think about what you want to do, work out what could go wrong and do what needs doing to avoid that. Do it diffrently, use more people, get a bigger crane/jack/hammer etc. 

 

Youtube is full of cranes toppling over, people felling trees onto houses and skateboarders landing nuts first on bollards and handrails. Even my 12yo can usually guess what's going to go wrong before it does. 

 

Some years ago one of the TV channels here showed a series following a military rescue helicopter. You would think that this was exactly the sort of situation where extreme risks would be justified and they did take some pretty hairy ones, but even  then a dynamic risk assessment was done. A Sea King won't hover on one engine so once they'd found the casualty there was always a brief given as to where the captain would attempt to go in the event of a single engine failure, usually the beach or the shallow water. There was only one occasion I can remember, trying to winch a child off rocks against a rising tide, that the brief was along the lines of "No recovery option for this, everyone ok with that ?".

Edited February 7, 2021 by Wheatley

[Sir TophamHatt]

20 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

... I defy any one of them to tell me that they'd be happy living/working in a world where the opposite of what it requires is true.

 

Ask yourself: would I like to work somewhere where it is acceptable for my employer not to bother to do all that is reasonably practicable to protect my safety and health? I certainly wouldn't.

This is where the RMT make a bad name for themselves.

Just because there's a law / guidance saying one thing, doesn't mean if it wasn't there the complete opposite would be the default status.

 

Some people seem to think employers are slaves to H&S, when I don't think that's true.

Yes, sweat shops hiding in cities paying half the minimum wage will always be a H&S nightmare but I should think most businesses (some with Unions) wouldn't be asking their employees to do something that is likely to end the employees life or put them at risk.

 

But it works both ways: Employee lifts boxes, pulls a muscle.  Employee then says they were not trained to lift boxes and company comes to grief over it.

That shouldn't be right - the employee should ask for advice if they need help lifting boxes.  But come on... it's lifting a box.

I had to watch a video about how to lift things... checking the load in detail, making sure your path was clear...  if I went through every tick box procedure from that video, I'd barely be able to do half the job I had to do.

Yes, there's many spurs to this - could there be something poking out the box?  Is it too heavy?  Is it leaking?  But you make all those assessments with or without help from anyone else, or any legislation, surely?

[Sir TophamHatt]

It's a shame as the first few posts seem to understand the question but the ones after have missed the boat completely.

 

There does need to be a balance but it seems there isn't much at the moment because companies are afraid to do anything different than the status quo through fear of health and safety problems.  Perhaps people think that's fine 

 

Plus, society has moved on from the days before H&S really took off.

Discounting the sweat shops, are we suggesting employers would instruct employees to risk their life to carry out a task?  Really?

Sorry, I can't really see that happening these days.

 

This is about restrictive regulations that have been imposed that actually cause more hassle than they're worth.

A really simple one of not being able to bring in fairy liquid to work if work has ran out of their non-brand washing up liquid, because fairy liquid has not been COSHH'd.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Sir TophamHatt

[Wheatley]

I don't think we have missed the point. The legislation is not restrictive, we still operate petrochemical plants, nuclear power stations and a myriad of other quite dangerous things in this country, but some of the policies imposed by those with insufgicient understanding,  a vested interest or an axe to grind are restrictive. 

 

Risk assessing picking up a box should take you about ten seconds. You do a risk assessment every time you cross a road, has that ever taken you so long that you've given up and either gone back home or just run into the road and hoped for the best ? 

[The Stationmaster]

47 minutes ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

This is where the RMT make a bad name for themselves.

Just because there's a law / guidance saying one thing, doesn't mean if it wasn't there the complete opposite would be the default status.

 

Some people seem to think employers are slaves to H&S, when I don't think that's true.

Yes, sweat shops hiding in cities paying half the minimum wage will always be a H&S nightmare but I should think most businesses (some with Unions) wouldn't be asking their employees to do something that is likely to end the employees life or put them at risk.

 

But it works both ways: Employee lifts boxes, pulls a muscle.  Employee then says they were not trained to lift boxes and company comes to grief over it.

That shouldn't be right - the employee should ask for advice if they need help lifting boxes.  But come on... it's lifting a box.

I had to watch a video about how to lift things... checking the load in detail, making sure your path was clear...  if I went through every tick box procedure from that video, I'd barely be able to do half the job I had to do.

Yes, there's many spurs to this - could there be something poking out the box?  Is it too heavy?  Is it leaking?  But you make all those assessments with or without help from anyone else, or any legislation, surely?

Lifting accidents and consequent back injuries were once a well established fact of working life - to well established to be honest.  And the reason was because people didn't know how to lift and didn't know the potential risks from numerous factors which could injure them in various ways.  So employers brought in kinetic lifting training because H&S law required them to do so (not in those words of course but to avoid employees being put at risk).  Het result - fewer back injures and other problems because people were taught how to do the job.  Hardly a 'tick the box' job as onv ce you are properly trained (and if necessary given refresher training) it becomes  something you should be doing almost without thinking about it.

 

An interesting case in point is the NHS (which has long had various exclusions from all sorts of safety) laws.  But the incidence of back injuries and long term back problems was very high -usually a consequence of lifting patients.  So lifting gear was introduced.  Was using what amounts to a small crane, let alone planned lifting techniques for teams of medical staff, over the top?   The answer will lie in the incidence of back injuries and such things as premature, or ill health, retirement as a consequence of back injuries and I'm sure that they have significantly reduced.   No doubt the same in the building industry where, again, back injuries were once commonplace.

 

As for 'restrictive regulations' can you name any regulation properly applied for genuine safety reasons that is restrictive?  And I really mean safety - not insurance, not avoiding financial risk, not making things simpler for an employer, but genuine safety.

 

The example you quote of Fairy Liquid is not necessarily a genuine safety reason.   Does it specifically state in writing at your workplace that Fairy Liquid is banned and why? If so why is it banned on safety grounds when it would not be legally available if it did not comply with the relevant Regulations?   I suspect your employer has imposed a blanket ban on anything other than the stuff they supply for financial reasons - the financial risk that somebody might be allergic to it (some people are) and suffer skin problems if they use it and sue the employer in consequence.  That is not safety nor is it anything to do with COSHH- it is potential financial risk avoidance pure and simple and dressing it up as 'safety' yet again brings genuine safety management into disrepute

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

There does need to be a balance but it seems there isn't much at the moment because companies are afraid to do anything different than the status quo through fear of health and safety problems.  Perhaps people think that's fine 

This person for one thinks that what you are saying simply isn’t true, that you are starting from a false premise.

 

Where is the evidence that companies are somehow cowed by H&S legislation?

 

Can you cite a needlessly ‘restrictive’ piece of H&S legislation? 
 

In what area/respect do you advocate reducing safety?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Nearholmer

[jcm@gwr]

When I used to work on the lofts, we were told that there had to be

a fixing in the chimney, so that any ladders put up to the roof could

be secured to them, before we used the ladders!

Good idea, in theory, but no-one from their department could explain

how we could implement it, we suggested that they supplied a helicopter,

instead they dropped their suggestion.

Edited February 7, 2021 by jcm@gwr
spelling

[jcm@gwr]

Thinking about it, it might have been the same building inspector who tried

to fail the installation of a structural steel beam.

He had slipped climbing in through the window opening (the opening for the

stairs hadn't been cut yet) and instead of laughing it off, got embarrassed and

tried to look for things to fail the job on!

So, a row of bricks had been removed to swing the steel in (terraced house, the

steel was for the floor), then it was bricked back up, using some broken roof tiles

to make up the odd shape around the steel.

The BI tried to fail this because "the tiles weren't as strong as bricks", our guy

pointed out that (in this situation) the bricks and tiles were both made from clay,

and that tiles had probably been fired for longer, making them stronger.

The BI then tried to fail the job because " he hadn't pointed the brickwork", now,

as we all know pointing serves 2 purposes, it helps shed rainwater, and the only

other reason is that it's decorative. 

This brickwork was inside a loft, and would end up being below the floor level!

Our boss had a word with his boss at the council, he was banned from our sites!

[Barry O]

I attended a meeting with some very senior HSE managers. The Regional Boss said "if any of my inspectors ever say.. you can't  do that due to H&S regs" challenge that inspector to prove the statement.

 

The rules and regs have saved lives and reduced injuries.. let's hope they continue to do so.

 

Baz

[Ray H]

Are we in danger of subsequent generations not growing up aware of such things as risk?

 

How many children are allowed to make their own decisions these days so that they understand the need to assess risk? Probably not worded correctly but I hope it conveys the intended meaning.

 

When I and numerous others were growing up we were allowed to explore numerous things and ways and we learnt at a very tender age what was less risky.

 

Its the same in some respects regarding cleanliness. We've evolved over recent years into a nation of "clean" people, so much so that our bodies can no longer tolerate things are forebear's could. I'm sure that's why our hospitals and the like are so stretched (even allowing for the virus). Apologies if this paragraph is too far off topic.

[Welchester]

3 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

I had to watch a video about how to lift things...

 

Was that the one with the lady with the nice legs? Manhandling?

[petethemole]

We had the one that advised you to avoid strain by splitting and balancing your load, illustrated by swapping one bucket for two half-size buckets, one in each hand.  The half-size buckets must have been specially made for the film; I never saw the like.  We commonly carried excavated spoil short distances in standard builders' buckets; balancing your load meant carrying two.

[Andrew1974]

Health & Safety, when done well is essential.

 

Very few things are banned due to H&S, what should be done is an assessment on what is appropriate.  With a clear indication of what should be done/ not done and WHY.  If done properly it actually helps people make common sense decisions and assess risk properly (rather than just ignore them).
 

I work in a commercial laundry.  We use huge washing machines which will sometimes suffer a blockage.  If that blockage can’t be cleared from outside the machine then we call in a specialist firm to clear it. Why you might ask? Because it is a specialist skill and doing it wrong can (and has in the past) result in death when someone has got trapped inside the machine.

 

Such a process is disruptive, so we spend time and efforts reducing the risks of the machines being blocked.  Since the policy change we now get far fewer blockages and whilst the ones that happen lead to more downtime overall downtime is reduced and everyone is much safer.  Win / win due to good H&S processes.

 

The only downside it when people use H&S as an excuse for not doing something.

[johnofwessex]

1 hour ago, Ray H said:

Are we in danger of subsequent generations not growing up aware of such things as risk?

 

How many children are allowed to make their own decisions these days so that they understand the need to assess risk? Probably not worded correctly but I hope it conveys the intended meaning.

 

When I and numerous others were growing up we were allowed to explore numerous things and ways and we learnt at a very tender age what was less risky.

 

Its the same in some respects regarding cleanliness. We've evolved over recent years into a nation of "clean" people, so much so that our bodies can no longer tolerate things are forebear's could. I'm sure that's why our hospitals and the like are so stretched (even allowing for the virus). Apologies if this paragraph is too far off topic.

 

I think its more that children are not allowed out,mostly due to the risks caused by traffic,and of course the failure to deal with the situation.

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

Plus, society has moved on from the days before H&S really took off.

Discounting the sweat shops, are we suggesting employers would instruct employees to risk their life to carry out a task?  Really?

Sorry, I can't really see that happening these days.

 

 

Then you are living in a dreamy paradise somewhere not on this planet.

 

Take lorry drivers - many are "self-employed". The number of times I have learned of (and heard in a couple of cases) them being asked to "take the tacho out" so they can go further, is extraordinary. Not just their lives at risk either.

 

Take rail-joint welders. I had several, no many, occasions to stop the job whilst they were made to put their protective gear on. Their response (before so doing) was that it all took time and slowed them down, and the gaffer wanted them on another job later.

 

Take me. We had really heavy and freezing snow in the Brighton area when I was a (junior-ish) station manager. The boss wanted trains running asap and sent us out with a sort of flame thrower on to live (third rail) tracks, which we could not see, to free up the pointwork. I didn't think to question the order until standing out there in the middle of Western Junction, trying not to relieve myself into my company-issued trousers.

 

And so on......