Comments by Carl Manning

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Surely if HSE 'went out to tender' then there is at least an inference that HSE has some 'rights' to CORGI title? Capita's new contract appears to be an improved registration system but essentially it is CORGI plus, as asked above why give the impression that from a date all CORGI personnel are incompetent/unqualified?

I for one hope Capita have learnt the lessons of their other 'competitive tender contracts' with the Govt and can actually make the new system work!

I haven't seen any evidence that CORGI has 'failed' us the general public, so why the step change rather than natural 'continuous improvement'?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

drew do you nto have a caveat that allows for 'due to operational reasons/business etc'?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Graham, the concept of compentency means you have to consider-training, experience and qualification? training doesn't equate to qualification, whilst qualification indicates that some training has been assimilated/ Experience can still be the over riding factor in deciding competency.

All Construction Skills Sector support schemes do recognise prior qualification, the NVQ requirements are to allow those with no formal qualifications to use APL in the main?

Back to Stuart's intial question- when I was on my apprenticeship everyone wanted Snap-On tools, but no one could afford them or justify -after all we were mere apprentices!
CSCS is only one tool available to do the job, there are many more available, but whether it is the right tool for Stuart's staff is surely for Stuart to decide?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Nicholas, couldn't agree more, however your PhD suggests you would support the rationale behind CSCS/SMST if it ‘aids’ a demonstration of competency?

One is becoming a 'compulsory requirement' for members of the considerate contractor scheme, CSCS. I (the real personal I) feel SMST is another attempt by CITB to 'borrow' military precis from the Royal School of Military Engineering, change the name of the course and charge a fee for training and, assessment and endorsement to boot! (SMST is RE Site Safety Supervisor, (SSS) but notably with a much lower pass mark!)

In Stuart's case he may well be put in the invidious position of appointing a principal contractor who during constuction phase, question's the competency of Stuart's staff to carry out inspections (assuming his firm are savvy enough to realise it still needs to manage its contractors, and shouldn't/can't hide behind the 'It was the PC's responsibility). Most of the recent cases highlighted on the site show a trend to prosecute large organisations. If Stuart can demonstrate his Staff's competency via the combination of the training already undertaken, underpin that with one of the 'competency indicators' specified in ACoP L122 Appx 4. then he should be able to sleep tight at night?

Ref CSCS cards PQE Card would be the most appropriate for a non-tools person to 'work' on site. Black card for more senior management roles, it would depend upon the actual duties Stuart's staff (or anyone else) are expected to undertake.

IOSH seems a rather low level to use if staff are actually employed to carry out inspectios as part of their normal duties? Although, from Stuart's comments it appears his company fully support CPD so no doubt there is a move to NEBOSH Construction Cert level or beyond? The problem always seems to be communication, customers (internal/external) always see H&S as an added cost, instead of encompassing a safe culture that realises the benefits of allowing 'suitable' time for planning, in most cases the 'wasted time' actually saves time and money being wasted.

In my present role there is constant challenge on time-as with any production/manufacturing environment. The pressure is sometimes intense, due to the next three levels all having promoted though from my position.

There have been a lot of changes to legislation over the past couple of years all aimed at improving how we plan, do, review work. Most, if not all of the changes (WaH 2005, CDM 2007, Noise regs etc) are not familiar to the Senior Managers, so any costs or time is always challenged with a 'just get on with it; it didn’t take me this long/cost me this much’. Hardly a Safety Exemplar approach but like Stuart I endeavour to educate and inform! T

The message is slowly getting through that, employing competent people and keeping them up to date with products, processes and compliance issues, is a positive move that has benefits to the core business. Personally I would support CSCS as it demonstrates an ‘awareness’ level that can be used outside of the business if visiting other sites/ reviewing potential contractors etc. Which I would expect any professional organisation to do as part of its continuous improvement cycle.

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Janet

As I said excellent refocus to the core question around the ladies alleged poor performance rather than the reasons for it.

At the risk of sounding contrite there is a specific charge under the Army Act 1955 of 'Drunkness' I could point out what Section but hten you might ask -mm How does he know:)

Judging Morals is part of the job for a lot of 'Managers' I know, in fact it is again part of their Job Desription, but I digress!

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Janet-excellent refocus on the root of the matter, she isn't doing what she is paying paid to do! (Allegedly)

Being under the influence of drink or drugs is wrong?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Sorry James your poitn appears to be turn a blind eye to any illegal practice if it makes life easy for you?

I think other posts reply to the question what do we do about the problem? Have a clear alcohol and drugs policy in place and have the moral courage to implement it!

I left a previous position because of the client's reluctance to call in the police when contract staff were caught in the act of taking drugs and interfering with fire protection equipment, lest it caused bad publicity.

I am sure the Human Rigts Brigade will bang their drum, but look at the MOD a clear policy, you get caught you get anew job, in almost all cases; there are the odd few who receive counselling etc but again that is all covered off by the policy, which is clearly communicated to all staff. (Serving members that is, I do know of one lady who whilst serving as a junior civil servant took cocaine at her desk and her manager thought it was' just the same as someone leaving for a fag')

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

I concur with those seeking sensible answers to genuine queries. No relationto Bruce by the way!

An example of good use of 'hiding behind' DPA, one of my team had a problem with his clockings. I rangthegent on securty to confirm what time he had recieved his temporary pass so I could authorise an amendment, 'Mr Manning I think that information is DPA protected' said with humour, and accepted as such, I put the team member on the phone and we solved the issue.

PS anyone thinking the security gent was being a pain, would be wrong, he was most helpful and very much aware that there have been issues with TU due to over zealous managers requesting personal information from security.

The DPA like all legislation was introduced to protect the majority, it will fail to satisfy all of the people all of the time!

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Being happy to run with the role 'appears' to be at odds with your question?

Being clear on the various CDM 2007 roles is not the same as being competent to carry any one of them out.

If your company haven't appointed a CDM-C then you might well have a problem how do you know if all other legal obligations ahve been complied with?

Are those in power aware that until you appoint a CMC-C, you (they) have to assume all duties of CDM-C? Which is the point made above, by the exorbinant member of APS:)

The biggest challenge at the moment appears to be getting senior management in organisatios, regardless of size, to appreciate the implications of the 2007 Regs. Many still use the get it done tomorrow approach to management which contradicts the need to allow time for planning, allocate suitable and sufficient resources etc.

We use an external agency for all CDM-C appointments and they have developed a good half day session for Senior Mgrs I am sure they or others could help for a far to large fee:)

Do your management understand the clarification of what constitutes 'Construction' as that in itself might be an internal issue that needs addressing as a matter of urgency?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

"A service career can last to the age of 55 and who's to say she wouldnt have wanted a full career? "

I seem to recall that during the case it was acknowledged that the soldier had previously 'signed off' on two seperate occassions, of course that could be incorrect.

Whilst I serving I had a male soldier come into the office and 'admit' to being gay. I had already seen a draft of the announcement that GLBT could continue to serve, so asked him if he wouldn't mind coming back to discuss the matter on Fri afternoon. He looked surprised but realised there was something in my comments and duly left only to return on Fri afternoon.

I asked him what I could do to help -ie as if it was a new problem, he replied " I am still a puff"

"Fair play" I replied "what have you got planned for PT in the morning?"

Of course not all soldiers/officers are as enlightened:) The issue in the case in question is most definitely the amount of the award-still to be confirmed.

Personally I have witnessed more sexual discrimination and 'bullying' since I left the forces than I saw in my whole military career. I can't remember walking around with blinkers on, so can only assume that as with so many public institutions, the negative aspects are the ones that become newsworthy. I don't recall the press beating a path to my door to see how my unit had such high morale with such 'deviants' serving alongside 'normal' people.

By the way I do agree with Tracey's comments about the protracted complaint procedures certainly within the MoD, perhaps they are the problem, as those that 'harrass' know there is little chance of them being punished?

ANY form of harrassment should be deplored and stamped out; but when does banter become harrassment; if we haven't solved the chicken and the egg, we sure as hell won't solve 'banter/harrassment' this side of the next millenium?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Hmm was Barry the police officer I wonder:)

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Cultural awareness and acceptance - Yes

Cultural imposition -No

Alex is correct to point out the 'request' is only one of courtesy, I fear like some others that the 'request' will quickly become an urban myth, like so many H&S issues.

I recently asked one of my team if it would help him to work 'flexibly' this month due the long daylight hours. The offer was appreciated, but he pointed out he would be causing 'trouble' and 'lone worker' issues, no trouble or lone workers I just come in to cover him and get some work done without the phone going!

The danger is surely the council could be accused of creating division rahter than their honourable attempt to promote integration

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

I expect the Network Rail 'rules' have been put in place in order to demonstrate the company has learnt from some recent incidents. Surely all organisations will have their local procedures and thus the 'incident' is not too surprising?
However, what is notable is the lack of communication between NR and Miller's?

It would be worth knowing who decided the wrong colour meant failing to meet basic safety requirements, someone who had just read the new rules looking to score points or someone hoping to get the right message out for the right reasons?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

So I take it the Police Officer followed due procedure, reported to his/her superiors he/she had been invovled in a road traffic collision and asked to be suspended pending an internal review, prior to returning to traffic duty?

Your post raises an interesting point reference the law, if ignorance is no defence, should updates such as that outlined not be widely publicised? I take it I can report eejits 'speeding' in a car park now, or traffic wardens can issue 'parking tickets' to those not shopping with children or parking in disabled bays without due cause?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Jayn, interesting point ref time frames. A large Govt dept I worked for, failed to pay me 'legitimate' expenses due to internal nterpretation regarding entitlement. It took over two years to be resolved, yet the policy clearly stated (and still does as far as I am aware) that claims would only be payable within a one month time frame, there was no clear indication if that meant to be submitted within one month or paid within one month.

I have since left that particular job, however a personal finance review highlighted any taxable claim could be made up to the statute of limitations limit of 5 tax years? If that is correct it would appear to contradict your advice reference 'policies' surely legisaltion trumps local policy?

One particular claim I submitted that was never settled despite me having expended a considerable sum on behalf of the Organisation appears to fall under SoL arguement. I for one would seriously consider pursuing this through the courts if need be, as I was given authority to enter into a local contract with a company to provide a much needed service, had to pay for the service but have now battled since Jun 05 with the organisation to get my money back.

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

How far does liability go? Local Councils frequently undersize their spaces so they can fit more spaces in, who is liable for any damage caused by a door opening and making contact with another car? The 'careless' driver or 'negligent' council?

Alan raised an interesting point regarding OLA and 'exemption from liability' signs, how many of the big stores use a sign as their defence?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Some interesting posts, and it is nice to see the pragmatic approach taken by Phil's company. Car Parking is always emotive recent experience includes Union staff complainign they had not been consulted despite the availability increasing!

A case in Manchester Evening News last year indicated that HMRC are on terra firma when it comes to 'benefit in kind' I believe there was a resultant charge levied on workers at the place in question (nominal) to make use of a loophole.

Perhaps if everyone who could adopted a greener mode of transport the proble would be reduced to become manageable:)

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

DDA and Part M don't match up seamlessly. The intepretations here are evidence of the ongoing confusion.

I recently had request to convert one area to disabled access toilets as 'it was law'. The area in question actually had a member of staff who is registered as disabled,so one might think there is no case to answer, 'do it'. However, the individual's specific disability assessment indicated that there was no need to carry out the works requested as the individual could use the existing facilities without any discomfort. If the situation changes then we would look to carry out remedial works in quick time, as indeed we did recently for a member of staff who moved workplaces on site.

As with all elements of 'law' there are plenty of 'experts' willing to tell you how you do not comply with this reg that reg and every other reg; that is until you actually question them, then their advice becomes more wooly than a herdwick in winter!

Regardless of the legal aspects, it might make sense during any refurbishment works to build in facilities that future proof the building, it will undoubtedly save moeny in the long run, but more importantly it mioght well take away the unwitting decision not to employ someone on the grounds of 'it'll cost us to fix'-as alluded to elsewhere a situation to be avoided. After all don't you want the best persopn for the job, not the best looking, youngest, smartest? all forms of discrimination in them selves, think smart work smarter?

Carl Manning
Member - 28 posts

Going back to the original -is it right or wrong- in a previous post the cleaning business manager instructed a firm to come in and remove all rcds from the scrubbers and other wet activity hardware. I was amazed at her rationale- the cleaners break them too often, if they get a shock they might be awake to do some work! Personally I would rather educate people than HOPE an industrial facility had suitable low level protection. Refreshing take on17th editon requirements, my update suggested aty first that all outlets must have 'push to test' set up; only when challenged by did the presenter agree with the response above- protection of fixed wiring at suitable junctures. I recall one person saying he was leaving early to invest in a company making RCDs! I have since had three queries from H&S Reps asking when RCDs will be fitted to all appliances as required 'by law' - oh how dangerous the internet can be:)