Latest posts:
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
I increasingly feel that DSE assessments are a thing of the past. We use excellent modern flat screen monitors, well designed modular workstations with plenty of space, and have fantastic seats that are adjustable in every dimension. This is such a contrast to when DSE assessments were applied to operators sat on stalls looking up (or down) at fixed flickering CRTs with poor resolution in crampt locations.
I accept that there are still some operators left with poor set ups and organisation but most offices have addressed this risk exceptionally well and the standard question set arising from the HSE guidance on the regs is fairly irrelevant.
But we still get a significant number of ergonomic problems.
What is needed is an ergonomic assessment for each worker looking at how they interface with their work task. I've seen a number of DSE assessments carried out as a result of identified problems where the root cause is that the employee should lose weight and take up low impact exercise.... but ofcourse an employer can't or won't say this.
One other thing. DSE Regs also include software adaptations. I don't think that enough has been done to address this side of the coin over the last 16 years. Sure we all use more graphical user interfaces which are arguably easier to navigate and we rely less on difficult to reach key combinations. But here I am typing in a tiny font, in gray with extremely poor colour contrast whilst in my direct vision I have a constantly flashing orange and green advert urging me to "Click Here". No wonder I will leave work tonight with eye strain!
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
The system is very simple and very effective. The coloured hats quickly allows everyone to distinquish the basic competency of track side workers.
Yellow most certainly is NOT used as so much work is done under yellow floodlights that makes white look like yellow, but conversely makes blue look much darker.
I've seen several manufacturing sites which use this as a way to distinguish contractors from employees.
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
I believe that under LOLER the statutory inspection inteval for lifts is 6 months. I would expect organisations to follow suppliers maintenance procedures that - I presume - would feature a more frequent regime of visual inspections and physical testing.
My concern is that it appears that one failure led to the uncontrolled discent. I presumed that equipment like this would be fitted with multiple levels of protection so that if the brakes failed then an emergency brake would automatically be applied.
I often feel that we spend too much time controling the risks of minor equipment and fail to recognise the risks from equipment like lifts as we take them for grantage and use them without considering what is actually happening.
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
A few points to make to the people that have commented on this story.
1/ Corporate Manslaughter Act is irrelevant to this case as it is not retrospective. Even if the fatality had occurred after April 2008, the CPS would need to establish that the gross negligence had also occurred after the Act became law.
2/ Corporate Manslaughter Act would not result in directors going to prison. Pre existing legislation could be brought against Directors e.g. Individual Manslaughter and/or HASAW Act.
3/ For whatever reason the HSE/Police/CPS decided that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against individuals. If there was evidence they would have been charged. It is potentially libellous to suggest that the Directors were at fault.
4/ The reason for the £2 fine is important and should be explained. The liquidators would be duty bound to pay the crown fine before paying other creditors. This might well include suppliers, employee salaries, pension fund shortfalls. The judge made the correct decision in my opinion to charge the token fine.
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
Nigel, I disagree with your premise in the first paragraph. My understanding of the law is that it is only illegal to discrimate in terms of skin colour, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender & age. There is also the (much discussed) Human Rights Act where an individual may claim that their fundamental rights have been imposed upon, but this is not a realistic legal argument (at the present time).
The process of employing someone is all about discrimating one candidate against another. But this is on legal terms i.e. you CAN discriminate between the qualifications and experience that candidates have. Similarly you can discriminate between how candidates dress, talk and act at an interview.
The Barister quoted in the article is claiming that the way someone dresses, or if they are obese, it is equivalent to sex discrimination. This is really fictional and, although our legal system would allow someone to make a claim on these grounds, there is no case law to support his argument. It would be very interesting to hear a legal argument that proved women were naturally fatter than men.
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
Clownism is real, and practiced by a great many individuals in my experience. I respect their right to make complete fools of themselves everytime they open their mouth. It is what makes life interesting...
Claire, it is humbling to see that you have taken this prank so seriously with the photo of you in the hat, scarf and comedy hair!
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
Kelly, Thank you very much for your response, and for taking my concerns seriously.
Insurance is an art, and I am no expert at all. I believe that where organisations have cover for legal expenses this would automatically (?) include any prosecutions under CMCH - BUT it is worthwhile to say that you cannot insure against fines, and there are always huge costs that might not be included in insurance terms.
Adrian, Legal privilege is where correspondence between an individual and their legal adviser cannot be produced as evidence in a case. For example a H&S manager may want to discuss possible causes of an accident in a way that is private from the HSE.
However it has also been used as a defensive strategy in the US where H&S audit reports were prepared for the lawyers rather than the management. Then, if there was an accident (and the audit report had identified a deficiency) the audit could not be used in evidence. I recommend you watch the film Erin Brockovich as it details this point very well!
This has been taken to extreme, and consequently enforcement authorities will not necessarily allow anything to be legally privileged just because it was sent to a lawyer.
If there is a serious accident in your workplace then it is useful to immediately seek legal advice, but also cooperate fully with the HSE.
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
This is a sensational piece of journalism. The impact of the Act will be slight. There are basically no new duties than under the HASAW Act (It does include non-employees, but then so does HASAW in a less explicit fashion). The biggest difference is that CMCH Act requires proof of Gross Negligence, whereas HASAW only requires SFAIRP. In practice it will be very difficult to for the CPS to prove Gross Negligence - especially in a large organisation. Therefore organisations will continue to be prosecuted under HASAW much as before.
The questionnaire that you base your article on is deeply flawed as the options lead the responder in to making certain answers - which are then interpreted by your article in a different context. Since your news story is quoting your own organisation as the only source it is actually a press release not a news story, and the word "complacent" in the headline appears as if this was said by someone, but there is no reference to the source in the article.
Rate this!
Martin Ffitch CMIOSH
Member - 9 posts
the responses so far have missed one vital element. Drivers are inherently safer in their own car, than one they are not familar with. Typically company cars (and often pool cars) are large vehicles >1.8 litre, but if the driver is used to a 1.1 litre Fiesta the driving experience is very different. Their concentration is directed on driving the car rather than on what's happening on the road.
It is difficult to balance the risks on both sides of this coin, and I'm not advocating the use of the employees own car in every situation, but this factor needs to be considered.
0 (0)
