Health & Safety Review

  morddwyd 11:06 19 Jun 2010

The Government are to review H&S laws.

click here

Not before tim,e but difficult to see what they will be able to do.

The H & S at Work Act is a very slim volume, 20 pages or so, but it does “enable” various Regulations e.g. Manual Handling, Display Screen, Risk Management to be introduced without the inconvenience of Parliamentary scrutiny.

However, as most of these regulations are made in response to EU Directives any government influence will be minimal.

While “opt outs” are available, such as from the Working Time Directive (the idea that British workers should not be forced to wok such long hours that their health suffers is an anathema to the CBI) they are difficult to get and keep.

The one single action the Government could take to stop the silliness in H&S is take all H&S, except for environmental health – food premises and the like – out of the hands of local authorities and return it to the HSE.

You trace all of the “silly” stories back to source and it is invariably not HSE but an over zealous local government officer too full of the sense of his (sometimes her, but rarely) own importance.

  spuds 12:12 19 Jun 2010

Reading a report yesterday, it looks like this new government means business, which can only appear to be a good thing in the pre-elections 'listening to the people' procedures.

Many quangos and their representatives must be getting some very worrying indications as to their job security, and perhaps not before time.

But I do ask myself if any replacements are in the making, will these be better or worse for the public on the whole. In previous times, when changes have been made, it always seemed that the public faired out far poorer instead of better.

What worries me at the moment, is the contractual obligations of some of these people, and how will they fair, because going on the previous banker's saga, seemed to have indicated that 'higher' rewards were and always had been on the table if redundancies or dismissal occurred.

I put forward a very simple question: Will these changes save money or will they cost more in the long run to administer. And will real benefits be seen to be done. Because going a little further, some council's and 'others' seemed to have abused the way laws and safeguards were intended.

But then again, thats just me thinking out aloud :O(

  spuds 18:31 19 Jun 2010

" 'real' H&S people know that stating risks proportionately is what matter",

Like falling out a tree, will hurt ;o))

  Strawballs 19:35 19 Jun 2010

This government want to make it cheaper for the bosses who are their biggest contributers nothing to do with making it more sensable anything that makes it safer in the workplace has got to be good, as someone who in the past has been on the recieving end of bad practice in some small firms I can only hope they don't weaken H&S laws.

  rdave13 19:54 19 Jun 2010

In the place I work which has a high turnover of employees at certain times of the year, telling people that 'Like falling out a tree, will hurt ;o))' gets a blank look. We call them 'sloths workers'. Not only do they move as if they are arthritic but they also think that way.
A danger to all and quite unbelievable the amount of hired, temporary, staff fall in to this category.
Common sense and a bit of interest are a no-no.
Unbelievable really.

  Strawballs 21:26 19 Jun 2010

Then you company is employing the wrong people, it looks like the people that do the employing need some training of their own or is it they are paying so low that is all they can get?

  rdave13 21:43 19 Jun 2010

Hit the nail on the head in every way.
As a previous thread I started, " Managers eh? ".

  natdoor 22:21 19 Jun 2010

This is just another attempt to placate the media, who complain about daft H & S regulations. In fact, all the decisions are made locally in accordance with a H & S plan and many such decisions are made by jobsworths who are afraid of litigation.

A similar move is being made to extend the rights of individuals to safeguard themselves and their property from intruders. It is already pemissible to use reasonable force, so one can only assume that on future unreasonable force will become legitimate.

  rdave13 22:32 19 Jun 2010

With respect to the TS and being off topic, I would defend my family to the death, regardless of any laws, if my home and children would be under threat.
That is the law of nature. So it should stand.
natdoor; you talk a lot of bullshit.

  morddwyd 07:51 20 Jun 2010

Lively and thought provoking debate!

  Quickbeam 09:19 20 Jun 2010

Nothing more than an 'apply common sense' clause is required.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Honor 9 Lite review

How Sam Falconer transforms science and geology into digestible, elegant illustrations

HomePod review

Les meilleures séries Netflix (2018)