do I have muppet written on my forehead?

[Troll]

This thread is dedicated to examples of outragous Health and Safety issues in archaeology (professional/academic).No names or places please-just the low-down. To get you started...
a consultancy I worked for wanted me to remove an MOD waste heap from the surface of a scheduled ancient monument.Chemical analyses were carried out around the heap...heavy metals a gogo. I noticed they had`nt taken any samples from the heap itself...this carried out, their RA stipulated breathing gear/specialist removal and chemical showers...I got a dust mask. MOD refused to pay for removal. A university I worked for last year...British Army base...18 aircraft bombs in one week...told us they were all "dummies". We spent weeks in front of diggers picking up ordnance. I walked off site only to be asked back and promised that things would be done properly...developer picked up ordnance and carried it through our team in the trenches before putting it on his desk.I demanded a near-miss form and was refused.I left. Colleagues of mine identified asbestos on site last week...they got dust masks and were told to carry on as it would be removed by a specialist...they spent weeks working next to it....over to you...}:) Oh yeah, on an urban site recently, developer dug a 10 metre deep chasm behind us in readiness for the building of an underground car-park.This was about half a footy pitch square. We had to push our tool-laden barrows along a three foot wide "path" next to the edge in blizzard and ice conditions.When I took this up with the grown ups, we got a plastic wobbly orange fence instead of a secure-built barrier...nowhere near good enough guys...wakey wakey, its bad enough that archaeologists are the lowest paid graduates and put up with conditions akin to the industrial revolution. Don`t make me write an obituary for a dead British archaeologist, it will get very ugly, very quickly. Not a threat but a promise. Just for once, I would invite the IFA/ALGAO/PROSPECT to contribute to or, at the very least, read the contributions on this thread. I will be asking you for your comments either by letter or, via the press.

[drpeterwardle]

well said Troll

Peter

[deepdigger]

A company I worked for in Wales had us digging up stiffs in a cathedral graveyard, including a plague and typhoid pit, with no toilets or anywhere to wash your hands and with no site hut, and this in Febuary in Wales, we ate our sarnies sat on the steps!
Also dismantaled a folly tower with no scaffolding, just ladders and "oh yeah, better bring a hard hat if you've got one"!
Another churchyard job this year, digging in a graveyard again no site hut and no washing facilities!
Evaluation trenches in the centre of Cardiff three weeks with no site hut or anything, when it rained everyone had to shelter in my car or under trees!!
Disgusting way to treat people I think!!

deep

[mercenary]

How about:

A waterlogged urban site beneath a council refuse collection tank on bank of river. The sludge and god knows what contaminants drained into the strat beneath, that we then had to dig in very wet conditions. If a contaminant study was done ( I suspect it was) it was not shown to me despite constant requests. PPE comprised the token paper one-use suits and 30p mask and latex gloves.

or

A former railway site contaminated with low levels of heavy metals and arsenic (a component of railway coke) no PPE provision or washing facility and I got symptoms of heavy metal poisoning (lesions etc)after eight weeks of constant exposure. Crap NHS could only tell me that it wasn't arsenic, but could have been a raft of other things. Didn't get the test results until two months AFTER the site had ended. Lesson: these things have to be predicted before the work because the system is far too slow to be any use once the site is underway.

or

A site in a heavily wooded area where archs were expected to clear brush, brambles and trees in hot weather before excavation with minimal PPE comprising personal work gloves(definitely not in the RA). My resulting multiple abrasions got infected (no washing facility) and I got Impetigo all over my arm. Two heavy duty courses of anti-malarial antibiotics cleared it up after about 3 months. Interestingly, the doc thought I'd got Lyme disease from a tick, which was another distinct possibility.

or

Potential unexploded ordnance on MOD training ground which army bomb man hit with one of our shovels. Also the site was littered with unexploded small arms ammo which we had to metal detect and then dig out by hand. The mind boggles.

And finally the best or worst I've heard about was a colleage who dug a site under a Boron Tip! As I understand it the stuff is radioactive! H&S bloke who came to sample the stuff while in the middle of the project, reputedly hurriedly abandoned his samples and never came back when he realized what he was dealing with. The site continued regardless.:(

Sorry Troll, you asked for it.

[drpeterwardle]

On a practical note why is the SCAUM manuel not freely available on the internet?

David why not see if you can host it on BAJR?

Similarly a H&S list of links would be useful.


Peter

[deepdigger]

I think the SCUM(A) manual has copyright issues Peter!!

deep

[troll]

Guys and girls-please keep this coming! I can`t think of anything more important-this needs to be brought out into the cold light of day so..no apologies please Mercenary (although you`ve given me nightmares!) and I admire your tolerance! Doctor Warldle, I could`nt agree more, the key to a healthy (and legal) HS culture has to start with a workforce that knows it`s rights and-the confidence to insist upon appropriate and timely mitigation. On another thread some time ago, Mr Hosty asked if it would be possible to insist upon the placing of the SCAUM manual on site as a condition...what do you think? Having access to the document on-line is a superb and timely idea. More please everyone!!!!!!!!:D

[troll]

On the copyright issue Deep, an HS manual will surely be outlining current HS legislation-paid for by the taxpayer.Secondly, whilst I wholeheartedly support the rights of the author(s), I would argue that to deny the workforce access to this document would be a spectacular (PR) own goal. The author(s) may argue that access is granted when a price (I hear around 50 squid) is paid for the book as is their right however, I would argue that Commercial units should and, if they have any sense of what is right, shoulder this cost and ensure that EVERY site has access to a copy as a matter of urgency. In support of the SCAUM, I heartily welcome the publishing of this important document. The IFA would have simply applied for funding in order to secure yet another pointless 10 year study to discuss whether it would be worth it to write one. SCAUM have done it so, lets have it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kevin wooldridge]

Having read the earlier mails in this strand, I wouldn't get to hung up about the SCAUM H&S manual. The SCAUM manual is surely only a guidance document and is not in itself a workable Health and Safety policy with accompanying procedures. Every employer has a legal duty to ensure that an appropriate H&S policy (with accompanying procedures) is in place. There is no such duty to possess the SCAUM manual.

What archaeologists need to know is that their employer is taking their H&S responsibilities seriously; that there is demonstrable evidence of those responsibilites in terms of written risk assessments; that copies of those risk assessments are available for consultation [u]at the workplace</u> and that those assessments have been undertaken by a competent person. Many of the problems outlined earlier suggest that some/all of the above conditions are not being fulfilled.

A free downloadable H&S guidance document is available at

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/law.pdf

[troll]

As the direct result of my rantings on here, I was immediately sent a full copy of the HS manual from my employers HS manager despite the fact that my rantings were not aimed at them. I was offered and indeed, entered into full and frank dialogue with said manager! How often does that happen? Professionalism costs nothing. Kevin, I agree, and thank you for the link. I think that I am trying to achieve a level playing field in my suggestion regarding the SCAUM handbook in that, if the field staff understand the guidelines of Unit Managers, consistancy may not then continue to be a pipe dream. I do agree however, that HS procedures and not simply guidelines are needed..just look at how ridiculously useless ppg16 has been as "guidence" but thats a thread elswhere...:D

[Pete M]

Re site huts and handwashing - I once charged my employer £15/week to use my van as a tea hut with handwashing facilities after they refused to get a mobac.

My experiences with site H&S - I ran a combined building/archaeology project a couple of years ago with unemployed trainees forming the main workforce. I was also responsible for complying with the CDM regulations, and took it all pretty literally.

At the start we organised a manual handling course, and a first aid course so that everyone was qualified for CPR. Then we divided the areas up and did area and task specific risk assessments, copies of which were given to the individuals concerned (no point doing an assessment without showing the site workers, is there?). Then we trained the trainees to do a daily site safety check themselves, and to work out how to make the site safer. Each trainee was given responsibility for the daily inspection, and to take whatever action was highlighted. Some realised they could avoid doing any real work by being extremely vigilant on the inspections.

Everyone was bought PPE - most of which was gone within a week. Hard hats are not supposed to be used once they are dropped on the ground. The wind was such that we had to replace about 20 hats (there were only about 8 on site). Actually we would have had to supply a new hat every day if we wanted to be sure it was safe. 12 months supply of sterile eyewash (10 bottles) were used within 2 weeks, all by one trainee who refused to wear goggles, and we were were working with lime...

The cost of making the site safe was alarming - one assessment noticed that the main pathways were getting muddy, and formed a slipping hazard, which could be alleviated by using duckboards. So we hired in an extra load of scaffolding planks. These were judged to be too dangerous to be used indivually, so the order was doubled so we could sister them. Then we needed to buy some 2X2 and nails to fix the planks together. These obviously got slippy, so we bought in some chicken wire and some U nails, and fixed that to the top. This took one person the best part of a week to put together, and the scaffolding plank hire costs were over £1000 for the project. I inherited a budget which included a single sum for the entire project, so in the end I had to reduce the amount I claimed for my own part in order to pay for the planks.

I started to wonder how everyone else handled these things - once a hazard had been identified (ie dangerous walkways, unstable masonry) and was recorded on paper, it couldn't be ignored, and action had to be taken. Any accident that occurred as a result of something that was identified as a hazard and had actions that could have reduced the risk, but wasn't acted on - it's obvious where the blame lies. So the answer must be to only record things that can be sorted out easily/cheaply, or not to record things at all.

In the end the H&S probably accounted for 5% of the budget, but no-one got hurt during the 12 months of the project.

[drpeterwardle]

Moderators choose the word to delete.

***
****
*****
copyright

H&S normally overrides all other matters. There is a legal phrase de minimus non curat lex - the law does not deal withn trifles. Copyright is a trifle, H&S is not

Dr P

[BAJR Host]

I have asked before and was told no...

I could ask again.

Another day another WSI…

[trowelhead]

This is one of my major bug H&S bears.. "The Old slippery mud covered floor right next to the boiling kettles routine, I have so many times nearly burned my jubblies off by that last minute skid by the kettle/Urn.

It must be the most leathal area on site but is seen as a traditional hazard also whats all this working in the pouring rain mularky! You know the one where everybody starts to look at everybody else and think the same thing "Is he gona rain us off or not" any useful archaeology has stopped and you just hunker down in your trench like a first world war soldier smoke a fag and hope it stops.

When you are usually soaked you wonder back to the site hut nearly kill yourself on those great planks that some idiot didnt put chiken wire on and the ones that have always tear your hands to pieces when you move them.

Having ruined the site we all sit in damp clothes risking chest complaints in a damp hut because most units dont provide you with wet weather geear other than those old fishermans friends type yellow rain coats and trousers that you sweat so much in just putting them on you have to immediatly take them off.

Another corker is the Hi-lux 4X4 wobble special going home after the wheels have gone out of balance due to the mud in them and you end up holding on to the steering wheel for dear life while it trys to yank itself out of you grip.

Or we could look at the lack of mushroom caps on grid pegs and I know of a very nasty story of a wessex guy who... well lets just say sat back on one....

Also a lack of hot water on most sites too is good un so, as was mentioned, we all eat bits of dead folk with our egg sarnies.

And why oh why do units buy those crap mattocks that do that comedy metal bit sliding down the shaft to smack you on top of the hand routine when you lift the damn thing..

There is also the great satan that is hoeing baked clay in 30C and wondering why your back hurts and the person next to you starts crying.

And to end with the crowning turd in the water pipe the Mohammed Ali of all fits of anger and frustration the top dog of all frustration and venting of spleen....... yep its the old flat wheel on the Wheelbarrow shuffle we all do at least once a week generally exhasperated when you go up a slippery plank and it all falls over the side. I mean why! Why do unit keep em at every unit there is a barrow in the store room that should be thrown but always makes it out on site. :D:D:D:D

[Pete M]

quote:Originally posted by trowelhead

This is one of my major bug H&S bears.. "The Old slippery mud covered floor right next to the boiling kettles routine, I have so many times nearly burned my jubblies off by that last minute skid by the kettle/Urn.


So you've identified a hazard - what's the solution?

besides moaning?

[Curator Kid]

Trowelhead, this all sounds horribly familiar - either we've worked on some sites together, or such H&S nightmares are sadly too common! Incidentally, the comedy mattocks problem can usually be avoided by soaking the heads overnight (every night) in buckets of water to make the wood expand - if there's any water on site. Pete M is right - a lot of potential problems are solveable with some common sense.

I once worked on a windy open area site where an empty wheelbarrow blew into the pit I was digging and whacked me on the head. As the machines had gone by then, I'd dispensed with my hard hat, so that hurt. B) I've also been hit twice on site by JCB buckets during machining. These incidents were actually my fault for not paying proper attention and ignoring basic rules - it's not only the managers who need to be vigilant on sites. Remember that H&S is the responsibility of everyone on site - not just the bosses.

Obviously that doesn't excuse poor management however - heavy metals, radioactivity (!), asbestos etc. are unacceptable. Point out your concerns to your employers, and if they won't do anything, then shop the gits to the HSE. I posted some links on the Scaum H&S manual discussion a while ago which are useful. Basic health and safety isn't some form of luxury that's not affordable on the rubbishy budgets that archaeology usually gets, so check out what you're entitled to expect.

[trowelhead]

Pete M my old fruit I wasnt having a moan I was just light heartedly highlighting issues that effect us on site as for soloutions well you post some out mate instead of having a :Ddig.. handbags at 20 paces I fear.

[Penfold]

In my short archaeological life (I hesitate to call it a career) I have also seen some nightmares, including the "Dummy" ordnance episodes to which Troll refers, which was just asking for an entry into last years Darwin awards (though the controlled explosions were entertaining:D)
Excavation of human remains with no handwashing facilities.
No drinking water on site in extremely high temperatures etc etc. I was a Health and Safety advisor in the Oil exploration industry in my previous life, and to be quite honest I have issued "STOP" notices for lesser shortcomings than we see every day in this job. And that is saying a lot, as Oil companies are working towards serious profits, not the crumbs which some unit's seem to be
picking up from developers. The difference being that it (Oil) is a high profile job, and it does the multi nationals no favours if they cut corners in H&S just too save money.
We have all heard the stories of the good old days of the 70's, mattocking in flip flops etc, and quaint as these tales are over tea break, it goes to show that not a lots changed in damn near 4 decades. Its definitely time something was done, but dont get the idea that its someone elses responsibility, as CuratorKid so rightly said, SAFETY is the responsibility of EVERYONE on site, so it's up to us as a workforce to make sure that employers do their duty. Sorry to go on but this is a subject that I actually know something about.

Penfold

[voice of reason]

H and S is indeed everybody's responsibility.

The idea that you can take your hard hat off when the machines have gone is ridiculous. The number of times you see people down pits or in ditch sections below ground level, walking round scaffolding or wielding picks without a hat is beyond belief. I get bored reminding people to put their lids back on, but it won't stop me doing it.

Anyone else got snakes on their Risk Assessment? Good year for adders this year you should be aware.

[Pete M]

quote:Originally posted by trowelhead

Pete M my old fruit I wasnt having a moan I was just light heartedly highlighting issues that effect us on site as for soloutions well you post some out mate instead of having a :Ddig.. handbags at 20 paces I fear.


Handbags are far too dangerous !!

I was merely being over-sensitive [:I][:I]

[trowelhead]

Let us squabble not as this is a serious issue that effects us all. And I wish not to deviate from this topic string.:)

[Galaxsea]

OK, I'm gonna jump right into the lions den here.
I've just read this thread 3 times and the same thing comes into my head every time.

WHY DO YOU PUT UP WITH ALL THIS SH*T?

Everyone who has posted on this thread knows that the people you are working for legally have to exercise their duty of care.
From what I've seen, you know where to get hold of the information and legislation.
There is a requirement on the part of the developer / property owner to ensure a watching brief takes place if development is to take place on these sites you work on.
This puts the requirement on them to look after you.
BUT THESE BREACHES OF HEALTH AND SAFETY STILL TAKE PLACE.

I am a realist and can see that sometimes, to achieve what is required, rules have to be bent.
This does not mean they should be forgotten / ignored to the extent where peoples health and lives are at risk.

One thing the Bush Child has done with our taxes is supplied shed loads of information on all the .gov websites.
ODPM.gov.uk (2-jags site) has all the building regs. listed.
DTI.gov.uk lists employment legislation
etc
etc
etc

Help me to understand why you put up with these poor working conditions and treatment.

[1man1desk]

I've just read through the whole of this thread and some of the incidents/conditions described sound like prosecutable offences that should have been reported (by the employee) to the HSE.

As a consultant I see very clearly that H&S practice among archaeologists is way behind that amongst, for instance, construction contractors (one of our key client groups). There is no excuse for failure to properly assess risks (including things like contamination), failure to provide PPE or proper welfare facilities, failure to operate safely, etc; in fact, most of these things can be criminal offences.

On the other hand, H&S is a two-way street, and site staff also have responsibilities for themselves and each other. We try hard to build good H&S practice into contract conditions etc. when putting work out to tender. However, we often find that supervisors/project officers on site are reluctant to enforce the rules against resistance by the staff. I wish I had a £ for every time I have walked towards a trench, only to see the diggers in it hastily putting on their flashy jackets and hard hats when they spot me. Other times, I have asked people directly to put on helmets because and got the equivalent of "awww, do I have to?", which is too childish for words.

In relation to helmets that fall off, they can all take chin straps you know.



1man1desk

[Oxbeast]

I wear my helmet when I need to, and I leave it off when I don't. Same with flash vests. If there are machines on site, I wear the stuff. I don't fancy becoming a blob. If I'm digging alone or with someone else, on a site with nothing above me and no machines, of course I won't bother with a hard hat. More like a sun hat. similarly, if you wear a yellow vest in summer for no reason, you will find yourself surrounded by wasps. Put that in your risk assessment.

Wear the gear when it will actually make you safer, but just because you see people taking off their hats don't assume that they have no interest in their own safety.

[troll]

First, please accept my thanx everyone, this is the most important issue there is and, I really appreciate the gravity you guys are treating it with. Glaxsea, sadly, field archaeologists are for the most part, temporary/casual and itinerant workers. There are thousands of new graduates every year bursting to work for these units. As such, there is a huge pool of workers (experienced or otherwise) available to contractual units. Time and time again, a field operative with donkies years of experience surviving on one short contract to the next, can be fired for moaning and replaced tenfold the day after. The simple answer is this-seen as a whistleblower, your careers over. The sh*ite commercial units know it too and take the p*ss consistantly. I find this to be a disgusting and filthy environment but, for the mass of us-is reality. For my part, neglect HS at your peril.Not only will I take it extremely personally but, I will have the offending unit on the front page of every newspaper in the UK within 12 hours. Thats before I inform BAJR and the HSE.Then, my freinds, Troll will allow himself to get the right arsehole. So sack me, I only work for grown ups and professionals. That`s better, needed that....In short, offending units know that they can do what they like within a commercial environment where field archaeologists do not enjoy the security of work contracts enjoyed by full-time staff elsewhere in the archaeological industry. Penfold, Good to hear from you sir-think you may have just identified your specialism there mate...... :Das an aside, the HSE will only prosecute where they feel that they will have a reasonable chance of success in prosecution as litigation costs money.....

[mercenary]

quote:WHY DO YOU PUT UP WITH ALL THIS SH*T?



Well, for me the answer is complex, but at least a part of it the fear of becoming blacklisted. I'm not too worried about being sacked these days, but I'm sure as **** not goin' to get any more decent projects if I blow the whistle on H&S issues. Never ending watching brief duty is the likely result.

For most of the nightmare projects mentioned in my last post contamination was the main issue, not the comedy debate about Hi-Vi's and hats when machines aren't near. (Even cowboy Units provide that stuff to pretend they care about H&S)

When I expressed serious concern about contaminants I was either fobbed off and told that the study had been done, but that there were no contaminants to worry about, or I was shown a useless study designed for builders who were not going to go near the soil, let alone stew themselves in it for a few weeks. Without knowing 100% that I'm at risk when the grown ups say I'm not, it's a huge gamble to dig my heels in and refuse to work. Almost every site I do, or have done with past employers, I could make a stand on some H&S issue, but I've got to pick my battles. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen what I think is asbestos only to be told "There is NO ASBESTOS ON THIS SITE!" I have stopped work in a dangerous situation on a site which I was running, and would do so again, but I got a load of passive agressive punishment from my employer for doing so.

I fully agree that H&S is everyones responsibility, but most archaeologists are forced to be pragmatic about it. The debate is not ignore H&S issues and DIE! or blow the whistle and be sacked! There are many shades of grey between, and I for one struggle with the balancing act. Once again digging archaeologists who bear the brunt of ineffectual monitoring, inadequate H&S provision, inadequate knowledge, inadequate protective legislation are being asked to carry the can. Bollocks!

[deepdigger]

Yeah, well said! I think you've hit the nail right on the head Merc!
It is a balancing act, and although I'm fairly sure that even the people I work for are not stupid enough to sack you over a H&S issue, I bet I would have either no work offered to me or I'd get the ****ty end of the stick everytime afterwards!!

deep

[Peter Hinton]

Dear all,

Re Health and Safety I think it might help to set out the IFA view. Very simply, it's very important. If IFA members or Registered Organisations are responsible for the sort of practices described, then let the IFA know - but we do need details or otherwise there is nothing we can investigate. If these sorts of activities are being committed by non-IFA members or organisations there is nothing we can do directly, as they have chosen not to comply with the code of conduct and not to be subject to any complaints or disciplinary procedure. But they are not above the law. If you can't sort the problem out via a line management or trade union route, you have have the right - and arguably the duty - to report it to the HSE. And as an employee you could and should see the company H&S policy statement, risk assessment etc.

There is no excuse for this sort of H&S practice. Employers have a legal duty to comply with the law and lots of guidance - including the SCAUM manual, which provides an excellent summary of responsibilities. Send in the details, please, if the IFA can investigate. Your identity can be kept secret if you ask us to, but it's even better if you're prepared to identify yourself as someone who cares and isn't going to put up with bad practice.

Peter Hinton, IFA

[Gerwyn]

I was unable to leave Troll's recent muttering regarding Unit H&S alone; if these issues had bothered Troll, why did he not raise them with the "grown ups" at the time rather than bitch on a website after the fact. The staff i work with welcome comments and I ensure all staff working under me are aware of H&S and I encourage them to take an interest in site H&S, the last thing I would expect is for one of my collegues to log on and complain when there was ample opportunity to comment on site.

I am also forced to question the validity of some of Troll's facts; a ten metre deep excavation on site, does he realise how deep ten metres is, I'm not doubting the excavation was deep, but seriously doubt whether any contractor would excavate a ten metre deep trench! I too have excavated sites containing ordnance and know for a fact that NO army bomb disposal bloke would hit a bomb with a shovel, I find the statement lacking any credibility!

So Troll, if you've got ligitimate H&S concerns, raise them with the "grown ups", don't go bitching anonymously on a website. Become part of the solution, not part of the problem!

[BAJR Host]

Which is why .... as Peter says .... any allegation must be backed up with substance... details, letters, decent photos.. etc

If you are down a ten metre hole and you have corroboration, photos etc.... (even a quick report to BAJR Hotline but better still the HSE..... ) then the IFA can actually do something.

This website (BAJR) is part of teh solution, as it brings out these allegtations, and consequesntly a structured response.

thanks for chipping in G.


Another day another WSI…

[kevin wooldridge]

The problems outlined by Troll appear to fall into the category of what some H&S policy documents define as 'Unsafe Situations'.

There should be a means for anyone to report an Unsafe Situation and to have it investigated. I have sometimes seen the Site Accident Book used to report such incidents, although there ought to be a more appropriate means and staff should be made aware of the responsible person during H&S briefings.

Regarding keeping quiet about Unsafe Situations. Under the current H&S and employment laws it may be possible for an employer to take disciplinary action against an employee who fails to report an Unsafe Situation and could result in dismissal. To that end keeping quiet could be as threatening to your job prospects as becoming a whistle blower.

[drpeterwardle]

I think some collection of data is required. How widespread are these practices being referred to? Is it one or two companies, most of them or all of them. I seem to recall that serious incidents have to be reported to the HSE - those that involve injury. David BAJR/Peter IFA surely one of you could check with HSE on what the level of incidents actually are.

From my own discussions with HSE one of the problems we have as such a small industry the instances of death are very few and far between (thankfully) and thus serious problems may not have been identified as a major problem because they occur in very small number.

The SCAUM manual was drwn up with the HSE surely there must have been some assessment of current practices at the time. Similarly surely this manual should be revised or amended.

If one or two units are involved action via the IFA is appropriate, if somethings are industry wide then the HSE must be involved to ensure change.

Peter

[Dakine]

It`s amazing that this topic pops up on a regular basis regarding H&S within archaeology. What makes me laugh...and cry with frustration is that the well known company i work for has a senior member of staff responsible for H&S. This person has no training in any H&S whatsoever and most of the jobs i have worked on for this person have resulted in breaches of H&S (where the hell do i stand, i cannot tell the senior managers my concerns as this person is golden balls to them). Imagine if a serious accident occures, even a death which is almost inevitable, then:face-confused: the HSE would throw the book at the unit. Maybe, and i hate saying it, it would take a serious accident to occur for things to change. I love my job, the people i meet, the experiences that i have gained...but when a senior manager tells me that a site is free from contaminates (even though the geotech guys are wearing chemical suits and masks, and then a strong chemical smell comes from the trench..."errr" he said "stand up wind".

[mercenary]

quote:I too have excavated sites containing ordnance and know for a fact that NO army bomb disposal bloke would hit a bomb with a shovel, I find the statement lacking any credibility!



It seems that Troll is being blamed for my rant on this one, and while he's not even here to defend himself. I will therefore defend us both.

Sadly Gerwyn, this anecdote is absolutely true and I will be happy to provide details. The reason I included it was to show that a variety of crazy things happen that a risk assessment may not have covered. I suspect that the MOD bomb guy made a visual assessment of the object and decided that it posed no threat. Why he then hit it with a shovel is anyones guess, perhaps to scare the archaeologists.

On that particular site a full risk assessment was done and as far as I could tell all H&S rules were followed. We had to because it was a nationally inportant research project done by an organization that has to be seen to be following the rules. The problem however was that the project was so unusual, that short of refusing to work on the site at the beginning, we had to deal with some H&S issues as and when they arose. As one of the people running the site I hope that we did it sensibly, although I did (rightly)come in for some criticism from the excavators for this incident.

I will reiterate my comment in my previous post, as Gerwyn clearly missed it. We as archaeologist have to be pragmatic and judge H&S issues as we see them, often without all the necessary information. We cannot down tools and await a solution every time a potential danger is identified. As for the assumption that we say nothing on site and then bitch on a website after the fact. RE-READ the posts! Both Troll's and my posts include examples of our actions to address the issues at the time. These are not black and white issues, that are easy to pin down. Lies and evasions or general crapness by developers or employers usually muddy the water enough to leave the humble archaeologist completely powerless. I know all too well that unless you have conclusive proof, you are pissing in the wind approaching the HSE, and nothing is conclusive regarding contamination risks. How unsafe the conditions actually were is never determined or only becomes apparent after the fact.

I simply listed some of the worst stories from my career to date, with the intention of demonstrating the kinds of risks we face. They are from a variety of places and employers, and not limited to the cowboy units either. I have no particular axes to grind about any of these incidents or employers. What actions could be taken by me were done so at the time. All I want is that proper risk assesments are done [u]before</u> a project, including proper contamination surveys, that are then shown to all site staff. I have yet to see this [u]ever</u> done, in 10 years and with 10 employers! So in answer to DrPete, it is very widespread.

I'm sick to death of the postings demanding that we prove that these incidents have happened. The burden of proof should be with employers that a site is as safe as it can be made! :(

[BAJR Host]

quote:I'm sick to death of the postings demanding that we prove that these incidents have happened. The burden of proof should be with employers that a site is as safe as it can be made!

I agree merc... but without proof.. it is difficult to take action... you are right that teh burden should lie on teh employer.. but as I and Peter Hinton say.. we need proof to act at the moment

Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

Thanks for that Mercenary,

I have no problem with people ranting about the unsafe situations they have been in or demanding basic adherence to H&S.

My experience over the last 10 years is very different for the record -

1 serious incident with a serious injury - I was uninjured but nearly killed. Us archaeologists were in the clear. A prosecution was brought by the police, not H&S who investigated the situation, and thrown out in court.

1 minor incident - operative sprayed with fluid from JCB - was he standing too close to the machine?

No reports of H&S issues reported to me by all the diggers on site.

One complaint by an operative - test pits being dug to depth which displayed there outdated understanding of H&S law and how to handle the situation.

H&S kit used by contractors - basic not sophisticated in general but some contractors like BUFAU stand out. (I assume I am allowed to make positive comments).

In comparison the previous ten years in some respects were better. When I worked for OAU - the safety officer stopped me starting work on a project, a key one, on an H&S issue, I raised the issue - he took action - the line managers were p***d off - the funding bodies were annoyed about the delay ....but that hazard was eliminated for a trivial cost to the overall project. (The work had to be done anyway and it had the advantage that the tree huggers didnot know what was happening).

Having worked at circa 10m depth with heavy metal contaminants with a near miss which could have resulted in a fatality things were not perfect in the bad old days of PPG 16.

What is needed is clear demonstrable statistics so that the relevant bodies can take strategic action if neccessary what is not needed is a witch hunt on things that are in fact standard practice. Over to you David BAJR and Peter IFA.

Peter

(BTW - I will be running a tender competition in the near future where H&S if a key factor. Some of us take take these things seriously!)

[Pete M]

[/quote]
All I want is that proper risk assesments are done [u]before</u> a project, including proper contamination surveys, that are then shown to all site staff. I have yet to see this [u]ever</u> done, in 10 years and with 10 employers!
[/quote]

An utterly reasonable request.

Surely the evidence (paperwork) of employers' risk assessments and contamination surveys (or lack of) will be available for the IFA or HSE to inspect along with all of the other project documentation? I don't mean a standard H&S policy, I mean the actual documents relating specifically to a project. There should be a standard procedure to request these documents. Maybe they should automatically be in the public domain.

Employers should really get site workers to sign the bottom of risk assessments to show that they have been shown them. This seems to me to be a simple way of protecting both parties.

[cooky]

I couldnt stay out of this any longer. There are some really interesting points made on both viewpoints here. I agree that H+S is often neglected by archaeologists both at Project Management level and operatives in the field - Arrogance is the biggest single problem with Field Archaeology today. Field Operatives acting macho and boasting about near misses and moaning that they will get sacked if they complain etc etc

I have no experience of people being sacked for complaining and I have 15 years experience in field arcaheology - though I will accept that there must be unscrupulous units that may do this as Troll suggests.

I do have plenty of examples of people 'not having their contract renewed' - these are often the work shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work - this happens across the board in archaeology its the oldest trick in the book - and masks many occasions where H+S is breached. I have lost count of the amount of times 'someone' has raised a H+S issue whcih is at best pedantic at worst plainly incorrect. - the boy that cired wolf springs to mind - if you get my drift!

The problem is having people suitable qualified to make H+S judgements which comes to my main point. Most (not all and dont take offence if you arent in this group) Project Designers be it managers or curators - yes curators you put conditions on things and therefore you are a designer - have no professional qualification in civil engineering / H+S considerations -These people are products of the glory days of the 70's and 80's when it was jobs for the boys and no hard hats, sandle wearing on site and drinking cider on the spoil heaps at lunchtime

These are the people who need to get up to speed with qualifications and - how many of us have been on site when a curator comes out to monitor and says 'can you go a bit deeper' - you are immediately under pressure to do this to get the site signed off - BUT stand your ground if its unsafe dont do it! - If a curator ever says 'it looks ok to me' ask to see what process they 'mentally went through to make that judgement.

If they are prepared to back it up - then fine if they shirk away - do the same yourself. It is the responsibility of all - Field operative, Project manager and the curator to ensure that what is being done is practical and safe -the curators have to ok proposals and WSI from units and consultancies - if they ok it then they have a responsibility too - There are many good curators who have sent back WSI and Secs to me questioning the H+S elements - this I really like - Many would get all stuffy about people putting their noses in where they dont belong. For me it shows that that curator will only recommend sensible approaches and Specs to the client

This sort of joined up thinking has to be the only way forward

Stop moaning and enter into dialogue with all parties

sorry for the long rant

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

I seem to recall that serious incidents have to be reported to the HSE - those that involve injury. David BAJR/Peter IFA surely one of you could check with HSE on what the level of incidents actually are.

The SCAUM manual was drwn up with the HSE surely there must have been some assessment of current practices at the time. Similarly surely this manual should be revised or amended.

If one or two units are involved action via the IFA is appropriate, if somethings are industry wide then the HSE must be involved to ensure change.

Peter


I agree with the need to assess occurences but question how easy this would be. Serious incidents have to be reported following the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR). See http://www.riddor.gov.uk/

Now, I wonder how many project managers know of these regulations? How many know which type of accident/incident needs reporting? How many have not been reported? Truer figures will be hiding in project files, accident books, anecdotes etc. I also wonder if a few incidents will be recorded by HSE under the construction industry rather than the archaeological industry.

Re SCAUM manual - it has been updated and most medium and larger units have probably been sent these. Many are probably in the desk drawers of the Unit Managers :( Go on, ask them}:)

[drpeterwardle]

The regulations about reporting injuries have not changed!

These regulations have in place since the good old days and should be known to everyone. If they are not been followed in archaeology then there is a very serious problem. The purpose of these regulations is the identification of risk.

If the SCAUM manual has been revised where is it available? It is something everybody in archaeology should have a copy of not just the unit managers.

Peter

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

The regulations about reporting injuries have not changed!

These regulations have in place since the good old days and should be known to everyone. If they are not been followed in archaeology then there is a very serious problem. The purpose of these regulations is the identification of risk.

If the SCAUM manual has been revised where is it available? It is something everybody in archaeology should have a copy of not just the unit managers.

Peter



10 years - good old days? ;) Without having too much of a go, when you broached the subject you seemed "to recall" that some incidents were reportable but you didn't refer to RIDDOR ;)

Re the availability of the SCAUM manual - join the campaign and shout :D

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by cooky
I have no experience of people being sacked for complaining and I have 15 years experience in field arcaheology - though I will accept that there must be unscrupulous units that may do this as Troll suggests.

I do have plenty of examples of people 'not having their contract renewed' - these are often the work shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work - this happens across the board in archaeology its the oldest trick in the book - and masks many occasions where H+S is breached. I have lost count of the amount of times 'someone' has raised a H+S issue whcih is at best pedantic at worst plainly incorrect. - the boy that cired wolf springs to mind - if you get my drift!

So the way to get around proper H&S procedures then is to brand anyone who makes a H&S complaint as a 'work-shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work' and to teach them a lesson that they won't forrget in a hurry make sure their contracts aren't renewed. My god who do you work for!! It sounds like some enterprise half-imagined in a Dicken's novel.

If any 'macho' attitude has been expressed on this subject, Mr Cook's takes the biscuit. Surely you need to apologise to your employer for that little outburst as I can't really believe that they (or any of your field staff) could share, let alone endorse, such views.

[Gerwyn]

Ok hands up I did get the two postings confused and apologise to those involved and thank you mercenary for clarifying some of your issues. But my basic point of view is that to make unsubstantiated and inacurate statements anonymously on a message board is a waste of time, especially when the procedures are in place to deal with the issues on the ground, either in-house or through statutory bodies/trade unions/BAJR etc.

[Oxbeast]

&lt;sarcasm&gt;Yes, Gerwyn, its all just "moans in the pub", isn't it. All the procedures are working fine.&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

[1man1desk]

quote:Originally posted by cooky
I do have plenty of examples of people 'not having their contract renewed' - these are often the work shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work - this happens across the board in archaeology its the oldest trick in the book - and masks many occasions where H+S is breached. I have lost count of the amount of times 'someone' has raised a H+S issue whcih is at best pedantic at worst plainly incorrect. - the boy that cired wolf springs to mind - if you get my drift!

[/quote]

Cooky has stuck his neck out a bit by saying what he did, but Mr Wooldridge's reaction is a bit one-sided. There are such work-shy creatures looking for an excuse as described by Cooky, although they are very much a minority in archaeology, and supervisors/managers may not take their complaints seriously. If their contract is not renewed, it is unlikely to be because of the H&S complaint (unless shown to be malicious). My experience of such people on site is that they can be a significant H&S risk in themselves, because they can't be bothered to take the precautions/use the kit that has been provided. When I myself was running field projects, the only significant actual indident that occurred on any of my sites was caused by such a person (bad cut on the hand, caused by de-turfing in a way that was unsafe and against instructions, but seemed easier).

Similarly, there are hard-working, conscientious site workers (in my experience, the majority) whose complaints are likely to be genuine. Any unit (or any other employer) wants to keep such people, especially if they are experienced, and if they get rid of them for making justified H&S complaints all they are doing is undermining their own commercial viability. Good, experienced diggers are a valuable resource, not easily replaced (as someone else suggested) from the crop of new graduates, who have no experience and who are themselves an unknown quantity.

When a contract is not renewed, it is very hard for anyone other than the manager to say why, and people may have very inaccurate theories. However, if anyone can come up with a real case where H&S complaints were the cause, or a case where someone was actually sacked, I would like to hear about it.


1man1desk

[troll]

Greetings Gerwyn. At no stage did I ever suggest that an ordnance officer hit anything with a shovel. Neither did I say that I was down a ten metre hole(do know what they look like). And yes, I did bring the issue to the attention of a grown-up. As far as being a part of the solution goes, my disgust at the state of HS in archaeology prompted me to join the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management some years ago. I have also worked alongside an internationally recognised company specialising in munitions clearance-and I do mean, closely alongside. Please read my earlier threads for clarity. My contributions on BAJR are designed to open frank and meaningful dialogue with as many flavours of archaeologist as possible in the hope that things will change. You will no doubt be pleased to notice too, that I discuss issues as general concepts and do not release sensitive details pertaining to unit names and/or sites. For the past seven years, I have been bringing HS issues to the attention of the grown-ups and, worked closely with Health and Safety Officers when I ran my own shows. Galaxsea for example is one tough cookie and did`nt let my risk assessments slip un-molested-bless him. At this point, I have to switch tack slightly and welcome Mr Hinton to BAJR.Thank you for your contribution! Gerwyn sir- see earlier threads-tiz all there.To refer to Mr Hinton`s clear statements-employers are not above the law. Secondly, I for one have hammered the IFA over the years for what I saw as selective hearing. Mr Hinton is clearly saying that if an individual or organisation that has signed up to the IFA guidelines is not fulfilling his/her/their duty of care, then we are invited to pursue the issue first, through line-managers then, inform the IFA if no solution is apparent or indeed, adequate. I welcome Mr Hintons comments, am genuinely tempted to rejoin the IFA after hearing from him and, on a final note, I am not anon. For those of you who don`t have access to my details on BAJR- My name`s Si Cleggett and am open for dialogue at any time on, 07944 179499 (only text whilst in Cyprus please-saps credit like a bent mattock) or, sicleggett@fsmail.net. Yep- for those of you who know me, I do bitch. A lot. After all, change only ever comes about through open dialogue. And if anything needs change, it`s the current state of commercial archaeology. Of paramount importance of course, is health and safety. On this issue, I will bitch and pursue with vigour when archaeologists are put at risk when those with a duty of care simply can`t be bothered, err on the side of economics over safety or, are simply incompetent and make a mockery of the IFA accreditation system. No venom here guys, simple tenacity when it`s so clearly needed. The IFA talked about training during a joint conference with Prospect...how about funding for cosh/nebosh/HSE qualifications? I can think of no more valid funding applications than this.......Gerwyn, take care sire, will do some(safe) sunbathing for you!.:D

[troll]

Can we agree on formal applications/discussions/negotiations on the need to place copies of the SCAUM HS manual in site huts as a condition please? Also, can we please push collectively for copies of risk assessments and method statements for site huts too?:D

[achingknees]

Re Troll's last bit....Agreed. If available, copy SCAUM H&S document and put in site huts. Call to action for all responsible project managers/directors/officers etc etc. Get relevant documentation out -each reputable co. should have H&S policy, insurance details, Risk Assessments, etc etc clearly available and circulated.

[trowelfodder]

Does anyone know where we stand on healkth and safety with reguards to the construction site safety card which is madatory for all people working on building sites except archaeologists, dispite the fact the majority of our work is undertaken there! A group of us tried to obtain these cards and safety courses but when we applied we were told theres nothing we fit into and recomended we applied as surveyors! However we couldnt do this as we dont have the qualifications needed to do this.[?]

Any ideas as I think this may be a way of improving standards and possibly forcing the building industry to state the level they class archaeologists as workinhg at.

Maybe at least itll stop the builders taking the mick quite as much when they point out "that guy over there sweeping up earns more than you do with a degree"!

[eggbasket]

My CSCS card says Environmental Manager on it. You could also try for Conservation Consultant, which I know another archaeologist has. You will need to take the supervisor's or manager's test, which is really dead easy but also includes a whole bunch of stuff that archaeologists do not really need to know. But the situation is still a bit daft when you have to think around it like that.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[troll]

There`s not that many construction sites nowadays that indulge in the card-carrying thing. For that matter, there`s not that many construction sites that can even be bothered to put together a decent HS induction. In our little world, the situation, in my opinion is even worse. I think we really need to approach HS issues at a fundamental and professional level before we even think about how we "fit into" the framework of construction site operations. Why is it that unit Directors down to unit supervisors are not required to hold any formal/nationally recognised HS qualifications? Why are risk assessments not a part of a quality control system before implimentation? How do we expect an intelligent assessment of risk when it is written by someone who ca`nt even spell risk? Why are ther no guidelines from the IFA? Where does liability and responsibility fall when overlapping but autonomous developer/archaeologist assessments of risk fail miserably? I vote for a complete re-think on HS policy in commercial archaeology as a priority.I also think that with their resources, the IFA should be the body to formalise this. I also believe that if Prospect are intent upon touting "courses" then they should put their money where their mouth is and train some managerial archaeologists to a national level. At ground level, all field archaeologists have the right to expect a consistant and qualified/professional system of Risk assessment/management on their behalf. They also have the right to see a risk assessment and a method statement before they set foot on a site. The days of muppet management are ticking away when it comes to Health and Safety...this is one issue that will be dealt with by the profession internally/formally and, soon. For those of us in the field, if your at risk due to the incompetence or sheer arrogance of either your employer or the developer, get off site until the issue`s resolved. Don`t hesitate because your job may be at risk if you do, it`s even more difficult to get work in archaeology if your in a wheelchair. The law (for once) is on our side on this issue. Don`t f*ck about-walk out.:D

[cooky]

I actually agree with troll - my ealrier comments appear to have offended some but this was not the intention - i merely was pointing out that the cause of safety on site is not helped by the few that go on and on and on about H&S issues that arent -

[troll]

Cooky-sometimes to get a point across, we have to put someones nose out of joint. Tiz a historical issue, us nice polite English types are just too nice to shout when it`s needed. So long as we offer our points here without character assassination-offend away....trust me-I have,:D and, when needed, will continue to do so.

[Post-Med Potterer]

This has been an interesting if not very objective thread. Some of us as managers are actually very serious about Health and Safety matters. I make all my field officers do their own risk assessments and implement any necessary mitigation. All new sites have a h&s induction at the beginning. I realise that this may be the exception.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence here, and many of the stories are familiar to us all from the bad old days. The 'man with two arseholes' was known to me when I worked for the now defunct SYAFRU in the early 1990s.

Some statistics would be helpful if those concerned enough to post are able to provide them. I am thinking along the lines of building industry statistics injuries/deaths per person/time spent working.

HSE reports that the construction industry employs 'just under 2 million people'. In 2002-3 there were

71 fatal injuries (ie. 0.0036% of workers)

4780 major injuries (more than three times the average for industrial sectors, but still only 0.239% of workers)

all this information from
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/0304531es.pdf

Are there similar figures for the archaeology profession? I suspect not, in fact. Perhaps there is scope to compile this through this forum? An argument to managers is much better made through objective facts than impassioned ranting :((however well-justified [:I]).

Can I suggest some sort of poll to provide data for 2004-5? Perhaps something along the lines of

1. In the last twelve months, how many of the following have you PERSONALLY witnessed on sites you have worked on or been associated with?
a. Fatal injuries
b. Major injuries (3 days+)
c. Minor injuries (less than three days)

2. How many archaeological projects have you been on (or associated with) in the last twelve months
a. 1-5
b. 5-15
c. 15+

Not very scientific but at least its a start. Obviously this ignores long-term problems such as backs, knees etc caused by a combination of poor management and ignorance.

[EarlySlav]

Good point as we are supposed to be evidence collectors and would put what is a serious debate on firmer ground.

[troll]

Whilst I accept that there are those out there who pursue HS requirements with vigour, my focus in offering this thread was simply to open debate. That debate, with offerings from a variety of subscribers has illustrated a fairly dire HS environment across a range of theatres. Simply, in terms of experience of working around the country, field staff describe working environments and indeed working ethos to be at complete odds with even the tightest and prettiest risk assessment.We are simply saying that it`s not working on the ground. It also has to be said that I`m not too overwhelmed by statistics. 0.0036% of the construction site workforce lost their lives in the period 2002-3 (post-med potterer). However you manipulate this data and choose to present it, at least one individual in the construction industry dies every month. Not everyone listed as being a construction worker, actually sees a site that often.The two million people "employed in the construction industry" are not all site workers. The statistics then would be even less favourable.When one reduces the assessment of a Human life by simply reducing a workforce to statistics, yes, 0.0036% sounds as though not even one whole person died at all! The reality is-seventy one people lost their lives and 4,780 people suffered major injuries. You also offer the idea of a BAJR poll.Narrow banded frequencies like fatal/major/minor will simply allow for yet more statistics waving. What about near-misses? What about sites with NO risk assessments? What about risk assessments that bear no reality to the work environment? I would argue for rather more than a simplistic poll that we all know will undoubtedly provide the statistics required to embellish the illusion that all is well in HS in archaeology. When you look at the statistics (for what their worth) offered by PMP, even the construction industry with its vast logistical ability-cannot prevent 71 deaths and nearly 5,000 major injuries yearly. The ugly truth is that in terms of HS and staff facilities/welfare, the construction industry makes us look like relics of a long,forgotten work-ethic. And they still lose people.Lets discuss HS in archaeology seriously-not reduce an important issue to bite-sized propoganda......:D

[the invisible man]

Let's try not to panic about all this. Yes of course H&S must be taken seriously, but I think PMP was just trying to put it all into proportion. 71 deaths is 71 too many but construction one of (if not the) biggest employers in the UK and 71 is a big improvement on the position 20 odd years ago. While many archaeological "sites" are on actual working construciton sites many are not, and a construction site is many times more dangerous than an archaeological site. For a start there are often many large yellow machines, some moving around a lot, including backwards, and lots of things for you to fall off or to fall on you, and of course the use of hand held machinery and large power tools, welding kit and so on.

H&S is something to be aware of, not obsessed with. That awareness is the key to safety. Risk assessments are essential but are not the be-all and end-all: they are only any use if they are taken seriously by the writer. Many are inevitably the previous site's with the title changed.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[BAJR Host]

New Poll now up...

check it and vote.
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRPolls/default.asp

maybe not perfect but a first step to finding out what is going on.

Another day another WSI…

[troll]

not sure about this at all.......minor/major/fatal is a bit basic innit? Oh-panic and obsession ay? wait till Iv`e had me fag!!:D Seriously though chaps, please don`t tell me that you see this as a way of guaging HS on sites.....[?]

[1man1desk]

Statistics are valuable. The point is that, if you have statistics, you can track whether things are getting better, getting worse or stagnating. However, I don't think that a BAJR poll (however well intentioned) can produce valid statistics.

On a related point, bear in mind that many archaeological accidents will occur on construction sites, and will therefore be included in the construction site statistics.

Under the RIDDOR rules, any significant incidents (including near misses) have to be reported by law. Assuming that archaeological organisations are complying, there should be official data available. However, not all may be readily identifiable as relating to archaeology.

From my own observation, H&S practice in archaeology was horrific in the 1970s-early 1990s, has gradually improved since the mid-90s, but is still well behind the construction industry. One of the key drivers behind the improvement has been the increasingly close connections between archaeology and construction contractors, who are shocked by archaeologists' standards of practice and often build better H&S practice into contract requirements. I have seen contractors threaten to sack units that had over 100 people on site unless they met the standard specified in the contract.


1man1desk

[drpeterwardle]

The bajr poll already shows that H&S is a major concern. 12 people have witnessed a major injury. Even if the 12 people out of 35 who have voted witnessed the same major incident then this equates to .25% as an accident rate in they witnessed the same accident. If these incidents are all different then the rate is 3% - ten times that of the construction industry.

Statistically - the results are at best a pilot study designed to see if the topic is worth investigating.

One person noted that they witnessed all types of accients including a fatality. I am assumming that this people voted in error.

Peter

[Post-Med Potterer]

I am not - as troll suggests - trying to belittle injuries, accidents or fatalities by 'reducing' them to statistics, simply trying to get things in perspective. I agree that not all employed in the construction industry are on site (but then not all archaeologists are on site either - one major contributor to injuries in archaeology in my experience is moving things around in stores without appropriate manual handling training or aids).

Thanks for putting the poll up, I am not sure if it will help but at least we might get a measure of what is happening.

I agree with troll and others that the categories are rather broad and sweeping, but it was meant as a suggestion not a hard and fast rule. Perhaps as more information comes in then we can have more refinement. And yes, statistics are open to abuse, but - as 1man1desk points out - it is a start in being able to judge if things have improved or not.

I think we can all take on board the invisible man's point that the usefulness of a risk assessment is dependent on the amount of thought that went into it, it should never be a blind carbon-copy of the previous one.

[Tim]

Just to add a personal note as someone who was handicapped after a site accident (19 months on crutches, 3 and half years rebuilding my left leg and relearning to walk, and permanent 24/7 pain after a Sudeck reaction-Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome)
there were 2 other accidents on this site that required long term (several weeks lay offs etc) and one that required 2 sessions of reconstructive surgery)on a flooded site the project Officer refused to close down and forced us to work on here in Switzerland.

If you think your unit or project manager doesn't enact H+S law shop them it's your right and duty. It's better than being a cripple.

Little Tim

[1man1desk]

In the poll on H&S incidents, so far, 12 people have voted for 'all of the above' on a list that includes fatalities.

Have 12 archaeologists in Britain really witnessed a fatality on an archaeological site in the last year? I haven't heard of any.


1man1desk

[troll]

Greetings.Although the poll was a clear indication of the seriousness with which this thread was taken, I really don`t feel that it`s the way to go. Quite apart from it`s statistical downfalls-I also feel, that it would not be wise to compare collated data with those of the construction industry. Quite how an industry-wide census could be undertaken is a bit of an unknown. The important issue for me is one of communication. Assessing trends based on fatalities seems a bit ham-fisted to me and, has the nasty habit of ignoring the near-misses that seem to be ubiquitous. From what I am hearing from the boylies and girlies the length and breadth of the country is, that risk assessments are rarer than finding a tardis in context. On some occasions when for example, large quantities of flaking asbestos are uncovered, the teams are simply told that it will be dealt with and are issued with simple paper dust masks.By all accounts, the team worked next to the stuff for nearly a week-HS is simply side-stepped. It will continue to be side-stepped until we`re all willing to talk about it. I`m still of the opinion that the field staff should expect to at least see (and preferably, sign) a new risk assessment for every site they set foot on. There is no good reason why field staff should not have on-site access to written HS materials like the newly completed managers handbook. I feel that HS on sites in general would be greatly enhanced if courses were made available not just to a token member of staff but, to field-workers. As it stands, field-workers have to rely on someone else to prepare an assessment and design mitigative strategy.It`s often been said that HS starts with the individual-then lets train some individuals, in the office, and the field staff.I`m not talking about a day`s course where we all have tea and watch videos about ladders, I mean the real deal. If we are to have any impact on the standards of HS in commercial archaeology (don`t get me started with the academic lot) we need dedicated staff in the same way as we do first aiders. First aiders-God bless em`, are for when the mitigation fails. Have a safety-type on site too.Prevention is the key and I just don`t see that level of commitment on even the most basic of HS on some sites. According to some of my colleagues out there in circuit-land, field staff give up discussing HS after a few years of being ignored. Not a healthy environment.:D

[troll]

A colleague of mine related a conversation with her supervisor t`other day....large amounts of asbestos was uncovered on site last week. The supervisor issued the digging team with white paper dust masks and said " if we get it removed properly, it will put us back two weeks...". So, yet another example of a moron expecting the digging team to take serious risks with their health-just to maintain the unit`s profit margin. How much more of this filth will be allowed to occupy positions of responsibility before someone finally takes this issue seriously? What makes archaeologists think that they can operate above the law without recompense? I get stories like this and worse on an almost daily basis from the boylies and girlies in the trenches....time to seperate reality from statistics?:D

[EarlySlav]

They should have KICKED that super off site!!! One for the BAJR to track down if we could. Do we want that person working on any site and trying to KILL people.

[troll]

I fear that this super is but one of many, many.......

[1man1desk]

One way to add an extra control to prevent this kind of dangerous practice is to build good H&S into specs/contracts. Units often pay more attention to contract clauses (because if they don't comply they might not get paid) than they do to the law or good practice guidelines.

I do this on a regular basis when commissioning work for clients. That way, if the unit won't ensure good safety practice on site, I can tell them they will be in breach of contract. There have been occasions when I have had to threaten to sack the unit off site if they did not buck their ideas up on H&S.

1man1desk

[troll]

would be nice to see your practise implemented as a universal-if augmented by archaeologists qualified in HS= one enormous step forwards! It has been said before that specs could be the key to everything and indeed, so they bloody well should! Units will get away with murder unless the specs are clear and patently unambiguous.:)

[destroyer]

1man1desk said (lucky git by the way to have a desk all to himself)
quote:One way to add an extra control to prevent this kind of dangerous practice is to build good H&S into specs/contracts.


err call me naive, but dont we all do this already?? I generally have a method statement/risk assessment etc included with the tender document to meet any contract spec, which i thought was pretty much mandatory otherwise the insurance is probably buggered and the client won't allow us on site. In any case H&S site inductions, either our own or the clients, are mandatory.

Then i only have my own personal stupidity to deal with, such as almost mattocking my own leg off....

[1man1desk]

Destroyer,

You obviously work for one of the more responible units, and have been lucky in the clients involved.

Where there is no consultant, not all work has a proper spec at all - often it is no more than a very sketchy curator's brief, which is not designed as a tender document at all, but is used as one.

The unit working on any job that I am the consultant for will certainly do a proper risk assessment - but plenty of posts in this thread complain about the lack of them, or their unavailability.

Site inductions will usually happen when the site is controlled by a non-archaeological contractor - but very often not when the archaeological unit is the only contractor on site.

These precise failures are one of the dominant themes of this discussion thread, and one of the key things that I in my consultant role try to fight against.

1man1desk

[Pedant]

There is a limit to what risk assessments and inductions achieve - it is all very well, but I am sick of telling people till I'm blue in the face that they must wear PPE and still I'm the only person on site with a hard hat on. I have no sympathy for people who read the risk assessment, sign the induction form and forget the lot the minute they step outside the hut. And don't even get me started on headphones.:(

I reject your reality and substitute my own

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Pedant

And don't even get me started on headphones.

..Or mobile phones? As I was leaving field archaeology, more and more people were getting mobiles as they got cheaper, Many of them texting away while reclining in the middle of the site. Not necessarily a health hazard but they do distract the user from what they should be doing (and are getting paid for). They were also having an effect on the old team esprit de corps, as they all spent their tea breaks nattering with their other halves etc ("bye", "go on, hang up", "no, you first"...repeat ad nauseum), rather than interacting with their coleagues.

Sorry about that..back to the original point. It can be hard to persuade people to wear PPE, especially if they are in the middle of a field, in a trench 0.4m deep with no plant for miles (and particularlly in hot weather). However, in some cases, I have been told that we were not covered unless we were in standard PPE. This can be more troublesome when it's the client's insurer; I worked on a site where the client threatened to fire the unit if the site staff insisted in abandoning thier hats/vis-vests in hot weather. It was a quarry, but the nearest machine was about 500m away and the holes were only topsoil deep.

[troll]

Hi Guys. After reading a risk assessment and attending an induction, it was my practise to insist that staff sign the documents not only to say that they had read and understood it but, that they agree to abide by the mitigative measures in place. Those that did`nt, met the jobcentre very quickly. As it was my name on the insurance docs, ultimate responsibility was mine. No PPE, no job. Headphones/phones and pubescent behaviour, no job.:D

[destroyer]

Someone mentioned headphones on site.... now yes normally i'd say this was a VERY BAD thing in terms of H&S.

However, Thursday sees the start of a cricket match of minor importance and the vans parked too far away from the site. So if my headphone wearing/radio listening colleagues see death by JCB, but manage to shout out the current score with their dying breath, then i may see it as an acceptable loss.

[muddyandcold]

Abuse of diggers/archaeological standards/scant regard of H&S... This theme seems to keep on arising on various fourms....

One company has lost it's IFA Registration.. Another (in wales) seems to have just gained it (according to their web site).

If these companies are sooo bad (can't comment, not having worked for them) why are still allowed a presence on BAJR (jobs vacant and list of contractors).

Take away this service and really hurt them.... ??

Or is this not allowed...

[troll]

Nicely put Muddy. I fear that a response to this will have to come from a grown up like Dr Wardle or Mr Hosty. There has been a bit of a silly situation arising on the IFA RAO front in that, it has been said that "for legal reasons" the IFA can have their hands tied and cannot actually act in this way against units that transgress. I may be getting my wires crossed-Doctor Pete? Mr Hosty? I would like to see curators taking a greater stand against poor HS in units working in their catchment areas...after all, liability can have very, very, long arms. I agree-there is/are/have been adverts on BAJR from some units who really should`nt be allowed to clean toilets.......:D

[drpeterwardle]

The short answer to this is that a 1/3 of archaeologists have witnessed a major accident in the last 12 months including fatalities. This indicates to me there is a major H&S issue industry wide that needs investigating. What is needed is that everybody takes note of the BAJR survey and reviews their practices immediately. The IFA, SCAUM & BAJR should use their resources to carry out a more rigorous study. Diggers tell your unit manager about the survey.

If a practice is industry wide why scapegoat an individual, which is difficult in any event, the resources will be better used bringing about industry wide change.

I am not convinced it is a consultant job to enforce H&S standards, should we check diggers (sorry archaeologists) have washed their hands before tea break or make that a contractual obligation?

What we can do, and to an extent I already do this but I will be doing it more thoroughly from now on, is to ensure that the “planning supervisor” is made aware of the fact that there may be an industry wide problem and that they scrutinise archaeological practices in detail. (The planning supervisor is the person on a construction site responcible for ensuring H&S is followed)

Peter Wardle

[troll]

Rather curators Dr Wardle-not consultants. When curators write specs, HS could quite easily be included. After all, if field work is carried out in their areas of responsibility, does a curator not have a duty of care to ensure that appropriate HS mitigation is put in place? HS could be a consideration when Units apply for listing as "available contractors" in a given catchment area. It`s not enough for units to provide flash jackets and hard hats and then assume that they have adequately discharged their HS obligations. One of my most detested practises....after ticking boxes on over simplistic risk assessments relating to slips/trips and falls etc, field archaeologists work every day in ground that has either, a long history as an industrial site or- a rural agricultural setting where no-one (with a duty of care) has bothered to have chemical testing carried out to identify risk in terms of ground contamination. Heavy metals (not Ozzy Osborne) pesticides, hydrocarbons etc pose a real risk to those slopping around in them every day...this of course has a bearing upon those working in urban/industrial contexts on a daily basis but-equally, rural sites where pesticides including DDT/Paraquat type residues linger. Those of you out there with responsibility for project HS-who among you regularly commission chemical analyses of ground contamination PRIOR to field work?[?] Our recent poll that has suggested that some have witnessed fatalities is either a slip of the pen or a deliberate vote to wake us all up to the potential or, some may say, inevitability of just such an eventuality (God forbid) if things are allowed to continue the way they have. Consistant exposure to chemical contamination will take lives over time-providing for a skewed assessment relating to potential fatalities in the short term...

[1man1desk]

The trouble is, Troll, that most curators don't write specs; they write briefs, which often don't do much more than define the type of fieldwork to be done and the format in which the SMR wants to receive input. IFA standards make it clear that a brief is not suitable to be used either for tendering or as a project design, but they very often are used for both.

Consultants do write specs, in our case pretty detailed ones, and we can put in methodology in much more detail. We do it mainly to ensure a level playing field in tendering, which tends to disadvantage the cowboy units.

Curators are usually very happy that we do the specs, because it gives them the chance to have much more control than under their own briefs, without using any more of their own resources. In fact, if we are involved, they usually dispense with the brief altogether in favour of simply consulting on and ultimately approving the content of our spec.

However, doing the spec also enables us to cover H&S issues thoroughly. In cases where there are potential contamination issues, we usually get advice from experts in that field within our own company and amend the methodology to suit, putting relevant safety provisions in the spec. There have been occasions when (in agreement with the curator) parts of an evaluation, for instance, have been dropped or changed to boreholes because of contamination safety issues.

Curators are not suitable to oversee H&S because they have no specialist expertise in that area. Neither do we - we simply put appropriate rules in the spec. However, any large construction site operates under the CDM regulations and that imposes a requirement for the involvement of H&S specialists (as 'planning supervisors', a dedicated H&S role), who are responsible for everyone on site - including the archaeologists.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

1man1desk-thankyou, hope you are well and ready for yet another monday? So, good old CDM regs apply on larger sites... what about us little guys on endless small sites? I suppose that all I am asking is this- can HS requirements that are site/phase specific be placed as integral components of specs?:D

[1man1desk]

H&S requirements go in all our specs as standard, and we enforce them as well as we are able.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

The short answer to this is that a 1/3 of archaeologists have witnessed a major accident in the last 12 months including fatalities. This indicates to me there is a major H&S issue industry wide that needs investigating. What is needed is that everybody takes note of the BAJR survey and reviews their practices immediately. The IFA, SCAUM & BAJR should use their resources to carry out a more rigorous study. Diggers tell your unit manager about the survey.



I am not convinced it is a consultant job to enforce H&S standards, should we check diggers (sorry archaeologists) have washed their hands before tea break or make that a contractual obligation?




I'm not sure that we should altogether trust the survey results - they are unverified. I would bring up such issues with a unit manager if they were verified. Seriously, where has there been a fatality of an archaeologist?

Re consultants (or anybody) making diggers/archies/stratigraphers wash their hands. No, but you might state in the spec a requirement for hand washing facilities (preferably warm water).

[troll]

Agreed- the BAJR poll is of course open to question and I know of no fatalities in British archaeology yet. In terms of who specifies what HS requirement in whatever document is largely a matter for semantics-how the overall HS culture in archaeology manifests itself on the ground is really what matters and is surely the object of the exercise. I think the sheer volume and indeed, tone, of the responses on this thread illustrate (somewhat disturbingly) just how far away we are from other industries in terms of HS culture. After 20 years, we can`t even standardise archaeological practise across the board despite guidelines and an institute in place. At least, lets get HS right.Across the board. Mate of mine working in the deep south sent me a copy of his firms listing of training priorities for the year. HS training ranked number twelve. Eight places below medieval pot........

[Penfold]

quote:Originally posted by troll

Eight places below medieval pot........


No surprise there then eh? I have not been in this business long so cannot speak as confidently as most on the long term problems, but as I was a Health, Safety and Environmental advisor in a previous incarnation I do feel that I can say (with confidence) that the current state of play with regard to H&S is a shambles, and that is where any kind of H&S culture exists at all. You turn up on site day one, and if you are lucky you get to read the job spec, read and sign the Risk Assessment (Though how many actually read the thing is another matter). Now it seems the unit has fulfilled it's contractual obligation, so lets not spoil the ambience by mentioning H&S again;) We've all worked on sites with inadequate resources in the way of tool's, 2 wheelbarrows, at least one of which has a flat, three shovels one of which has no handle etc, and all of this for 12 staff, why then are we surprised that scant concern is given to basic safety elements, would'nt have anything to do with money would it?
What is nice to see is that Trolls thread has started a dialogue here
that seems to make people take notice, now it needs to be spread to the workplace!! Bring it on Troll, it needs to be done, sooner the better mate.
Penfold

[troll]

Seems to me that those with the ability to institute change are choosing not to do so. I have had streams of calls from circuit peeps outlining some of the most disgusting, arrogant and blatant contraventions of even the most basic HS legislation. Troll starting to get the arsehole and is twitching to jump on the red batphone labelled "front page of every newspaper in the country". We`ve been through these hoops before guys, on this issue, I`m not willing to simply discuss and be nice. How do we provide those who need it with a collective boot in the rear? Where are the changes? Who has sat up and listened? Am I talking to myself? We either do this in- house guys or in front of a very large audience.}:)

[eggbasket]

Are those that are calling you willing to stand up in court (or whatever) and actually state their own case? Do they have any evidence? And why have they not called the HSE to investigate the problems? Surely that is the way to keep the units on their toes?

BUT FIRST, have they actually approached their managers and made their points to them? The first port of call has to be the appropriate channels, which means putting in a formal complaint to your supervisor or their manager and this should be investigated properly. H&S is not something about which people should be faint-hearted, so they must inform their managers first, just out of responsibility for themselves and their co-workers. If they do not do this, and only call Troll, then they are failing in their own responsibilities too, which makes them as bad as the people they are complaining about. If normal due process fails then I would suggest a call to HSE to get them to investigate. As I understand it they will not mention your name so it should be safe enough. So, have they done all this first? Or have they just come straight to Troll?

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antiquarian

Manners maketh the man

[BAJR Host]

This is true.... procedure may seem like a pain... but it is the right way... HSE, Managers etc... if this fails, then other action can be taken.

On a slight tangent..

One of the 'topics' for the conference about Conditions, (including H and S) could have a final product of a Charter Mark document. a minimum standards that should and must be adhered to.. Archaeological COntractors can sign up to it (for free) but will have to maintain standards.

If there are clear breaches... gather the info and do it the way it says in the book... ie the H&S book.

Another day another WSI…

[the invisible man]

Sorry - just a minor quibble afrom a post from 1man way back in September that I've just spotted.

Construction projects are indeed subject to the CDM Regulations, and not just the construction phase - it begins with the design phase, at inception. The project does not have to be very large - from memory it is over 30 days duration or 5 persons on site - it is certainly of that order, which is very small for construction.

The planning supervisor is not responsible for anyone on site, or anywhere else. That is basically the responsibility of the "principal contractor" (and in fact everyone on site).

The planning supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the Health and Safety Plan and File are compiled, maintained and handed to the employer upon practical comletion. Note, not for doing it, just seeing that it is done. The PS is not an inspector and has no obligation to even visit site - they rarely do.

Very often the PS is not a different person, very often it is the architect who undertakes that role (provided that the practice is registered as Planning Supervisors which involves a three day course). The Principal Contractor (the builder) can be required to assume the responsibilities of Planning Supervisor when apponted to the contract.

Inspections and so on on site are usually carried out by the contractor's in-house H and S people. The HSE may carry out occassional unnannounced spot checks. The site manager is in practice responsible for on-site safety.

If a construction contract has commenced, anyone on site, including archaeologists, come under his wing so to speak and before commencing will have to submit to him (via his contracts manager perhaps) their own risk assessments, H&S policy and method statements, or they won't get through the gate. Generally H&S is taken very seriously in construction these days.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

The calls I have received recently seem to be in response to my agenda for the forthcoming BAJR conference. Eggy makes a number of good points, I will try to answer them here....
It has been said before that there is a problem of attitude on the part of many employers who see those who flag up HS issues as nothing short of whistleblowers. Those who contact me have, for the most part, been through the line manager route and frankly, been laughed at. I posted a thread here a while ago asking for examples of HS contraventions and they just keep coming. The recent calls-ones that prompted my last post, are from people working for the same units over and over again. Some contraventions could be sorted by going along the line manager route but, others, where there is a cross-over between developer/archaeologist risk assessments (or total lack of) are not so straight forward. If it`s proof we`re after, I recommend that field staff carry a disposable camera at all times. I agree, following the line manager route is ideal however, not all field staff work in an environment where that would result in positive action. Just positive unemployment. I am contacted because I want to document the current state of HS in modern archaeology. I would like at this point to ask some simple questions again....How many of you who write risk assessments hold health and safety qualifications? How many field supervisory staff hold health and safety qualifications? How many units have a quality control system in place where risk assessments are checked over? Why does`nt our industry train dedicated members of staff in HS? Why has`nt IFA/Prospect come up with appropriate HS courses? Why is there an overwhelmingly large number of sites out there without a risk assessment? Eggy-I think you have a superb idea-it is indeed high time that the HSE were introduced to our industry...it`s patently obvious that we are either incapable or simply unwilling to deal with this issue internally.

[troll]

Just as a reminder..
Employers have an obligation under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Act 1999 to
1. identify and assess risks to their employees and others
2. introduce effective arrangements to implement appropriate preventative and protective measures to control risk
3. ensure that risks are periodically reviewed and the effectiveness of control measures are regularly checked.

This is not an optional extra and frankly, excuses like "to mitigate this risk is too expensive" or "that would put us weeks behind schedule" is both illegal and nauseating.Pass the cost on.......much cheaper than being hammered in court........

[Cautionary Tale]

I feel truely ill reading through the list of points you make Troll, not because I disagree but because these are issues that can be really easily addressed. For one thing the IFA provides FREE standard risk assessment forms, so to not even have one is unforgivable: see http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/index.php?page=15

This is obviously only a start, but maybe all site staff should have a look so they know what they should be signing as they start work. If a suitably qualified H&S person (who could I be thinking about Troll? ;)) has a look, there might be a little mileage in discussion and maybe having something like it on BAJR?

(I really have worked in the field)

[Tim]

quote:Originally posted by troll

I know of no fatalities in British archaeology yet.


I'm sure there was somebody killed in a trench collapse in Colchester(?) and another squished flat by grader on the Channel tunnel project both in the 90's.

Little Tim

[troll]

Hi Tim.Many thanx for your off-line email sir. If there is any way of researching the facts contained in your last post, will let you know.Stomach turning if true.....
I heard recently of a unit that went to the trouble of shoring deep trenches (to industry standards) but left the excavators down the hole while lifting huge sacks of spoil out by sling.People were pinned to the sides a couple of times before someone noticed this large but obvious gaff. The overall HS culture desperately requires a re-appraisal. One of the most recurrent themes is where archy teams working on live construction sites have no control over the behaviour of builder types. I` v said this before but no-one picked up on it...there`s no point in having one risk assessment for us and one for the developer if the two don`t tie in. There are plenty of developers out there who employ cheap crud (as we do) many of whom are not licensed to operate the machinery they abuse in order to chase some pubescent machismo agenda. Whilst this thread has been read by many and, has resulted in a better than average number of responses-things are not changing on the ground.Simple questions are not being answered either. We`re no where near finished on this yet guys and girlies and until we are, if it aint safe-walk away until it is.If you recieve a pubescent response to your concerns-call BAJR hotline.If still not satisfied-do two things...call the IFA and while your at it, take photos and call the HSE.Lets see if a few huge fines can sort the sexually handicapped from the professionals shall we?}:)

[troll]

Hi Tim.Many thanx for your off-line email sir. If there is any way of researching the facts contained in your last post, will let you know.Stomach turning if true.....
I heard recently of a unit that went to the trouble of shoring deep trenches (to industry standards) but left the excavators down the hole while lifting huge sacks of spoil out by sling.People were pinned to the sides a couple of times before someone noticed this large but obvious gaff. The overall HS culture desperately requires a re-appraisal. One of the most recurrent themes is where archy teams working on live construction sites have no control over the behaviour of builder types. I` v said this before but no-one picked up on it...there`s no point in having one risk assessment for us and one for the developer if the two don`t tie in. There are plenty of developers out there who employ cheap crud (as we do) many of whom are not licensed to operate the machinery they abuse in order to chase some pubescent machismo agenda. Whilst this thread has been read by many and, has resulted in a better than average number of responses-things are not changing on the ground.Simple questions are not being answered either. We`re no where near finished on this yet guys and girlies and until we are, if it aint safe-walk away until it is.If you recieve a pubescent response to your concerns-call BAJR hotline.If still not satisfied-do two things...call the IFA and while your at it, take photos and call the HSE.Lets see if a few huge fines can sort the sexually handicapped from the professionals shall we?}:)

[the invisible man]

If H&S concerns on a "live construction site" arise they should immediately be taken up with the site manager. Obviously you cannot have "control" over builder types. I don't know how you know whether operatives possess the relevant licence for the plant they are operating but if you believe something is occurring which is adversely affecting H&S, then you, or whoever is in charge of you, should go to the site manager.

Before starting your work on a construction site your firm will have been provided with the Risk Assessment for the site and asked to provide your own, for your bit, together with your Method Statement, insurance details and so on. This will happen even though you're not a subcontractor but directly employed by the Employer (presumably) as the "builder type" - the Main Contractor - is in possession of the site.

I must admit that I do not recognise the image that you portray. Of course contracts are awarded to the lowest tenderer (almost always) and certainly many operatives are, err, big and ugly. But most of them know what they're doing. I suspect that in fact it is your employer that is not keeping you informed.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[the invisible man]

If H&S concerns on a "live construction site" arise they should immediately be taken up with the site manager. Obviously you cannot have "control" over builder types. I don't know how you know whether operatives possess the relevant licence for the plant they are operating but if you believe something is occurring which is adversely affecting H&S, then you, or whoever is in charge of you, should go to the site manager.

Before starting your work on a construction site your firm will have been provided with the Risk Assessment for the site and asked to provide your own, for your bit, together with your Method Statement, insurance details and so on. This will happen even though you're not a subcontractor but directly employed by the Employer (presumably) as the "builder type" - the Main Contractor - is in possession of the site.

I must admit that I do not recognise the image that you portray. Of course contracts are awarded to the lowest tenderer (almost always) and certainly many operatives are, err, big and ugly. But most of them know what they're doing. I suspect that in fact it is your employer that is not keeping you informed.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Thankyou Invisible.I think you`re hitting the nail on the head, our employers are simply not meeting their duty of care responsibilities.:D

[troll]

Thankyou Invisible.I think you`re hitting the nail on the head, our employers are simply not meeting their duty of care responsibilities.:D

[sniper]

I was reading through a recent book purchase yesterday and came across a chapter about health and safety in archaeology, specifically related to burial archaeology. There was a full page black and white photograph included, taken as a general working shot of a whole site (by a very well known unit may I add), and it asked the reader to identify potential safety problems in the photo. According to the book, there were 8, just in this one photo. It doesn't say how old the photo is, but it does seem to display a total disregard even to hide the evidence for bad H&S practice in an official photograph...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[sniper]

I was reading through a recent book purchase yesterday and came across a chapter about health and safety in archaeology, specifically related to burial archaeology. There was a full page black and white photograph included, taken as a general working shot of a whole site (by a very well known unit may I add), and it asked the reader to identify potential safety problems in the photo. According to the book, there were 8, just in this one photo. It doesn't say how old the photo is, but it does seem to display a total disregard even to hide the evidence for bad H&S practice in an official photograph...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Greetings Snipey-yes, illustrates a good point...not only is HS in our discipline verging on the pathetic, blatant seems to be the order of the day.I emphasise again guys and girlies...if it aint safe, leave.And PLEASE-carry a disposable camera with you and send to little old me.....;)Time for me to play the cynic again (no effort required on my part) I think I know the very photo. Seems to form the entire meat and two veg of HS lectures/training in our profession.Once you`ve seen the photo and-lets not forget the video about ladders and hot doors- you`re qualified to write risk assessments and be responsible for staff on site.Huzzah!;)

[troll]

Greetings Snipey-yes, illustrates a good point...not only is HS in our discipline verging on the pathetic, blatant seems to be the order of the day.I emphasise again guys and girlies...if it aint safe, leave.And PLEASE-carry a disposable camera with you and send to little old me.....;)Time for me to play the cynic again (no effort required on my part) I think I know the very photo. Seems to form the entire meat and two veg of HS lectures/training in our profession.Once you`ve seen the photo and-lets not forget the video about ladders and hot doors- you`re qualified to write risk assessments and be responsible for staff on site.Huzzah!;)

[sniper]

thought the video was about photocopiers and high heels myself...would love someone to make a video about the health hazards of mouldy skeletons and smells emanating from wood treatment tanks, would make my job a little easier.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[sniper]

thought the video was about photocopiers and high heels myself...would love someone to make a video about the health hazards of mouldy skeletons and smells emanating from wood treatment tanks, would make my job a little easier.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Now now, non-specifics Snipey........:D

[troll]

Now now, non-specifics Snipey........:D

[sniper]

believe me, mouldy skeletons is not a unit specific problem by any means, don't know how many different interestingly coloured spores I have breathed in doing my job...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

do you fart in technicolour?:D

[sniper]

not as far as I am aware, and I don't burp mushrooms either :D

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Tim]

The trench collapse death was reported in the national press (probably the Guardian in 1990-94) if that helps.

Little Tim

[the invisible man]

Hmm, your referencing leaves a little to be desired Tim!:D

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Tim


quote:Originally posted by troll

I know of no fatalities in British archaeology yet.


I'm sure there was somebody killed in a trench collapse in Colchester(?) and another squished flat by grader on the Channel tunnel project both in the 90's.

Little Tim


As far as I am aware, only one archaeologist has been killed on an excavation in Britain. In July 1970, Jeffrey Radley was killed in York when a trench in which he had been working collapsed. There is a plaque dedicated to him on the Anglian tower in the Museum Gardens.

http://www.yorkstories.co.uk/york_walks-1/images/29january2004/enlarged/anglian-tower-plaque_590px.jpg

As for the other British incidents being bandied about, I assume that they are either urban myths or the deaths of other construction site workers. Considering the thread on everyone in archaeology being related or known to one another, if someone had died we'd [u]all</u> know about it.


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[Pete M]

quote:Originally posted by Sith


quote:Originally posted by Tim


quote:Originally posted by troll

I know of no fatalities in British archaeology yet.


I'm sure there was somebody killed in a trench collapse in Colchester(?) and another squished flat by grader on the Channel tunnel project both in the 90's.

Little Tim


As far as I am aware, only one archaeologist has been killed on an excavation in Britain. In July 1970, Jeffrey Radley was killed in York when a trench in which he had been working collapsed. There is a plaque dedicated to him on the Anglian tower in the Museum Gardens.

http://www.yorkstories.co.uk/york_walks-1/images/29january2004/enlarged/anglian-tower-plaque_590px.jpg

As for the other British incidents being bandied about, I assume that they are either urban myths or the deaths of other construction site workers. Considering the thread on everyone in archaeology being related or known to one another, if someone had died we'd [u]all</u> know about it.


I seem to remember a death in the early 90s - a trench collapse. It was the director. He was british but I'm not sure it happened in the UK - maybe France.

[Pete M]

As well as preventing accidents your employer is supposed to instruct you in the correct way to use tools.

There have been a few posters who have moved to desk-jobs after less than 10 years in the field, because of physical problems caused by the job.

I wonder how many people have not had accidents but have health problems resulting from fieldwork? backs is the most common.

To be worn out after 10 years indicates that something is wrong with the training given.

I had to give up mountain-based surveys because of a gammy knee.

[mercenary]

quote:There have been a few posters who have moved to desk-jobs after less than 10 years in the field, because of physical problems caused by the job.

I wonder how many people have not had accidents but have health problems resulting from fieldwork? backs is the most common.

To be worn out after 10 years indicates that something is wrong with the training given.



No, no, no... you cannot train away physical wear and tear. You can only try and limit the worst effects, but time gets us all eventually.

I am currently in post-ex exile because of a general physical breakdown, hopefully not permanent. I made it to 10 years and fully intend to make it to 20, I'll just have to slow down. The point is that I accepted this likely effect many years ago.

There are plenty of things H&S related that are wrong in archaeology, but general wear and tear is not among them. Unless we are going to start excavating sites entirely by trowel while suspended in warm vats of comforting gel, then we are going to get worn down. The trouble is that we end up doing more physical labour than any other job I've ever seen. That includes the building industry. (We are constantly being offered labouring jobs because we graft more than builders)

The only other profession where I've seen similar physical labour was farming, admittedly not one that is overly familiar with H&S legislation.

The solution must be to stop limiting any segment of the workforce to site duties only. A healthy break doing post-ex allows me to heal up for the next campaign, but some of my colleagues don't have that luxury. If they did, they would be better excavators and more engaged with the whole process. Less likely to get disillusioned with the profession and leave as well, I reckon.

[Pete M]

It's called Manual Handling, and sorry but you are wrong - you can train people to lift, carry, shovel, mattock, pick and bend properly.

If you think it is better to 'graft' for 10 years than work steadily for 35 - well, we have different views.

[Pete M]

For example - if we took 10 people from this forum at random and go them to lift up and put down an empty cardboard box for 4 hours, at the end some would be crippled whilst others would be unaffected.

Entirely because of their technique.

[Cautionary Tale]

I tend to agree with merc, no matter how good your technique time will tell on everyone in the long term.:(

While I respect the Manual Handling regulations, some of the weight limits suggested for lifting are disturbingly low (from the view point of thinking about the weight of things I have carried without thinking, and now wondering what the damage will be).

(I really have worked in the field)

[Pete M]

I agree time does tell - but only 10 years? for peanuts?

Is it worth it?

Are new fieldworkers aware they might be washed up much sooner than they imagined?

Has anyone been digging for 30 years? (I mean all-year round). They must have some useful survival tips.

You can also wear yourself out by going at it hammer-and-tongs you know.

[Pete M]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

I tend to agree with merc, no matter how good your technique time will tell on everyone in the long term.:(

While I respect the Manual Handling regulations, some of the weight limits suggested for lifting are disturbingly low (from the view point of thinking about the weight of things I have carried without thinking, and now wondering what the damage will be).


My point is that lots of the damage is unneccesary and can be mitigated by training, which is another responsibility of the employer.

At the moment you are wondering what the damage will be - will you still be as philosphical should the damage turn out quite bad, even life-changing - and that it resulted from poor technique or being asked to lift/carry weights that are likely to damage you?

I've seen quite a few people swing picks like they're trying to kill a snake, and dig like terriers after a rabbit - and wonder why their back/knees hurt.

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by Pete M

At the moment you are wondering what the damage will be ...and that it resulted from poor technique or being asked to lift/carry weights that are likely to damage you?


I agree on the emp responsibility front completely, and did my best to protect people from themselves when I could. I some ways I suppose diggers should be a little selfish about this: face it somebody who's digging like a terrier is probably going to be in less than perfect control of their digging implement which means a. risk of someone else getting hurt and b. bad archaeology.

On my point about weight regs I personally had to be careful constantly for unconnected reasons (double hernia from 4), and still hadn't thought about the risk posed by just a 5kg weight which was what I was aiming at (admittedly badly - apologies for phrasing and stuff Pete M). I think the below document will be sobering for a lot of field archaeologists out there. Has anyone really thought a day of digging through on this basis?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg383.pdf

(I really have worked in the field)

[achingknees]

Next time you're on a construction site watch the builders. They don't shift spoil as we do. There is assistance from power tools, mechanisation (powered barrows, conveyors), cranes and on-site machine. This is a fairly recent sea-change - it wasn't too long ago where you would see the old navvies doing the sh*t shifting.

[mercenary]

Pete, forgive me, but what is your experience with the more physical bits of this trade? You sound very much like someone who doesn't do this year round. I hope I'm wrong. It's not black and white like you suggest. There is not a right way that prevents damage, and a wrong way that guarantees damage.

Good training in technique helps, granted; but a body wears down in any walk of life. It's a trade off. For example if you use good technique when lifting a box and keep your back straight and bend your knees, after a couple of hundred times your back will probably be not too bad but your knees will be suffering.

I've had plenty of manual handling training. Usually from people who rarely do it. I do what I can to protect myself, I'm not an idiot, but I accept I'm going wear down. I'm much fitter than my office bound friends, and less likely to have a heart attack. (Do they get sedentery life training?)

I'm also far from washed up despite feeling a bit worn, and I Never go at it hammer and tongs.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Pete M
It was the director.

Interesting, so was Mr Radley. Is there a pattern developing here? I'm still unconvinced about this 90s fatality. It's very strange that I can find no reference to it anywhere.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[Pete M]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

Pete, forgive me, but what is your experience with the more physical bits of this trade? You sound very much like someone who doesn't do this year round. I hope I'm wrong. It's not black and white like you suggest. There is not a right way that prevents damage, and a wrong way that guarantees damage.


Merc - I excavated 5 years including winters in the early-mid 90s(breaking ice to get to the feature etc). After questioning the validity, cost and results of most excavations, I then concentrated on buildings/survey. More recently I managed a 12-month reconstruction project which involved trainees dismantling and rebuilding a cottage and outbuildings - several hundred tons of stone and earth were shifted and lifted over the year.

I'm not suggesting it's black and white - my main point is that there are lots of people doing it wrong, which is wrong. I'm not suggesting you are one of them.

The 'hammer and tongs' was an oblique reference to another thread when you said you were 'fast'.

[Pete M]

quote:Originally posted by Sith


quote:Originally posted by Pete M
It was the director.

Interesting, so was Mr Radley. Is there a pattern developing here? I'm still unconvinced about this 90s fatality. It's very strange that I can find no reference to it anywhere.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for


I remember reading it in the paper one lunchtime when I was excavating - Probbaly July or August 1990. I remember that the trench was 4m or so deep, unshored and cut into sand/silt. I remember the detail because I was working in a similar material at the time. The director may have been a lecturer. Of course I could have been reading about the earlier event. I distinctly remember thinking 'there for the grace of god...' followed by 'stupid - it's not worth the riak'

[Pete M]

I mentioned manual handling because it was not until I arranged/did a course myself (after 7 or 8 years working) that I realised how little I knew.

Before I did it, I assumed it was obvious how to lift an empty cardboard box, after all, I had a degree and everything.

I naively expected the instructor to arrive with a trailer containing a huge log, a wrecking ball and some sandbags - that's how little I understood it all.

I also assumed that everyone knew how to walk, therefore access wasn't an issue. But 30% of all work accidents come from trips and slips.

[Pete M]

addendum

merc - I agree with yours and others points when comparing to builders. They generally have it easier, don't work in the wet so much, and are better protected by law (CDM etc). Also very little knee and groundlevel work.

I wonder if archaeology has some special types of injuries caused by trowelling and bucket moving - particularly from the lift-and-twist action that can occur when moving a bucket of spoil from in front/side of you to a barrow behind.

If it's not too personal Merc - what is preventing you from digging?

[the invisible man]

Interesting point - yes, builders use machines to shift spoil (and all sorts of other things) not because they are nice caring people but because that is the fastest and cheapest way to do it (these are much the same thing in construction). In turn this is because labour is one of the most expensive commodities in construction..... assuming you can actually get it.....you see where I'm going?

Re lifting and CDM: we now generally try to specify blocks (what people erroneously call breezeblocks) with a maximum weight of 20kg, that being deemed to be a one-man lift.

Re,training in use of tools, walking and so on: again this suggests that some of sort of recognition of field experience is required. If you engage a bricklayer you don't expect to teach him/her to use a trowel. If you engage a site assistant on the basis that he/she is experienced it is reasonable to assume that he/she knows how to use their tools - a duty of care to yourself. A different kettle of fish if you asl them to use a new or unfamiliar tools, or if they are inexperienced.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[mercenary]

Pete,

Sorry to question your experience, you clearly know what you're talking about with that experience.

My ailment is thankfully seeming to resolve itself, but I'll know more after visiting Doc tomorrow. It was a general siezing up of joints after a hard days work following on from a virus of some type. Felt like the end at the time.

I think you are right about injuries particular to archs. I've met many who get trowelling RSI, and I've got a bad shoulder partly from lifting buckets. The lifting/twisting shovelling action is murder too. I'm a big fan of long handled shovels that seem to be in more common usage these days.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

The lifting/twisting shovelling action is murder too.

I worked out a long time ago (and was told it later on a manual handling course), that you shouldn't do this. Shovel forwards or, if you have to turn, pick up your spoil and then move your feet.

it's easy to be smug after the event though, hope it's good news from the quack.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[achingknees]

twisting when lifting, including shoveling gives an inevitable bad back. for those not lucky enough to have been given training look at this...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/

in particular this...

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg143.pdf

these are actually advice notes for managers and employers, but they are quite useful. look at the advice on moving things on sloping surfaces, then do a calculation for a full barrow....with wet ground...and muddy wheels...that need the tyres pumping. :face-confused:

I know a bloke that can't have sex due to a bad back. That made you think [:0]

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary
[ The lifting/twisting shovelling action is murder too.

Got to say, that exact thing was what effectively ended my site days. Too deep a pit, too narrow a slot, ping went back and was laid out flat for weeks. Luckily, the company I then worked for paid a bit for some chiropractic treatment [:0]!

At any rate, I see some people doing so very foolish things with shovels and mattocks on site now, mostly in the name of inexperience and speed, and I ache for them. Good links, Knees.

ML

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:At any rate, I see some people doing so very foolish things with shovels and mattocks on site now, mostly in the name of inexperience and speed

And theres the rub. H&S advice is one thing. Proper training in the use of tools another. We must have all seen colleagues who cannot use shovels, picks or mattocks, wheelbarrows or even trowels in a correct fashion. But how do you tell someone? It feels like almost the worst thing that you can ever say to a fellow digger. 'Err - look there's a better way to hold/use that tool/implement'.

Bring back 'Tool Olympics' on site, I say. It might be frowned upon as macho bulls-h!*t but at least you could observe the technique of someone who could genuinely use a shovel/mattock/trowel and who probably worked in a very ergomatic, energy conserving manner as well. I also think that big people helping little people by sharing and emptying barrows is a good idea.

[sniper]

i think the sharing/emptying barrows thing would be good upto a point. I'm only little but when I used to work out on site all the time, I could lift a barrow with the best of them. I know its stupid, but if someone was always offering to empty my barrow I probably wouldn't be pleased but would be thinking that they thought I was a useless girl...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[mercenary]

Yep, emptying barrows for the females is sexist. The solution, and it took me a while to learn this one, is to judge carefully how much to put in a barrow.

If a heavy clay, put in less.

If tired, put in less.

If raining with steep ramp, definitely put in less.

And never, ever try to compete with the other excavators. Know your limits.

[troll]

I think that one of the major drawbacks in current arch HS is simply that we are pushed to carry out tasks to a ridiculous timetable in a competative environment. If we could introduce line managers to the concept of including Human workers in their time budgeting, I would argue that the many ailments alluded to here recently would decrease exponentially. If we do have to carry out manual tasks that are potentially dangerous, lets not do so at formula one speeds........:D

[sniper]

i've always found that the quicker you try and push a barrow up a slippery slope, the less likely you are to have time in which to slide about, drop it and end up on your arse...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge


quote:At any rate, I see some people doing so very foolish things with shovels and mattocks on site now, mostly in the name of inexperience and speed

And theres the rub. H&S advice is one thing. Proper training in the use of tools another. We must have all seen colleagues who cannot use shovels, picks or mattocks, wheelbarrows or even trowels in a correct fashion. But how do you tell someone? It feels like almost the worst thing that you can ever say to a fellow digger. 'Err - look there's a better way to hold/use that tool/implement'.

Bring back 'Tool Olympics' on site, I say. It might be frowned upon as macho bulls-h!*t but at least you could observe the technique of someone who could genuinely use a shovel/mattock/trowel and who probably worked in a very ergomatic, energy conserving manner as well. I also think that big people helping little people by sharing and emptying barrows is a good idea.





If you have difficulty passing on advice/experience ask the supervisor to do it. The construction industry have taken on the (American?) practise of tool-box talks. This is time-out to discuss working practices, how to use tools safely and effectively etc.

But, as I've said before, there are alternatives to wheelbarrows and slippery slopes. I saw some guys clearing out a garden last week. Small machine was used to empty rubble into a power barrow with occasional shovel or two when required. In no time their skip was full. It looked loads more efficient than our navvie practices.

[rachstebbs]

See I'm always more than happy to let the boys do the hard work!
But seriously I'm willing to empty barrows and do heavy work, but I am about half the size of most blokes on site and although I hate to admit it, they can do the heavier work a lot more easily than I can. Its not a question of sexism or 'big people helping little people', i'd call it teamwork. (thats not meant to sound patronising!)

[the invisible man]

It is not sexist for one person to help another person because that person needs help. It would be sexist to press uninvited help solely on grounds of biological sex. It would be a form of received sexism to refuse help, or not to ask for help, for fear of "betraying" your sex - male or female. Also very silly.

Technique is everything. I have seen many people small of stature, mainly female, wielding shovels and mattocks and driving wheelbarrows with a greater ease than most large males. I don't mean to patronise, but I suppose if you're slighlty built then you have to dig smart.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[Pedant]

quote:Originally posted by achingknees

If you have difficulty passing on advice/experience ask the supervisor to do it.


Problem is, some people just won't listen... even to their supervisor. I have seen people struggling with mattocks/shovels, advised a better way of doing it by the supervisor, along the lines of "This will be easier on you," and the advice is rejected usually with gales of laughter cos they think you're taking the p*ss. :(

You can always tell a Brummie... but you can't tell him much

[Curator Kid]

quote:
Problem is, some people just won't listen... even to their supervisor. I have seen people struggling with mattocks/shovels, advised a better way of doing it by the supervisor, along the lines of "This will be easier on you," and the advice is rejected usually with gales of laughter cos they think you're taking the p*ss. :(


Those people deserve the kind of backache that I have to put up with. And I did listen. Maybe they should be made to speak to a bunch of ex-field types who can't dig any more because their bodies are knackered. :(

[kevin wooldridge]

quote: Maybe they should be made to speak to a bunch of ex-field types who can't dig any more because their bodies are knackered. :(

There must be another side to this coin though. Surely there are some old lags out there who have been digging since the dinosaurs and are still fit (and enthusiatic) enough to continue doing it. Would they care to share their secret?

It must be down to something. Luck? Diet? Yoga? Small blue pills? Celibacy?

[Beardstroker]

Pace yourself, especially when digging in heavy wet stuff like clay, I'd say.

And don't try to take on people who are younger and fitter then you at moving dirt, especially of the wet, sticky clay variety. It certainly isn't the way to prove that your a better digger then them. (assuming you realy feel the need to prove that anyway:Dll)

[sniper]

well, I am out on site tomorrow for the first time since February, but its only for the day and I'll be wearing my "specialist" hat. Will let you all know if I break something...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by rachstebbs

I'm willing to empty barrows and do heavy work, but I am about half the size of most blokes on site and although I hate to admit it, they can do the heavier work a lot more easily than I can.

One of the funniest things I ever saw on site was during a mamoth shovel and barrow session on a Roman site in t'North. Patronising middle-aged mature graduate tries to help similarlly aged wiry female of great experience with her groaning barrow. He makes it part way up the massive spoil heap before tipping up sideways, blocking the ramp. Guess who shovelled it all back in and took it to the top (and had to be restrained from taking helpful bloke with it)? :)

I have also worked with many female archaeologists who enjoy nothing more than practising the noble art of fop-busting their male colleagues.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[troll]

A few tips for stayin gnarly in the field.....
Believe it or not yes-celibacy.
I don`t pour toxins down my throat and line the thieving taxmans pockets in the process.
Do weights and invest in some muscle
Cut down on dairy produce
STOP EATIN THE PIES!
Most importantly of all-learn to respond to supervisory/managerial idiocy with a simple "no". There are ways to do things and there are ways to sacrifice your health (and endanger colleagues in the process) for 200 a week.You choose.:D

[the invisible man]

You won't live longer, it'll just seem like it.....:D

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Just noticed on a job advert that PPE is listed as a benefit alongside accommodation. Sorry guys.PPE is an obligation is it not?Since when is it provided as a benefit?
:face-confused:

[mercenary]

Of course it's an obligation, not a benefit.
Come on Troll. Who was it for? Can we get that by the AU guidelines?

[sniper]

just saw it myself, happens to be the advert placed by Oxford for archaeologists on the bajr job page...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[BAJR Host]

Simple answer to that was a mistake by the Human Resources bunch. Of course it is an obligation - though it would be interesting to be informed (off list) of any units who do not provide it.

Ox ford is often seen as the great Santa ;)... but in this case it is nought more than a HR error.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Talk about wrong..... the person from OA who said it was an admin error was wrong as well... I have jsut talked to OA and they confirm that they could have worded it better.... but here is the now correct version.

Other benefits include the provision of non Statutory Personal Protective Equipment (waterproofs etc) , and accommodation and subsistence for ‘away’ based work.


So you see the helmet Hi Viz boots etc which are statuatory are provided as a matter of course.... what the benefit is OA are also providing non statuatory gear such as decent waterproofs, gloves etc etc So it is a real benefit indeed.

Glad thats sorted out.! thumbs up to Oxford:D

Another day another WSI…

[voice of reason]

Hmmm, sorry, but waterproofs are in fact statutory PPE if conditions are bad enough to warrant them being worn, so they are not a 'benefit'.

[mercenary]

Statutory or not they are providing more than most of us get. (I'm really getting sick of buying my own string and nails!)

Good work BAJR ( this is all getting a bit like the consumer pages in the paper, but I like it):D

[mercenary]

BAJR Can we have a similar query to the unit that expected excavators to turn up with own mattock and shovel??? (be happy to provide details offline.)

[anon]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge

&lt;blockquote id="quote"&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Arial" id="quote"&gt;quote:&lt;hr height="1" noshade id="quote"&gt; Maybe they should be made to speak to a bunch of ex-field types who can't dig any more because their bodies are knackered. :(

There must be another side to this coin though. Surely there are some old lags out there who have been digging since the dinosaurs and are still fit (and enthusiatic) enough to continue doing it. Would they care to share their secret?

It must be down to something. Luck? Diet? Yoga? Small blue pills? Celibacy?
[/quote]

good fortune, good health, sensible exercise, sanity, and fun help. but luck (bad), diet/health (bad), yoda, small blue pills, and no fun will not help in the long run.

as for the discussion of all matters relating to the poor aspects of health and safety relating to archaeology on site - yes, it happens, often, and well known. what can be done? my thoughts - first, ensure that a level playing field is provided on which tenders can be proferred, and monitor that. second, ensure that absolutely noone pays lip service to health and safety specified in the those tenders through the referral to an authority outside the whole process (difficult?) who has the legal power to check their previous records. third, ensure that once the tender(s) has/have been allotted that the responsible party/ies is/are monitored on a frequent basis by that authority as the nature of that/those project(s) inevitably change(s) - and thus provide dependable statistics of health and safety industry wide.

who fits the profile of that authority? any ideas? with lasting impact? if only there was such a body as an omnbudsman for archaeology...then it's possible that shabby and disrespectful attitudes to health and safety in archaeology would vanish...what people can get away with in our profession is laughable, and it's good it doesn't happen as often as it could: what's not funny is that they know they could get away with it with relative impunity.

or is it better to hit them where it hurts - their wallet? though that would not help anyone save the pursuer - unless actions are brought against employers in common towards the same end, to keep us all safe and healthy.

think that the unions involved should carry on the good job they're doing of informing and challenging - as much as our employers inform and challenge us - not forgetting those consultants who work to ensure that such results are not wasted.

[BAJR Host]

If you want to provide details to me offline info@bajr.org I would be happy to enquire. I did mention to OA in pasing that such a group existed and they were shocked. so offline and I will follow up.

Another day another WSI…

[the invisible man]

anon, strictly speaking archaeological work comes under the CDM regulations if it is part of a construction project - the building part of it does not have to have started, it can be years away, the "project" is deemed to have started at inception. A Planning Supervisor should be appointed and all contractors have to submit their Risk Assessments and Method Statements to the PA (also all designers). The PA however has no powers of inspection and NOT an H&S inspector. But the curators could (and should) refer to this.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

anon, strictly speaking archaeological work comes under the CDM regulations if it is part of a construction project - the building part of it does not have to have started, it can be years away, the "project" is deemed to have started at inception.


I remember when the CDM regulations came into force in 1994 that there was a lot of talk about when a 'project' was deemed to have started. Did SCAUM not obtain a legal opinion in 1997 that said that the CDM regulations were [u]not</u> applicable to archaeological evaluation if it started prior to building work? It seems a long time ago, but I am sure something was worked out with the HSE.

[troll]

Like much else in the archy world in the UK, far too much credence is placed upon the semantics of largely outdated law and irrelevent guidelines. Managers and consultants seem to believe that they are immune from most. Not the case I`m afraid.Regardless of the semantics of the CDM regs-most commercial outfits still seem to think that they can make it up as they go along.No control=rampant muppetry.:D

[1man1desk]

On CDM - my understanding (possibly not perfect) is that the HSE gave an 'enforcement opinion' some years ago which said that they would not seek to enforce CDM on archaeological projects if they were not taking place on an active construction site. As far as I am aware, this applies even if the site will later become an active construction site.

Where CDM does apply, the Main Contractor and Planning Supervisor will rarely (if ever) be part of the archaeological contractor, and they will usually take steps (in their own interest) to ensure that the archaeological contractor applies the same standard of H&S as the other contractors on site. To our shame, this is often not the case unless enforced from outside.

However, I believe that CDM is mainly about notification, co-ordination and management of H&S matters, particularly where there are more than one contractor working together on the same site. The actual H&S precautions themselves should be just as strict where CDM does not apply.

Saying that CDM does not apply to stand-alone archaeological work is therefore no excuse for applying a lower standard of H&S practice.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

If archaeology has been specifically excluded from the process, then I stand corrected. One lives, one learns. However, it is the case for everything else that CDM kicks off as soom as someone thinks"I fancy building a supermarket there.." - the "construction phase" is but one part of it. One of (if not the) first things an architect HAS to do is notify the client of his obligations under CDM.

It is also true that CDM is largely a paper chase.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Post-Med Potterer]

I agree that the spirit of the law should be followed as much as possible, however to clarify, the requirements for CDM regulations (as expressed in the HSE's own literature) are

1. CDM applies to all demolition and
structural dismantling work, except where
it is undertaken for a domestic client.

2. CDM applies to most construction projects.
There are a number of situations where
CDM does not apply. These include:
- some small-scale projects which are
exempt from some aspects of CDM;
- construction work for domestic clients,
(although there are always duties on
the designer, and the contractor should
notify HSE where appropriate);
- construction work carried out inside
offices and shops, or similar premises,
that does not interrupt the normal
activities in the premises and is not
separated from those activities;
- the maintenance or removal of
insulation on pipes, boilers or other parts of heating or water systems

'Some small-scale projects' specifically means 'projects that do not last longer than 30 days and do not employ more than 4 people', so some archaeological work will fall outside the scope of the CDM regulations.

This is the HSE index page to many of the publications relating to this issue...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/conindex.htm

On it you can find the 'Absolutely Essential Toolkit' for the smaller construction contractor...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg344.pdf

...and various CDM-related guidelines, including 'the Health and Safety plan during the construction phase'...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis43.pdf

...and perhaps most importantly for us, EXCAVATIONS!
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis08.pdf

Hope this information is helpful.

[BAJR Host]

So good that I will add this to the BAJR guidance doc on H&S

:D

Another day another WSI…

[achingknees]

Mmmm...the last link given by PMP starts with...

Prevent the sides and the ends from collapsing by
battering them to a safe angle or supporting them
with timber, sheeting or proprietary support
systems.
�œ Do not go into unsupported excavations.
�œ Never work ahead of the support.
�œ Remember that even work in shallow trenches can
be dangerous. You may need to provide support if
the work involves bending or kneeling in the
trench.

The vast majority of archaeological trenches fail to meet these guidelines. We compensate in some measure by stepping in trenches. What should we do?

Kevin, I too recall one of the institutions (SCAUM or IFA?) clarifying CDM requirements with HSE. Anybody got the details?

[Reggie]

I've heard on the grapevine that some units are arranging for tests for employees for obligitory construction industry 'cards' from next year. I am presuming this is something to do with health and safety on construction sites, etc. So I've been having a look around the internet to see what it is all about and came up with this.

http://www.cscs.uk.com/occupations/croA-B.asp?cat=occupations_available

Archaeology is included in the 'related occupation' scheme for a 'white card' - see http://www.cscs.uk.com/card_info/white_card.asp?cat=card_info

Not sure if this is the same thing as what I have heard about but does anyone have any experience of this and is it something worth having?

[1man1desk]

CSCS cards are becoming very common requirements. Many major construction contractors will not allow anyone to work on their site (or even make regular visits) unless they hold one.

The cards are supposed to certify the holder as competent in a particular trade or occupation. Part of that competence is that they must have passed a test on health and safety, and it is this aspect that makes the contractor companies want everyone to have one.

The last time I looked, archaeology was not one of the listed trades or occupations. However, quite a few of the available occupations are very general. I, and several of my colleagues, hold cards as 'environmental managers', while one of my other colleagues is a 'conservation consultant'.

The test is computerised. You are given 45 minutes to answer the questions, and the degree of difficulty is indicated by the fact that it took me under 4 minutes.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Reggie]

As I indicated in my post, the list of related occupations (first link) does list "Archaeologist Technician" with the occupation code 5363 and "Craft and Operative" as the H&S test level. Perhaps this is a relatively new addition. Even if I work for a unit that isn't going to insist on the card, I guess it would be a good idea to get one anyway - as swotting up for the test and passing it would improve my H&S for all sites I might work on whether construction is taking place alongside the archaeology or not. If someone offers to pay for the test for me, then all the better !!

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1deskThe test is computerised. You are given 45 minutes to answer the questions, and the degree of difficulty is indicated by the fact that it took me under 4 minutes.

For the sake of what appears to be a straight forward, easily administered and available test, the cost of this exam (£20) sounds a bit over the top.

Is it possible that our professional body (IFA) could be convinced to get themselves accepted as an equivalant professional body and administer the test for archaeologists?. Both the dosh and the degree of required relevant knowledge would then stay in our industry. As the IFA issue an annual membership card anyway I don't suppose adding the initals 'CSCS' to it would be a great difficulty.

[1man1desk]

I'm not sure, but I don't think that it is open to any professional body to administer the test to its members. It is done for the body that administers the system by a separate company.

On the costs issue, it ought to be paid for by the employer. After all, if they are told they can't bring their staff on site (and therefore can't win the contract), it is in their interest to get all their staff qualified.

I am very glad to see archaeology added as one of the trades in CSCS - it was not available earlier this year, when I took my test.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

I remember a while ago that I asked about the chemical testing of sites prior to intrusive works.I asked just how many project managers out there carried out/commissioned such testing as a matter of course and thus far, months later, not one response.Bit worrying this......
Urban sites-industrial contamination ranging from the nasty to the fatal......
Rural sites-agricultural pesticides and dumping ranging from the reasonably benign to the ridiculously lethal......
Come on then, who out there in HS land has chemical testing of sites even mentioned in their HS policies-if not, why not?[?]

[1man1desk]

Well, I have designed and commissioned trial trenching on a couple of contaminated sites in the past.

Any site that is likely to be contaminated will also have geotechnical ground investigations either before or at the same time as the archaeological works, and they will be trying to identify any contamination and its nature. Before they start on site, they will have carried out a desk-top study to identify past land uses that might have given rise to contamination.

When I need to investigate a site that might be contaminated, I liaise with the geotechnical engineers to find out what they know and to seek advice on how to do the archaeological works safely. If necessary, I then change the archaeological methodology in the spec that I write, and I put in all the necessary H&S precautions, before sending it out to tender. These precautions might compromise the archaeological methodology - but the H&S issues have to take priority.

In some cases, I have (with the agreement of the curator) replaced trial trenching with coring, so that we never have a hole that anyone has to enter.

I have in the past done all this on an ad-hoc, project-by-project basis. However, I have recently asked one of my staff to research the issue more thoroughly so as to produce internal company guidelines on how to address this issue.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[kevin wooldridge]

We may have raised this subject before...

I seem to recall that someone thought somewhere there might be a national/regional database of contaminated land. This database was accessable to staff based in planning departments, but not to the general public, for fear of deflating property prices. Does anyone remember?

If that was the case then H&S ought to be a good reason for disclosure.

[mercenary]

The following was posted on Britarch in response to criticism of the IFA. It puts into perspective the situation in the UK rather well.

[I am a native Austrian, and worked there for much of my early years in the discipline. In Austria, there is nothing remotely like the IFA, and as such, there is no self-regulation of the discipline whatsoever. One result of this is, as you may remember from some mails on Britarch earlier this year, that one of our colleagues, Markus Koller, was killed on site about a year ago, when the trench he was working in collapsed. This event has had NO consequences whatsoever, as the police investigation ended finding that no one could be held responsible, based, at least mostly, on an expert opinion of one of my colleagues (who shall remain nameless) that general health and safety regulations could not be applied to archaeological excavations, and that no Austrian archaeologist had any idea whatsoever what could have been done to prevent this 'tragic accident' (which of course is as patently wrong as it is outrageous). Other than a conference which will be held next February in Salzburg, where health and safety on excavation will be discussed by, mainly, representatives of various archaeological institutions in Austria, that's it (I will be there and talk about the situation in the UK, btw.). And I fully expect that said conference will produce no tangible results whatsoever, either, as most of the participants will come up with the usual sad argument that health and safety cost more than we can afford, and that there is nothing that could keep a section from collapsing anyway (after all, many of the less internationally oriented of the Austrian archaeologists are still not using the stratigraphic method). And I know that since the accident, the same dangerous practices have continued at many an excavation. As a matter of fact, the 'collapsed' police investigation into the case of the death of Markus Koller now means that any excavation director can now send his staff down a 3 meter deep trench in loose gravel without taking any precautionary measures (and I have heard of at least 2 cases where this has already happened, apart from remembering pretty well that I myself worked down in such trenches in my early years). Here, an institution like the IFA, with whatever faults and weaknesses it may have, would come in very handy. It may not be as effective as we might wish, and may or may not expel or otherwise discipline people as frequently as some here might like, but it is definitely better than nothing. Put bluntly, if you don't like what the IFA does, try to change it from the inside, while you continue to ridicule it's shortcomings, both internally and in public. But sitting outside on your fence and complaining that 'they are not good enough' and 'who made them archaeological god anyway' is just cheap.]

We should consider ourselves lucky.

[mercenary]

The following was posted on Britarch in response to criticism of the IFA. It puts into perspective the situation in the UK rather well.

[I am a native Austrian, and worked there for much of my early years in the discipline. In Austria, there is nothing remotely like the IFA, and as such, there is no self-regulation of the discipline whatsoever. One result of this is, as you may remember from some mails on Britarch earlier this year, that one of our colleagues, Markus Koller, was killed on site about a year ago, when the trench he was working in collapsed. This event has had NO consequences whatsoever, as the police investigation ended finding that no one could be held responsible, based, at least mostly, on an expert opinion of one of my colleagues (who shall remain nameless) that general health and safety regulations could not be applied to archaeological excavations, and that no Austrian archaeologist had any idea whatsoever what could have been done to prevent this 'tragic accident' (which of course is as patently wrong as it is outrageous). Other than a conference which will be held next February in Salzburg, where health and safety on excavation will be discussed by, mainly, representatives of various archaeological institutions in Austria, that's it (I will be there and talk about the situation in the UK, btw.). And I fully expect that said conference will produce no tangible results whatsoever, either, as most of the participants will come up with the usual sad argument that health and safety cost more than we can afford, and that there is nothing that could keep a section from collapsing anyway (after all, many of the less internationally oriented of the Austrian archaeologists are still not using the stratigraphic method). And I know that since the accident, the same dangerous practices have continued at many an excavation. As a matter of fact, the 'collapsed' police investigation into the case of the death of Markus Koller now means that any excavation director can now send his staff down a 3 meter deep trench in loose gravel without taking any precautionary measures (and I have heard of at least 2 cases where this has already happened, apart from remembering pretty well that I myself worked down in such trenches in my early years). Here, an institution like the IFA, with whatever faults and weaknesses it may have, would come in very handy. It may not be as effective as we might wish, and may or may not expel or otherwise discipline people as frequently as some here might like, but it is definitely better than nothing. Put bluntly, if you don't like what the IFA does, try to change it from the inside, while you continue to ridicule it's shortcomings, both internally and in public. But sitting outside on your fence and complaining that 'they are not good enough' and 'who made them archaeological god anyway' is just cheap.]

We should consider ourselves lucky.

[BAJR Host]

Do I sense a Euro BAJR in the offing?? I am preparing a massive BAJR campaign in May (how socialist of me :)) with card leaflets, A3 Posters etc and the launch of BAJR 2.0 web... WIth this comes an opportunity to raise awareness and support our fellow archaeologists in Europe. This shocking incident reported in the April Digger

ARCHAEOLOGIST KILLED IN TRENCH COLLAPSE

Archaeologists around the world were shocked to hear about the death of Austrian Marcus Koller, 30. He was killed last month when the 2.5m deep unshored trench he was working in collapsed. Despite being injured themselves, two women colleagues - one of whom was his fiancee - were able to dig him out but he had suffocated. They were working on a Roman farm site for Salzburg museum.

and now the followup where practices have not changed and H&S is still regarded as secondary. There is much work to be done. Lets consolidate and both seek ties with Euro and American Groups as well as support change within the European Archaeology Field.

For example an archaeologist in Italy earns around 5-600 euros a month !! (about 400 quid) Archaeology has traditionally received little government funding in Italy despite a plethora of ancient sites. The Italian Culture Minister Valter Veltroni, made the announcement that foreign archaeological schools will be invited to take part in digs. robbers continue to loot ancient Italian tombs and insufficient attention has been paid to conserving existing sites.

So yes we are lucky... but only by making our own luck!



Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Do I sense a Euro BAJR in the offing?? I am preparing a massive BAJR campaign in May (how socialist of me :)) with card leaflets, A3 Posters etc and the launch of BAJR 2.0 web... WIth this comes an opportunity to raise awareness and support our fellow archaeologists in Europe. This shocking incident reported in the April Digger

ARCHAEOLOGIST KILLED IN TRENCH COLLAPSE

Archaeologists around the world were shocked to hear about the death of Austrian Marcus Koller, 30. He was killed last month when the 2.5m deep unshored trench he was working in collapsed. Despite being injured themselves, two women colleagues - one of whom was his fiancee - were able to dig him out but he had suffocated. They were working on a Roman farm site for Salzburg museum.

and now the followup where practices have not changed and H&S is still regarded as secondary. There is much work to be done. Lets consolidate and both seek ties with Euro and American Groups as well as support change within the European Archaeology Field.

For example an archaeologist in Italy earns around 5-600 euros a month !! (about 400 quid) Archaeology has traditionally received little government funding in Italy despite a plethora of ancient sites. The Italian Culture Minister Valter Veltroni, made the announcement that foreign archaeological schools will be invited to take part in digs. robbers continue to loot ancient Italian tombs and insufficient attention has been paid to conserving existing sites.

So yes we are lucky... but only by making our own luck!



Another day another WSI…

[i_love_rocks]

I can only support what has been said in that email to Britarch. I myself have worked both in the UK and in Germany, and can confirm from my own experience that UK contract archaeologists are generally getting a better deal in Health and Safety and general work conditions.
Earlier this year I was working on a large-scale urban site in Germany, which had the most appauling H&S standards I have ever seen anywhere. The site was contaminated (Heating Fuel and Mercury) and staff was at first given no appropriate protection, mechanical excavators were swinging with full loads over the heads of archaeologists, access to the excavation area was over spoil heaps, site traffic was totally uncontrolled etc etc etc. I was present when we came across the first area contaminated with mercury and immediately evacuated all the other staff in that trench. It took hours for the developers environmental specialist to turn up and he at first had a good laugh at us, because he didn't believe that we had a contamination. Once he had a good look around the area and moved the spoil I had covered the mercury with he jumped out of the trench and asked his colleague to pass him his respirator! Next time I find something like that and the guys responsible can't be arsed to do something about it in good time I will call the firebrigade and let them deal with it and have the unit or developer pay for it.
I could go on for hours about that site. Only this week there was a major incident on site where one of the diggers was almost hit by a bit of steel falling from the top...(I don't work there any more, but I still get the news).
The major problem was that the majority of people doing the diggers job were totally inappropriate staff, many of them students and most of them not even enrolled in an archaeological degree.
Totally ridiculous. Compared to the quality of work and to the standards in H&S I have seen in the UK on the sites that I have worked on (I am sure there are exceptions and those should be followed up by the relevant authorities) it was an absolute shambles. Therefore, yes while the IFA may be not the best one would hope for in terms of helping on-site conditions all people working in the UK that something like this xists in the first place!

Anyway, rant over.
Any chance of extending BAJR across Europe??? ;)

[i_love_rocks]

I can only support what has been said in that email to Britarch. I myself have worked both in the UK and in Germany, and can confirm from my own experience that UK contract archaeologists are generally getting a better deal in Health and Safety and general work conditions.
Earlier this year I was working on a large-scale urban site in Germany, which had the most appauling H&S standards I have ever seen anywhere. The site was contaminated (Heating Fuel and Mercury) and staff was at first given no appropriate protection, mechanical excavators were swinging with full loads over the heads of archaeologists, access to the excavation area was over spoil heaps, site traffic was totally uncontrolled etc etc etc. I was present when we came across the first area contaminated with mercury and immediately evacuated all the other staff in that trench. It took hours for the developers environmental specialist to turn up and he at first had a good laugh at us, because he didn't believe that we had a contamination. Once he had a good look around the area and moved the spoil I had covered the mercury with he jumped out of the trench and asked his colleague to pass him his respirator! Next time I find something like that and the guys responsible can't be arsed to do something about it in good time I will call the firebrigade and let them deal with it and have the unit or developer pay for it.
I could go on for hours about that site. Only this week there was a major incident on site where one of the diggers was almost hit by a bit of steel falling from the top...(I don't work there any more, but I still get the news).
The major problem was that the majority of people doing the diggers job were totally inappropriate staff, many of them students and most of them not even enrolled in an archaeological degree.
Totally ridiculous. Compared to the quality of work and to the standards in H&S I have seen in the UK on the sites that I have worked on (I am sure there are exceptions and those should be followed up by the relevant authorities) it was an absolute shambles. Therefore, yes while the IFA may be not the best one would hope for in terms of helping on-site conditions all people working in the UK that something like this xists in the first place!

Anyway, rant over.
Any chance of extending BAJR across Europe??? ;)

[1man1desk]

The Austrian experience quoted above gives me the shivers. I have seen similarly dangerous practice (although, thankfully, not results) in the UK, but not since the early 1980s and only on University-run research excavations. I have also seen almost exactly the same situation on a construction site, affecting construction workers (not archaeologists), and it did result in almost instant prosecution by the HSE and a large fine.

A point worth making is that this situation could not arise with impunity in Britain. H&S law here applies equally to all employers, and no archaeological unit here could successfully plead that they couldn't be expected to know how to work safely. So, the investigation that took place in Austria, if repeated in Britain, would almost certainly have resulted in a prosecution and a conviction. I had assumed that this would be the case throughout the EU - but apparently not!

In the light of the above, if I saw such dangerous practice here I would report it to the IFA - but only after reporting to the HSE, a much more powerful regulator with stronger sanctions at their disposal.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

The Austrian experience quoted above gives me the shivers. I have seen similarly dangerous practice (although, thankfully, not results) in the UK, but not since the early 1980s and only on University-run research excavations. I have also seen almost exactly the same situation on a construction site, affecting construction workers (not archaeologists), and it did result in almost instant prosecution by the HSE and a large fine.

A point worth making is that this situation could not arise with impunity in Britain. H&S law here applies equally to all employers, and no archaeological unit here could successfully plead that they couldn't be expected to know how to work safely. So, the investigation that took place in Austria, if repeated in Britain, would almost certainly have resulted in a prosecution and a conviction. I had assumed that this would be the case throughout the EU - but apparently not!

In the light of the above, if I saw such dangerous practice here I would report it to the IFA - but only after reporting to the HSE, a much more powerful regulator with stronger sanctions at their disposal.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[i_love_rocks]

About EU H&S regulations:
since EU regulations came into force hivi jackets and vests are a must on all sites in Germany as are hard-hats regardless of type of site, depth of excavation etc. (safety boots have always been).
But, in many cases that is just a 'visual' effect. Often nothing has changed in terms of the thought process underlying safety procedures on sites. Did I mention that the site I was talking about didn't have running water three months into the season, because the construction company couldn't be asked? This is with site staff of 15+ people at al times AND contaminated soil...

[i_love_rocks]

About EU H&S regulations:
since EU regulations came into force hivi jackets and vests are a must on all sites in Germany as are hard-hats regardless of type of site, depth of excavation etc. (safety boots have always been).
But, in many cases that is just a 'visual' effect. Often nothing has changed in terms of the thought process underlying safety procedures on sites. Did I mention that the site I was talking about didn't have running water three months into the season, because the construction company couldn't be asked? This is with site staff of 15+ people at al times AND contaminated soil...

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

The following was posted on Britarch in response to criticism of the IFA. It puts into perspective the situation in the UK rather well.

I am a native Austrian, and worked there for much of my early years in the discipline. In Austria, there is nothing remotely like the IFA, and as such, there is no self-regulation of the discipline whatsoever. One result of this is, as you may remember from some mails on Britarch earlier this year, that one of our colleagues, Markus Koller, was killed on site about a year ago, when the trench he was working in collapsed. This event has had NO consequences whatsoever, as the police investigation ended finding that no one could be held responsible, based, at least mostly, on an expert opinion of one of my colleagues (who shall remain nameless) that general health and safety regulations could not be applied to archaeological excavations, and that no Austrian archaeologist had any idea whatsoever what could have been done to prevent this 'tragic accident' (which of course is as patently wrong as it is outrageous). Other than a conference which will be held next February in Salzburg, where health and safety on excavation will be discussed by, mainly, representatives of various archaeological institutions in Austria, that's it (I will be there and talk about the situation in the UK, btw.). And I fully expect that said conference will produce no tangible results whatsoever, either, as most of the participants will come up with the usual sad argument that health and safety cost more than we can afford, and that there is nothing that could keep a section from collapsing anyway

This would appear to be an outrageous situation. It does however contain an error.

Austria as a full member of the European Union has signed up to virtually identical Health and Safety legislation to that applicable in the UK. Workers in Austria are protected under this legislation in the same way that UK workers are.

Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work

In UK law the employer has a responsibility to make sure a working site is safe. The employees have a duty to act in a safe manner.The death of the archaeologist in Salzburg is to be regretted, but the correspondent is wrong to say that are no measures that could have been taken to protect this worker. The workers involved should not have been in that trench in those conditions. The employer had a duty under both European and Austrian law to ensure a safe working site.

I would hope that Austrian archaeological workers (supported by their trade unions) are seeking serious meetings with their employers to ensure that H&S legislation is being applied. This is not a matter to be raised at the arse-end of a conference, but fundamental to archaeological work across Europe. As UK archaeologists or archaeological companies could/can work anywhere in the EU, a serious breach of H&S conditions in any part of the EU is a concern we should all be sharing.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

The following was posted on Britarch in response to criticism of the IFA. It puts into perspective the situation in the UK rather well.

I am a native Austrian, and worked there for much of my early years in the discipline. In Austria, there is nothing remotely like the IFA, and as such, there is no self-regulation of the discipline whatsoever. One result of this is, as you may remember from some mails on Britarch earlier this year, that one of our colleagues, Markus Koller, was killed on site about a year ago, when the trench he was working in collapsed. This event has had NO consequences whatsoever, as the police investigation ended finding that no one could be held responsible, based, at least mostly, on an expert opinion of one of my colleagues (who shall remain nameless) that general health and safety regulations could not be applied to archaeological excavations, and that no Austrian archaeologist had any idea whatsoever what could have been done to prevent this 'tragic accident' (which of course is as patently wrong as it is outrageous). Other than a conference which will be held next February in Salzburg, where health and safety on excavation will be discussed by, mainly, representatives of various archaeological institutions in Austria, that's it (I will be there and talk about the situation in the UK, btw.). And I fully expect that said conference will produce no tangible results whatsoever, either, as most of the participants will come up with the usual sad argument that health and safety cost more than we can afford, and that there is nothing that could keep a section from collapsing anyway

This would appear to be an outrageous situation. It does however contain an error.

Austria as a full member of the European Union has signed up to virtually identical Health and Safety legislation to that applicable in the UK. Workers in Austria are protected under this legislation in the same way that UK workers are.

Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work

In UK law the employer has a responsibility to make sure a working site is safe. The employees have a duty to act in a safe manner.The death of the archaeologist in Salzburg is to be regretted, but the correspondent is wrong to say that are no measures that could have been taken to protect this worker. The workers involved should not have been in that trench in those conditions. The employer had a duty under both European and Austrian law to ensure a safe working site.

I would hope that Austrian archaeological workers (supported by their trade unions) are seeking serious meetings with their employers to ensure that H&S legislation is being applied. This is not a matter to be raised at the arse-end of a conference, but fundamental to archaeological work across Europe. As UK archaeologists or archaeological companies could/can work anywhere in the EU, a serious breach of H&S conditions in any part of the EU is a concern we should all be sharing.

[Post-Med Potterer]

Something to be brought to the attention of the European Association of Archaeologists, perhaps?

Yes their conferences are often long-winded academic talking shops, but their aims include promoting 'proper ethical and scientific standards for archaeological work' and promoting 'the interests of professional archaeologists in Europe'.
They have had round tables on working practices.

Their website is here. (http://www.e-a-a.org/default.htm)

[Post-Med Potterer]

Something to be brought to the attention of the European Association of Archaeologists, perhaps?

Yes their conferences are often long-winded academic talking shops, but their aims include promoting 'proper ethical and scientific standards for archaeological work' and promoting 'the interests of professional archaeologists in Europe'.
They have had round tables on working practices.

Their website is here. (http://www.e-a-a.org/default.htm)

[Post-Med Potterer]

I have in fact now gone to the EAA website and looked at their Codes of Practice (http://www.e-a-a.org/codeprac.htm). There is also a PDF version (http://www.e-a-a.org/EAA_Codes_of_Practice.pdf).

This includes the following...

2.10 The management of all projects must respect national standards relating to conditions of employment and safety.

As Kevin Wooldridge points out, Austria as an EU country is bound by basically the same H&S rules and regs as we are*.


* For the 'ists' out there who always wondered why the laissez-faire right-wing conservative government brought in the most comprehensive policies for the protection and welfare of workers, the reason is that it was EU-wide and they had no choice. For vulpes this means you can cheer loudly about your (allegedly) favourite political party.

[Post-Med Potterer]

I have in fact now gone to the EAA website and looked at their Codes of Practice (http://www.e-a-a.org/codeprac.htm). There is also a PDF version (http://www.e-a-a.org/EAA_Codes_of_Practice.pdf).

This includes the following...

2.10 The management of all projects must respect national standards relating to conditions of employment and safety.

As Kevin Wooldridge points out, Austria as an EU country is bound by basically the same H&S rules and regs as we are*.


* For the 'ists' out there who always wondered why the laissez-faire right-wing conservative government brought in the most comprehensive policies for the protection and welfare of workers, the reason is that it was EU-wide and they had no choice. For vulpes this means you can cheer loudly about your (allegedly) favourite political party.

[Gagumph]

"I'm sure there was somebody killed in a trench collapse in Colchester(?) and another squished flat by grader on the Channel tunnel project both in the 90's." qoute by Tim in relation to archaeological fatalities.

Sorry to come back to this after such a long time (lost my password) but seems pertinent now given the above thread.Given that we are fairly clear what happened to [u]Austrian</u> archaeologist Marcus Koller, doesnt it seem strange that no-one has any real knowledge of the CTRL grader horror (even those of us that worked on the project for 10 years)

I think this should be put to bed before it becomes an urban (rural?) myth that old archaeologists like to frighten impressionable new starters with

[Gagumph]

"I'm sure there was somebody killed in a trench collapse in Colchester(?) and another squished flat by grader on the Channel tunnel project both in the 90's." qoute by Tim in relation to archaeological fatalities.

Sorry to come back to this after such a long time (lost my password) but seems pertinent now given the above thread.Given that we are fairly clear what happened to [u]Austrian</u> archaeologist Marcus Koller, doesnt it seem strange that no-one has any real knowledge of the CTRL grader horror (even those of us that worked on the project for 10 years)

I think this should be put to bed before it becomes an urban (rural?) myth that old archaeologists like to frighten impressionable new starters with

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Gagumph


Sorry to come back to this after such a long time (lost my password) but seems pertinent now given the above thread.Given that we are fairly clear what happened to [u]Austrian</u> archaeologist Marcus Koller, doesnt it seem strange that no-one has any real knowledge of the CTRL grader horror (even those of us that worked on the project for 10 years)

I think this should be put to bed before it becomes an urban (rural?) myth that old archaeologists like to frighten impressionable new starters with

Sorry, but I thought that I had already made an attempt to put this to bed. Unless there is a whole ghost army of diggers out there that no one knows about, the only archaeologist killed during an excavation in Britain was Jeffrey Radley. He was killed in York in July 1970 when a trench in which he had been working collapsed. There is a plaque dedicated to him on the Anglian tower in the Museum Gardens.

http://www.yorkstories.co.uk/york_walks-1/images/29january2004/enlarged/anglian-tower-plaque_590px.jpg

He was a well respected and very experienced archaeologist who decided to go back in for that “last look at the section”. Needless to say, his story has been used as an example to archaeologists ever since.

As I said last time I posted this information, if there were others, surely we’d all know about them.


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the IFA

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Gagumph


Sorry to come back to this after such a long time (lost my password) but seems pertinent now given the above thread.Given that we are fairly clear what happened to [u]Austrian</u> archaeologist Marcus Koller, doesnt it seem strange that no-one has any real knowledge of the CTRL grader horror (even those of us that worked on the project for 10 years)

I think this should be put to bed before it becomes an urban (rural?) myth that old archaeologists like to frighten impressionable new starters with

Sorry, but I thought that I had already made an attempt to put this to bed. Unless there is a whole ghost army of diggers out there that no one knows about, the only archaeologist killed during an excavation in Britain was Jeffrey Radley. He was killed in York in July 1970 when a trench in which he had been working collapsed. There is a plaque dedicated to him on the Anglian tower in the Museum Gardens.

http://www.yorkstories.co.uk/york_walks-1/images/29january2004/enlarged/anglian-tower-plaque_590px.jpg

He was a well respected and very experienced archaeologist who decided to go back in for that “last look at the section”. Needless to say, his story has been used as an example to archaeologists ever since.

As I said last time I posted this information, if there were others, surely we’d all know about them.


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the IFA

[garybrun]

Why doesnt someone show the respect and go and clean that plaque in the gardens. There is writing all over it...
It will only take 5 mins

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[garybrun]

Why doesnt someone show the respect and go and clean that plaque in the gardens. There is writing all over it...
It will only take 5 mins

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[rachstebbs]

If I were in York I would...I don't understand the people who do things like that, its just rude, what possible fun could there be in defacing someone's memorial:(

[rachstebbs]

If I were in York I would...I don't understand the people who do things like that, its just rude, what possible fun could there be in defacing someone's memorial:(

[Sith]

I'll call in next time I'm in the area and take a look. If it's still in such poor condition, I'll either do what I can or call the council. It's about time I got something back for my council tax.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the IFA

[Sith]

I'll call in next time I'm in the area and take a look. If it's still in such poor condition, I'll either do what I can or call the council. It's about time I got something back for my council tax.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the IFA

[Tim]

Sith is correct about deaths on site in the UK. I'm still doing my research on this one if I find any news I will post it. From memory the Colchester(?) accident was reported in The Guardian or Independent newspaper in the between 1988-1992 (the article also mentioned the CTRL accident-Dr P.W. and I think it was in France). There was an follow up story in the same newspaper several days later.

Until further notice assume Siths post on this subject are correct.

Little Tim

[Tim]

Sith is correct about deaths on site in the UK. I'm still doing my research on this one if I find any news I will post it. From memory the Colchester(?) accident was reported in The Guardian or Independent newspaper in the between 1988-1992 (the article also mentioned the CTRL accident-Dr P.W. and I think it was in France). There was an follow up story in the same newspaper several days later.

Until further notice assume Siths post on this subject are correct.

Little Tim

[Tim]

"The major problem was that the majority of people doing the diggers job were totally inappropriate staff."

"Compared to the quality of work and to the standards in H&S I have seen in the UK on the sites that I have worked on it was an absolute shambles."

Same here (normally because of Cantonal "job creation" exercises or PO's building "personal empires". Excavation and recording standards are generally poor with some notable exceptions.

We have very strict H+S rules governing "Construction sites, Demolitions, Tunnels and Excavations" the problem is that PO's and their Cantonal Arch Units don't follow them or don't know of their existence Again there are are some notable exceptions.

Was permanently handicapped after a site accident on a flooded site when the PO refused to close us down for H+S reasons. Result 4 accidents.

Little Tim

[Tim]

"The major problem was that the majority of people doing the diggers job were totally inappropriate staff."

"Compared to the quality of work and to the standards in H&S I have seen in the UK on the sites that I have worked on it was an absolute shambles."

Same here (normally because of Cantonal "job creation" exercises or PO's building "personal empires". Excavation and recording standards are generally poor with some notable exceptions.

We have very strict H+S rules governing "Construction sites, Demolitions, Tunnels and Excavations" the problem is that PO's and their Cantonal Arch Units don't follow them or don't know of their existence Again there are are some notable exceptions.

Was permanently handicapped after a site accident on a flooded site when the PO refused to close us down for H+S reasons. Result 4 accidents.

Little Tim

[Tim]

The mysterious death of Dr Glock

When an American archaeologist was shot dead by a masked gunman on the West Bank in 1992, both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict came under suspicion. Was it the Palestinians trying to halt the peace process then in progress, or was it the Israelis, incensed by his potentially explosive archaeological findings? Then again, it might just have been the tragic result of a squabble between colleagues... Edward Fox reports

Saturday June 2, 2001
The Guardian


Not many people will have read it, apart from addicts of the history and politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but in the spring 1994 issue of an American academic journal called the Journal Of Palestine Studies, there appeared an article entitled Archaeology As Cultural Survival: The Future Of The Palestinian Past. Its author was a little-known American archaeologist, Dr Albert E Glock, who was identified as the director of the Institute of Palestinian Archaeology at Birzeit University, the main Palestinian university in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glock's article argued that the Palestinian people had been ill-served by the archaeology carried out in their country since excavations began there in the middle of the 19th century. Since their country was also the land in which the stories of the Bible are set, Glock wrote, archaeologists have been exclusively interested in digging up material evidence of the biblical era, to the exclusion of all other periods, notably the centuries of Islamic rule that are of much greater interest to the Arab population. The archaeology of the Holy Land, argued Glock, has written the Palestinians out of the history of their own country in favour of a history of ancient Israel - the latter being, of course, of greater interest to Christians and to the people of modern Israel.
Glock, a one-time Lutheran minister from Illinois, had begun his archaeological career in the region with the excavations at Tell Ta'anach, a biblical site in the northern West Bank, but in the course of a 20-year personal odyssey in the Holy Land he had since transformed himself from a traditional biblical archaeologist into an advocate of an alternative archaeology of the Holy Land; one that sought to redress this imbalance in favour of an archaeology of the Palestinians. His article was a forceful contribution to the cultural politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict from the Palestinian side; but it was unusual in that it placed a subject one would have thought non-political right at the heart of the conflict. Glock was convinced that the struggle for the history of Palestine as revealed by archaeology lay at the heart of the struggle between the two peoples.

Attached to the first page of the article was an extraordinary biographical footnote. It read:

Albert Glock, an American archaeologist and educator who was killed by an unidentified gunman in Birzeit, the West Bank, on 19 January 1992, wrote this essay in 1990... Dr Glock had spent 17 years in Jerusalem and the West Bank, first as director of the Albright Institute for Archaeology and then as head of the archaeology department of Birzeit University, where he helped found the Archaeology Institute. A brief review of the facts connected with his unsolved murder is in order. Dr Glock was shot three times at close range (twice in the back of the head and neck, and once in the heart from the front) by a masked man using an Israeli army gun who was driven away in a car with Israeli licence plates. It took the Israeli authorities, who were nearby, three hours to get to the scene. Apart from a 10-minute statement, Dr Glock's widow was never asked about his activities, entries in his diary, possible enemies, and so on. The lack of Israeli investigation into the murder of an American citizen is perhaps the most unusual feature of the case... Prospects for solving the case thus appear remote.

The way the footnote was written - in a tone of muted outrage - suggested that Glock had been killed by some sort of Israeli hit squad (the gun, the licence plates, the lack of investigation). But why would an Israeli hit squad want to kill an archaeologist? Why would an Israeli hit squad want to kill an American archaeologist, even one with obvious Palestinian sympathies? Why would anyone want to kill an archaeologist?

On the day he was murdered, Glock was working in his office in the Institute of Archaeology. It was a Sunday, and that morning he had attended divine service at the Church of the Redeemer in the Old City of Jerusalem, one of the number of religious institutions clustered tightly around the Holy Sepulchre, the lugubrious and claustrophobic Christian shrine that is traditionally believed to contain the tomb of Jesus Christ and the site of his crucifixion.

He drove his VW van from near the Damascus Gate northwards, through Ramallah, to his office in the village of Birzeit, a 30-minute journey. Glock worked alone that day. The shelves in his workroom were filled from floor to ceiling with the cardboard boxes, neatly marked, that contained the excavation material from his digs. The work tables in the room were covered with hundreds of blackened shards of burnt pottery, arranged in a state somewhere between order and chaos. Glock was working with his teaching assistant and a staff technician on the painstaking business of putting as many of the fragments as possible back together into their original forms as domestic pottery vessels.

Some time before 3pm, Glock closed up the office and turned the key in the VW. It was his plan to stop off briefly at the teaching assistant's house in the village to leave a message. The house was built on a slope, below the level of the road. He parked, and walked down the concrete ramp to the front door. As Glock walked towards the front door, a young man with his face wrapped in a kaffiyeh, a black-and-white checked cotton scarf, and dressed in a dark jacket, jeans and white trainers, silently jumped down from the stone wall built against the edge of the road. When he was about a metre away, he shot Glock three times. One of the family inside the house looked out the window just in time to see a figure disappear into a waiting car.

Glock was murdered at 3.15pm on a rainy afternoon, a bleak, cold day in a winter that had been one of the coldest anyone in the West Bank could remember. There had been heavy snow, which stayed frozen on the ground for days. The snow brought down telephone lines and power cables, cutting off electricity and telephones, and the ice caused water pipes to burst. That month, January 1992, was the beginning of the fifth year of the intifada, the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. By early 1992, the intifada was long past its peak, its leaders were languishing in Israeli jails, and the original idealism and hopes of the uprising had given way to a darker, more violent phase that Palestinians called "the red intifada".

It was a grim and dangerous time to be living in the West Bank, but Albert Glock had lived there too long to think about leaving, even though he was 67 years old and overdue for retirement. A year earlier, during the Gulf war, he and his wife Lois had stayed on in the West Bank while most other resident foreigners had fled to safer places. His aim was to be accepted in Palestinian society: he didn't think it was right to leave when the going got tough. The Palestinians, after all (he wrote in letters to friends), could not leave when it would have been more comfortable for them to do so. Glock was a stubborn, rock-ribbed Midwestern Lutheran. He wasn't going to be frightened away from his life's work, the archaeology of Palestine, either by the rocks of the Palestinians or the bullets of the Israelis.

His killing made it into the following day's Jerusalem Post. The story included speculation about who might have been responsible. "Palestinian sources," the paper reported, "said last night they suspected Glock was slain by Hamas terrorists trying to stop the peace process." The Israel-Arab peace talks, which would end in the Oslo agreement in September 1993, were underway in Washington, and the Islamic party Hamas had declared its opposition to the negotiations, which it considered capitulation to the Israeli enemy.

The Jerusalem Post went into more detail in the story it published the next day, which widened the field of suspicion, but still set it squarely on the Palestinian side: "Two motives for the crime are being discussed around campus. The first, say Arab sources, is that Glock was killed either by Hamas or Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist faction of the PLO] activists in order to disrupt the peace process. They also link the timing of this killing to the fact that he was a US citizen and this is the anniversary of the Gulf war. The second version is that the murder was part of a power struggle among the archaeology faculty, one of whom was fired recently. Birzeit president Gabi Baramki denies this emphatically."

Among the Palestinians themselves, however, a rumour began to spread that, at the time of his death, Albert Glock was working on an archaeological excavation near Nablus, and that he had made a discovery that would undermine the whole Israeli historic claim to Jerusalem. So the Israelis killed him to prevent him from revealing his discovery. The story is garbled: Glock never excavated near Nablus. But a similar suspicion was expressed in a statement broadcast by the PLO on its Algiers radio station, Voice Of Palestine. This statement set the murder in the front line of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and made the simple, obvious equation that Glock was the victim of a political assassination because of the political potency of his archaeological work, and that Israel was responsible for it.

Glock first came to Palestine in 1962, to excavate Tell Ta'anach, an ancient mound in the northern West Bank near Jenin. Ta'anach was one of the Canaanite city states that, the Bible relates, were conquered by the Israelite commander Joshua. With a group of biblical archaeologists from a Lutheran seminary in Illinois, Glock excavated for three seasons before and after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. But later, after he began to teach at Birzeit, Glock took the radical step of returning to Ta'anach, or rather the Palestinian village at the base of the tell called Ti'innik, to excavate not the parts of the site that related to biblical history but the more recent remains of the 400 years of Ottoman rule in Palestine, which ended in 1918. His aim was to discover not the glories of the Bible but the more modest story of how ordinary life was lived at this ancient site, which had been occupied, on and off, for 5,000 years. The villagers thought it strange that Glock and his team were not interested in excavating the mound, as previous archaeologists had done, but in digging up the sardine cans in their garbage dumps. They thought the archaeologists must be Israelis.

The rumour about Glock discovering something near Nablus therefore had some vague connection to the truth: like Ti'innik, Nablus is in the northern West Bank, and Glock had indeed been excavating something that related to the history of the Palestinians in Palestine, and which had nothing to do with the modern Israelis or the ancient Israelites. Glock was opposed to the view, held by rightwing Israelis, that the biblical accounts of God's promise of the land of Palestine to the Israelites, and their later conquest by Joshua, are not only historically true but a justification of the conquest and seizure of the land of Palestine by their contemporary successors, modern Israelis. Simple rationalism argues against it, he believed. Yet a view of the history of Palestine that does not take the Bible literally is necessarily political: in dissenting from traditional biblical history, Glock was opposing the Zionist project of laying claim to Palestine, and using the biblical tradition to legitimise it. And then he was shot.

Each side believed that the other was guilty of Glock's murder, perhaps not least because, in the never-ending Israel-Palestine conflict, it had become a habit of thought to blame the other side automatically for anything that went wrong. But the killing of Albert Glock was veiled in ambiguity. As every police reporter knows, most murders are personal, and are committed by someone known to the victim. Most murders take place within the family - infanticide is the most common form of murder - and most murders are therefore easy to solve. Glock's killing, however, was not at all like this, so it was evidently an assassination: the killing of someone for what they stand for, by someone the victim did not know personally. Political killings are common enough in the land of the Bible, and they are usually easy to interpret. Yigal Amir, the young man who killed prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, for example, had an intelligible reason for what he did: as an Israeli rightwinger, he was punishing Rabin for making peace with the PLO. But it was hard to know who benefited from Glock's killing, who collected the cheque. No Palestinian political faction, such as Fatah or Hamas, had "claimed responsibility" for it, for example; indeed, Hamas even took the trouble to deny the Jerusalem Post's report that it was behind the murder.

Still, from the Palestinian point of view there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to suspect an Israeli hand in the killing. Glock was shot at about 3.15pm. The army didn't arrive at the scene until some time after 6pm. Yet when, at the request of the Glock family, the Israel National Police gave a terse list of official answers about the incident to the American consulate a year later, they claimed that the IDF patrol arrived at 4.05pm, a discrepancy of two hours.

Nor did the army impose a curfew even though, in the month preceding Glock's killing, two severe curfews had been imposed in the Birzeit area in response to incidents in which guns had been used by Palestinians against Israelis. The first incident was on December 1, 1991, when Israeli settlers from Ofrah, near Ramallah, were shot through the windscreen of their car as they drove through the adjoining town of al-Bireh. One of the settlers was shot in the head and later died in hospital, and his female passenger was hit by a bullet, but not fatally. Responsibility for the attack was assumed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The response of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) was immediate and severe: the entire district was closed off, roadblocks were deployed, and the army carried out thorough house-to-house searches, detained 150 people and interrogated many more than that. A heavy curfew was imposed, which lasted six weeks. Similarly, five days before the assassination of Dr Glock, a bus carrying Israeli settlers was attacked with stones and gunfire outside Ain Siniya, a village about five kilometres north of Birzeit, as it drove along the main road between Ramallah and Nablus at around 6pm one evening. No one was hurt, let alone killed, but the attack provoked a massive military response, with helicopters and house-to-house searches.

Yet when, five days later, a shooting took place in a Palestinian village, and the victim died, there was no curfew at all - the army officer on the scene said that it wasn't worth it. To Gabi Baramki, the acting president of Birzeit, this response was enough to confirm his suspicion of Israeli responsibility. The two-hour delay was no accident, he thought. It was intended to give the assailants time to get away. As for the purpose of the killing, he said, "The Israelis always like to kill 100 birds with one stone." That is, the killing was intended to create fear among the Palestinian population; to damage Birzeit's reputation; to create an excuse for the military administration of the West Bank to close the university permanently, if it wanted to; to frighten the remaining foreign teaching staff at Birzeit into leaving; to spread discord and suspicion; to weaken Palestinian morale; and, above all, to rid the country of a troublesome intellectual who was literally digging up embarrassing facts. This remains the general Palestinian view. Still, Baramki took the trouble to contact PLO headquarters in Tunis to see if they knew anything about the killing: they might have received some information if it had been the work of one of the PLO's radical factions. In the event, not only did PLO headquarters deny any knowledge or involvement, it ordered Baramki to commission an investigation into the killing.

Most of the work of the investigation was carried out by a local Palestinian journalist, Nabhan Khreishah. The object of his report, he said, was so that PLO leader Yasser Arafat could have something in his briefcase that he could show people, something that cleared the Palestinians, so he could say the PLO was taking Glock's murder seriously while the Israelis were not. Khreishah interviewed as many people as he could at the university, and his report focused on a matter that the Jerusalem Post had touched on in one of the articles it published in the days immediately after the killing. A teaching assistant of Glock's named Hamdan Taha had wanted Glock to give him a job at the Institute, something Glock stubbornly refused to do until at last, after a noisy argument in the teachers' union and the Birzeit University student council, Glock had reluctantly given in. For many years, Glock had held the severe and unyielding view that Taha's work was below the standard he wanted for the select group of Palestinian archaeologists he was trying to create; he did this despite the fact that most other Birzeit professors thought Taha was a positive asset to the university, and implored him to give the assistant a chance. It was poor judgment on Glock's part to oppose hiring a Palestinian at such a politically charged moment. Khreishah had to investigate the possibility, therefore, that Glock might - ironically, given the length of time he had lived here, and his devotion to the Palestinian cause - have been seen as an enemy of the Palestinian people as a result of his refusal to give a qualified Palestinian a job. But the dispute had been settled a month before the killing.

Hamdan Taha is now director of the antiquities department of the Palestinian Authority, a branch of the PA's ministry of tourism. From his office in Ramallah, he oversees the restoration and protection of ancient sites and traditional architecture in the areas of the West Bank under PA control. In an extraordinary example of transcultural misunderstanding, the American FBI considers Taha the principal suspect in the crime because he was seen to have benefited from Glock's killing. Certainly, if you look at the matter from the wrong end of a telescope, you might dimly discern Taha prospering after Glock's death, but Taha holds a doctorate in archaeology from the University of Heidelberg, has a wife and family, and knows more about Iron Age burials than how to organise a professional assassination. He is not a credible suspect.

So who did it? Consider the suspects on the Israeli side. It is the view, for instance, of the Ramallah-based human rights group al-Haq that Glock's killing was the work of an IDF undercover unit, for all the reasons expressed by Gabi Baramki. These undercover teams are small, well-trained military units charged with killing at point-blank range the more violent activists of the intifada, the ones identified by Israeli intelligence as having blood on their hands. They came into existence about a year after the intifada started, and by the time of Glock's death their activity was at its peak. By the end of 1992, such undercover units had killed more than 120 Palestinians, half of them in that year alone. And, if Glock's killing were the work of an IDF team, it would also explain the delay in the arrival of the police and the army. But the theory has its weaknesses. A more probable explanation for the delay in the arrival of the security forces was that murder investigations are the responsibility of the Israel National Police, who never went into Palestinian areas without an IDF escort. And because this was not an outbreak of anti-Israeli violence, which would have been more serious, the INP and the IDF had no need to rush to the scene. Second, if the Israeli government saw Glock as a nuisance, all it would have to do to keep him out of the country would be not to renew his visa. Glock lived in the West Bank on an Israeli tourist visa that he had to renew every three months by leaving the country and coming back in again. There was no need to kill him, and so risk jeopardising relations with the US. Third, the IDF units always made their appearances in Palestinian areas with a back-up vehicle and an ambulance, yet no such vehicles were seen in the village on the day of Glock's death. Finally, the INP's lack of success in investigating the murder probably owes more to its own institutional shortcomings than to a conspiracy. The role of the police in the occupied territories was not to preserve civil society and the rule of law. It was to "prevent activity hostile to the administration", in the words of an INP report.

Another theory was that Glock was killed by militant Israeli settlers on the West Bank. A trigger-happy bunch at the best of times, a number of them had attacked a prominent Palestinian activist and Birzeit lecturer, Riad Malki, a few weeks before Glock's murder, while IDF soldiers looked on without intervening. Settlers in the Ramallah area had recently been on the rampage in town in retaliation for the shooting of a settler in al-Bireh. Killing Glock might have been their way of sending a warning to any sympathetic foreigners in Birzeit to go home. It is an indication of the fear these militant settlers inspired in Palestinian minds that this hypothesis had any currency at all, though it is unlikely that any of them had ever even heard of Albert Glock.

On the Palestinian side, meanwhile, there was some speculation that Glock's killing had been an anti-collaborator killing, sparked by his unpopularity as a consequence of the Hamdan Taha dispute. By January 1992, with the intifada in a downward spiral of intra-Palestinian violence, groups of young vigilantes, ungoverned by the clandestine leadership of the intifada, had earned themselves a high profile for several violent attacks on Palestinians who were thought to be collaborating with the Israeli administration. They were especially active in the twin pressure cookers of the intifada, Gaza and Nablus, and they gave themselves scary names such as the Veiled Lions and the Black Panthers.

But Glock's killing had not been like most anti- collaborator killings. As the Palestinians' investigator Nabhan Khreishah puts it, "Anti-collaborator killings are messy. When a Palestinian shoots someone, he just points the gun and goes bang bang bang bang. And bullets are precious and expensive for a Palestinian to get hold of. If a Palestinian wanted to kill an American, why would he want to kill Albert Glock, who had been here for nearly 20 years, when there are plenty of other blue-eyed people around?"

The official line of the Israeli government remains that the killing was the work of a Hamas cell, led by an activist called Adel Awadallah.

Just under a year after Glock's death, Israeli police arrested a 40-year-old Palestinian-American named Muhammad Salah as he was entering the Gaza Strip. The INP found that he had flown into Israel's Ben Gurion airport from his home in Chicago carrying a briefcase that contained $97,000 in cash. Salah was accused of being a senior official within Hamas, and was held in prison in Israel for nine months awaiting trial. In prison, he was subjected to interrogation by the General Security Services, the internal security and intelligence agency better known by its Hebrew initials, Shin Bet. Salah described the form his interrogation took in an affidavit. He was held in a tiny, freezing cell with no bed, and deprived of sleep for up to 48 hours at a time. (Sleep deprivation as a means of breaking a prisoner's resistance was euphemistically called "waiting" in the GSS lexicon.) He was kept awake by being bound for long periods in a sitting position on to a child's chair, an unnatural posture that quickly becomes extremely painful. At other times, he was handcuffed to a chair with a sack over his head, and at night his cell was blasted with loud music. Mostly, the torture was psychological. He was forced to undress and stand naked, with an interrogator threatening to photograph him in that state if he did not co-operate. He was threatened with violence against himself, against his family outside, and with long imprisonment. Such methods have since been outlawed by the Israeli supreme court.

Salah's interrogation produced a wealth of material about Hamas operations in the West Bank and Gaza. Never before had the Israelis reaped such a rich haul of information about an organisation that was at this point in history still only vaguely known, and the Israelis made no secret about the prize that had fallen into their hands, even though the information gleaned must be treated with caution because it was obtained by torture. Among the information Salah provided was a vague remark that seemed to refer to the murder of Glock. Salah described conversations he had had with the Hamas activist Adel Awadallah. Salah was travelling around the occupied territories hearing progress reports from Hamas cells and disbursing money for future operations. The Israeli government claims that, in the course of reporting to Salah, Awadallah told him that his cell had been responsible for "the operation of the doctor at Birzeit", but did not go into any detail or give any reason for it, other than the obscure explanation that he "cursed Muslims". Adel Awadallah was later held responsible for organising a number of Hamas bombings in Israel, including the September 1997 bombing in the Ben Yehuda Street market in Jerusalem.

If true, what this means is that, far from being a well-organised, clandestine paramilitary operation, as Hamas is usually perceived to be, in the early 90s a Hamas cell such as the one run by Awadallah could operate virtually autonomously, and that Awadallah could direct people to carry out a killing without reference to the movement's high command. Indeed, as if embarrassed by the killing, eight days after Glock's death, Hamas headquarters issued a public denial that it was responsible.

Even if one is convinced by the hypothesis that Hamas carried out the killing, one can still only speculate about its motive. Adel Awadallah was based near enough to Birzeit to have heard the story about the American professor who had blocked the appointment of a qualified Palestinian, and was therefore a foreign enemy, a collaborator, and also to have known Hamas sympathisers - students, maybe - who had sufficient local knowledge to carry out the shooting. A Hamas cell, whether led by Awadallah or just equipped by him, may have undertaken to kill Glock as an independent freelance operation, something that the movement's higher circles sought to distance themselves from because it was so unhelpful to the Palestinian cause.

Today, Adel Awadallah is unavailable for comment, however. On September 10, 1998, Adel and his brother Imad, by this time Israel's and the Palestinian Authority's most wanted men, were ambushed in a farmhouse near Hebron by a special unit of the Israel National Police. Both were shot dead. The INP's investigation into the murder of Albert Glock remains open.

God alone is omniscient

Extracted from PALESTINE TWILIGHT: THE MURDER OF DR GLOCK AND THE ARCHAELOGY OF THE HOLY LAND by Edward Fox, published by HarperCollins on 18th June at £19.99. © Edward Fox 2001


Little Tim

[Tim]

The mysterious death of Dr Glock

When an American archaeologist was shot dead by a masked gunman on the West Bank in 1992, both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict came under suspicion. Was it the Palestinians trying to halt the peace process then in progress, or was it the Israelis, incensed by his potentially explosive archaeological findings? Then again, it might just have been the tragic result of a squabble between colleagues... Edward Fox reports

Saturday June 2, 2001
The Guardian


Not many people will have read it, apart from addicts of the history and politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but in the spring 1994 issue of an American academic journal called the Journal Of Palestine Studies, there appeared an article entitled Archaeology As Cultural Survival: The Future Of The Palestinian Past. Its author was a little-known American archaeologist, Dr Albert E Glock, who was identified as the director of the Institute of Palestinian Archaeology at Birzeit University, the main Palestinian university in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glock's article argued that the Palestinian people had been ill-served by the archaeology carried out in their country since excavations began there in the middle of the 19th century. Since their country was also the land in which the stories of the Bible are set, Glock wrote, archaeologists have been exclusively interested in digging up material evidence of the biblical era, to the exclusion of all other periods, notably the centuries of Islamic rule that are of much greater interest to the Arab population. The archaeology of the Holy Land, argued Glock, has written the Palestinians out of the history of their own country in favour of a history of ancient Israel - the latter being, of course, of greater interest to Christians and to the people of modern Israel.
Glock, a one-time Lutheran minister from Illinois, had begun his archaeological career in the region with the excavations at Tell Ta'anach, a biblical site in the northern West Bank, but in the course of a 20-year personal odyssey in the Holy Land he had since transformed himself from a traditional biblical archaeologist into an advocate of an alternative archaeology of the Holy Land; one that sought to redress this imbalance in favour of an archaeology of the Palestinians. His article was a forceful contribution to the cultural politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict from the Palestinian side; but it was unusual in that it placed a subject one would have thought non-political right at the heart of the conflict. Glock was convinced that the struggle for the history of Palestine as revealed by archaeology lay at the heart of the struggle between the two peoples.

Attached to the first page of the article was an extraordinary biographical footnote. It read:

Albert Glock, an American archaeologist and educator who was killed by an unidentified gunman in Birzeit, the West Bank, on 19 January 1992, wrote this essay in 1990... Dr Glock had spent 17 years in Jerusalem and the West Bank, first as director of the Albright Institute for Archaeology and then as head of the archaeology department of Birzeit University, where he helped found the Archaeology Institute. A brief review of the facts connected with his unsolved murder is in order. Dr Glock was shot three times at close range (twice in the back of the head and neck, and once in the heart from the front) by a masked man using an Israeli army gun who was driven away in a car with Israeli licence plates. It took the Israeli authorities, who were nearby, three hours to get to the scene. Apart from a 10-minute statement, Dr Glock's widow was never asked about his activities, entries in his diary, possible enemies, and so on. The lack of Israeli investigation into the murder of an American citizen is perhaps the most unusual feature of the case... Prospects for solving the case thus appear remote.

The way the footnote was written - in a tone of muted outrage - suggested that Glock had been killed by some sort of Israeli hit squad (the gun, the licence plates, the lack of investigation). But why would an Israeli hit squad want to kill an archaeologist? Why would an Israeli hit squad want to kill an American archaeologist, even one with obvious Palestinian sympathies? Why would anyone want to kill an archaeologist?

On the day he was murdered, Glock was working in his office in the Institute of Archaeology. It was a Sunday, and that morning he had attended divine service at the Church of the Redeemer in the Old City of Jerusalem, one of the number of religious institutions clustered tightly around the Holy Sepulchre, the lugubrious and claustrophobic Christian shrine that is traditionally believed to contain the tomb of Jesus Christ and the site of his crucifixion.

He drove his VW van from near the Damascus Gate northwards, through Ramallah, to his office in the village of Birzeit, a 30-minute journey. Glock worked alone that day. The shelves in his workroom were filled from floor to ceiling with the cardboard boxes, neatly marked, that contained the excavation material from his digs. The work tables in the room were covered with hundreds of blackened shards of burnt pottery, arranged in a state somewhere between order and chaos. Glock was working with his teaching assistant and a staff technician on the painstaking business of putting as many of the fragments as possible back together into their original forms as domestic pottery vessels.

Some time before 3pm, Glock closed up the office and turned the key in the VW. It was his plan to stop off briefly at the teaching assistant's house in the village to leave a message. The house was built on a slope, below the level of the road. He parked, and walked down the concrete ramp to the front door. As Glock walked towards the front door, a young man with his face wrapped in a kaffiyeh, a black-and-white checked cotton scarf, and dressed in a dark jacket, jeans and white trainers, silently jumped down from the stone wall built against the edge of the road. When he was about a metre away, he shot Glock three times. One of the family inside the house looked out the window just in time to see a figure disappear into a waiting car.

Glock was murdered at 3.15pm on a rainy afternoon, a bleak, cold day in a winter that had been one of the coldest anyone in the West Bank could remember. There had been heavy snow, which stayed frozen on the ground for days. The snow brought down telephone lines and power cables, cutting off electricity and telephones, and the ice caused water pipes to burst. That month, January 1992, was the beginning of the fifth year of the intifada, the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. By early 1992, the intifada was long past its peak, its leaders were languishing in Israeli jails, and the original idealism and hopes of the uprising had given way to a darker, more violent phase that Palestinians called "the red intifada".

It was a grim and dangerous time to be living in the West Bank, but Albert Glock had lived there too long to think about leaving, even though he was 67 years old and overdue for retirement. A year earlier, during the Gulf war, he and his wife Lois had stayed on in the West Bank while most other resident foreigners had fled to safer places. His aim was to be accepted in Palestinian society: he didn't think it was right to leave when the going got tough. The Palestinians, after all (he wrote in letters to friends), could not leave when it would have been more comfortable for them to do so. Glock was a stubborn, rock-ribbed Midwestern Lutheran. He wasn't going to be frightened away from his life's work, the archaeology of Palestine, either by the rocks of the Palestinians or the bullets of the Israelis.

His killing made it into the following day's Jerusalem Post. The story included speculation about who might have been responsible. "Palestinian sources," the paper reported, "said last night they suspected Glock was slain by Hamas terrorists trying to stop the peace process." The Israel-Arab peace talks, which would end in the Oslo agreement in September 1993, were underway in Washington, and the Islamic party Hamas had declared its opposition to the negotiations, which it considered capitulation to the Israeli enemy.

The Jerusalem Post went into more detail in the story it published the next day, which widened the field of suspicion, but still set it squarely on the Palestinian side: "Two motives for the crime are being discussed around campus. The first, say Arab sources, is that Glock was killed either by Hamas or Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist faction of the PLO] activists in order to disrupt the peace process. They also link the timing of this killing to the fact that he was a US citizen and this is the anniversary of the Gulf war. The second version is that the murder was part of a power struggle among the archaeology faculty, one of whom was fired recently. Birzeit president Gabi Baramki denies this emphatically."

Among the Palestinians themselves, however, a rumour began to spread that, at the time of his death, Albert Glock was working on an archaeological excavation near Nablus, and that he had made a discovery that would undermine the whole Israeli historic claim to Jerusalem. So the Israelis killed him to prevent him from revealing his discovery. The story is garbled: Glock never excavated near Nablus. But a similar suspicion was expressed in a statement broadcast by the PLO on its Algiers radio station, Voice Of Palestine. This statement set the murder in the front line of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and made the simple, obvious equation that Glock was the victim of a political assassination because of the political potency of his archaeological work, and that Israel was responsible for it.

Glock first came to Palestine in 1962, to excavate Tell Ta'anach, an ancient mound in the northern West Bank near Jenin. Ta'anach was one of the Canaanite city states that, the Bible relates, were conquered by the Israelite commander Joshua. With a group of biblical archaeologists from a Lutheran seminary in Illinois, Glock excavated for three seasons before and after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. But later, after he began to teach at Birzeit, Glock took the radical step of returning to Ta'anach, or rather the Palestinian village at the base of the tell called Ti'innik, to excavate not the parts of the site that related to biblical history but the more recent remains of the 400 years of Ottoman rule in Palestine, which ended in 1918. His aim was to discover not the glories of the Bible but the more modest story of how ordinary life was lived at this ancient site, which had been occupied, on and off, for 5,000 years. The villagers thought it strange that Glock and his team were not interested in excavating the mound, as previous archaeologists had done, but in digging up the sardine cans in their garbage dumps. They thought the archaeologists must be Israelis.

The rumour about Glock discovering something near Nablus therefore had some vague connection to the truth: like Ti'innik, Nablus is in the northern West Bank, and Glock had indeed been excavating something that related to the history of the Palestinians in Palestine, and which had nothing to do with the modern Israelis or the ancient Israelites. Glock was opposed to the view, held by rightwing Israelis, that the biblical accounts of God's promise of the land of Palestine to the Israelites, and their later conquest by Joshua, are not only historically true but a justification of the conquest and seizure of the land of Palestine by their contemporary successors, modern Israelis. Simple rationalism argues against it, he believed. Yet a view of the history of Palestine that does not take the Bible literally is necessarily political: in dissenting from traditional biblical history, Glock was opposing the Zionist project of laying claim to Palestine, and using the biblical tradition to legitimise it. And then he was shot.

Each side believed that the other was guilty of Glock's murder, perhaps not least because, in the never-ending Israel-Palestine conflict, it had become a habit of thought to blame the other side automatically for anything that went wrong. But the killing of Albert Glock was veiled in ambiguity. As every police reporter knows, most murders are personal, and are committed by someone known to the victim. Most murders take place within the family - infanticide is the most common form of murder - and most murders are therefore easy to solve. Glock's killing, however, was not at all like this, so it was evidently an assassination: the killing of someone for what they stand for, by someone the victim did not know personally. Political killings are common enough in the land of the Bible, and they are usually easy to interpret. Yigal Amir, the young man who killed prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, for example, had an intelligible reason for what he did: as an Israeli rightwinger, he was punishing Rabin for making peace with the PLO. But it was hard to know who benefited from Glock's killing, who collected the cheque. No Palestinian political faction, such as Fatah or Hamas, had "claimed responsibility" for it, for example; indeed, Hamas even took the trouble to deny the Jerusalem Post's report that it was behind the murder.

Still, from the Palestinian point of view there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to suspect an Israeli hand in the killing. Glock was shot at about 3.15pm. The army didn't arrive at the scene until some time after 6pm. Yet when, at the request of the Glock family, the Israel National Police gave a terse list of official answers about the incident to the American consulate a year later, they claimed that the IDF patrol arrived at 4.05pm, a discrepancy of two hours.

Nor did the army impose a curfew even though, in the month preceding Glock's killing, two severe curfews had been imposed in the Birzeit area in response to incidents in which guns had been used by Palestinians against Israelis. The first incident was on December 1, 1991, when Israeli settlers from Ofrah, near Ramallah, were shot through the windscreen of their car as they drove through the adjoining town of al-Bireh. One of the settlers was shot in the head and later died in hospital, and his female passenger was hit by a bullet, but not fatally. Responsibility for the attack was assumed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The response of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) was immediate and severe: the entire district was closed off, roadblocks were deployed, and the army carried out thorough house-to-house searches, detained 150 people and interrogated many more than that. A heavy curfew was imposed, which lasted six weeks. Similarly, five days before the assassination of Dr Glock, a bus carrying Israeli settlers was attacked with stones and gunfire outside Ain Siniya, a village about five kilometres north of Birzeit, as it drove along the main road between Ramallah and Nablus at around 6pm one evening. No one was hurt, let alone killed, but the attack provoked a massive military response, with helicopters and house-to-house searches.

Yet when, five days later, a shooting took place in a Palestinian village, and the victim died, there was no curfew at all - the army officer on the scene said that it wasn't worth it. To Gabi Baramki, the acting president of Birzeit, this response was enough to confirm his suspicion of Israeli responsibility. The two-hour delay was no accident, he thought. It was intended to give the assailants time to get away. As for the purpose of the killing, he said, "The Israelis always like to kill 100 birds with one stone." That is, the killing was intended to create fear among the Palestinian population; to damage Birzeit's reputation; to create an excuse for the military administration of the West Bank to close the university permanently, if it wanted to; to frighten the remaining foreign teaching staff at Birzeit into leaving; to spread discord and suspicion; to weaken Palestinian morale; and, above all, to rid the country of a troublesome intellectual who was literally digging up embarrassing facts. This remains the general Palestinian view. Still, Baramki took the trouble to contact PLO headquarters in Tunis to see if they knew anything about the killing: they might have received some information if it had been the work of one of the PLO's radical factions. In the event, not only did PLO headquarters deny any knowledge or involvement, it ordered Baramki to commission an investigation into the killing.

Most of the work of the investigation was carried out by a local Palestinian journalist, Nabhan Khreishah. The object of his report, he said, was so that PLO leader Yasser Arafat could have something in his briefcase that he could show people, something that cleared the Palestinians, so he could say the PLO was taking Glock's murder seriously while the Israelis were not. Khreishah interviewed as many people as he could at the university, and his report focused on a matter that the Jerusalem Post had touched on in one of the articles it published in the days immediately after the killing. A teaching assistant of Glock's named Hamdan Taha had wanted Glock to give him a job at the Institute, something Glock stubbornly refused to do until at last, after a noisy argument in the teachers' union and the Birzeit University student council, Glock had reluctantly given in. For many years, Glock had held the severe and unyielding view that Taha's work was below the standard he wanted for the select group of Palestinian archaeologists he was trying to create; he did this despite the fact that most other Birzeit professors thought Taha was a positive asset to the university, and implored him to give the assistant a chance. It was poor judgment on Glock's part to oppose hiring a Palestinian at such a politically charged moment. Khreishah had to investigate the possibility, therefore, that Glock might - ironically, given the length of time he had lived here, and his devotion to the Palestinian cause - have been seen as an enemy of the Palestinian people as a result of his refusal to give a qualified Palestinian a job. But the dispute had been settled a month before the killing.

Hamdan Taha is now director of the antiquities department of the Palestinian Authority, a branch of the PA's ministry of tourism. From his office in Ramallah, he oversees the restoration and protection of ancient sites and traditional architecture in the areas of the West Bank under PA control. In an extraordinary example of transcultural misunderstanding, the American FBI considers Taha the principal suspect in the crime because he was seen to have benefited from Glock's killing. Certainly, if you look at the matter from the wrong end of a telescope, you might dimly discern Taha prospering after Glock's death, but Taha holds a doctorate in archaeology from the University of Heidelberg, has a wife and family, and knows more about Iron Age burials than how to organise a professional assassination. He is not a credible suspect.

So who did it? Consider the suspects on the Israeli side. It is the view, for instance, of the Ramallah-based human rights group al-Haq that Glock's killing was the work of an IDF undercover unit, for all the reasons expressed by Gabi Baramki. These undercover teams are small, well-trained military units charged with killing at point-blank range the more violent activists of the intifada, the ones identified by Israeli intelligence as having blood on their hands. They came into existence about a year after the intifada started, and by the time of Glock's death their activity was at its peak. By the end of 1992, such undercover units had killed more than 120 Palestinians, half of them in that year alone. And, if Glock's killing were the work of an IDF team, it would also explain the delay in the arrival of the police and the army. But the theory has its weaknesses. A more probable explanation for the delay in the arrival of the security forces was that murder investigations are the responsibility of the Israel National Police, who never went into Palestinian areas without an IDF escort. And because this was not an outbreak of anti-Israeli violence, which would have been more serious, the INP and the IDF had no need to rush to the scene. Second, if the Israeli government saw Glock as a nuisance, all it would have to do to keep him out of the country would be not to renew his visa. Glock lived in the West Bank on an Israeli tourist visa that he had to renew every three months by leaving the country and coming back in again. There was no need to kill him, and so risk jeopardising relations with the US. Third, the IDF units always made their appearances in Palestinian areas with a back-up vehicle and an ambulance, yet no such vehicles were seen in the village on the day of Glock's death. Finally, the INP's lack of success in investigating the murder probably owes more to its own institutional shortcomings than to a conspiracy. The role of the police in the occupied territories was not to preserve civil society and the rule of law. It was to "prevent activity hostile to the administration", in the words of an INP report.

Another theory was that Glock was killed by militant Israeli settlers on the West Bank. A trigger-happy bunch at the best of times, a number of them had attacked a prominent Palestinian activist and Birzeit lecturer, Riad Malki, a few weeks before Glock's murder, while IDF soldiers looked on without intervening. Settlers in the Ramallah area had recently been on the rampage in town in retaliation for the shooting of a settler in al-Bireh. Killing Glock might have been their way of sending a warning to any sympathetic foreigners in Birzeit to go home. It is an indication of the fear these militant settlers inspired in Palestinian minds that this hypothesis had any currency at all, though it is unlikely that any of them had ever even heard of Albert Glock.

On the Palestinian side, meanwhile, there was some speculation that Glock's killing had been an anti-collaborator killing, sparked by his unpopularity as a consequence of the Hamdan Taha dispute. By January 1992, with the intifada in a downward spiral of intra-Palestinian violence, groups of young vigilantes, ungoverned by the clandestine leadership of the intifada, had earned themselves a high profile for several violent attacks on Palestinians who were thought to be collaborating with the Israeli administration. They were especially active in the twin pressure cookers of the intifada, Gaza and Nablus, and they gave themselves scary names such as the Veiled Lions and the Black Panthers.

But Glock's killing had not been like most anti- collaborator killings. As the Palestinians' investigator Nabhan Khreishah puts it, "Anti-collaborator killings are messy. When a Palestinian shoots someone, he just points the gun and goes bang bang bang bang. And bullets are precious and expensive for a Palestinian to get hold of. If a Palestinian wanted to kill an American, why would he want to kill Albert Glock, who had been here for nearly 20 years, when there are plenty of other blue-eyed people around?"

The official line of the Israeli government remains that the killing was the work of a Hamas cell, led by an activist called Adel Awadallah.

Just under a year after Glock's death, Israeli police arrested a 40-year-old Palestinian-American named Muhammad Salah as he was entering the Gaza Strip. The INP found that he had flown into Israel's Ben Gurion airport from his home in Chicago carrying a briefcase that contained $97,000 in cash. Salah was accused of being a senior official within Hamas, and was held in prison in Israel for nine months awaiting trial. In prison, he was subjected to interrogation by the General Security Services, the internal security and intelligence agency better known by its Hebrew initials, Shin Bet. Salah described the form his interrogation took in an affidavit. He was held in a tiny, freezing cell with no bed, and deprived of sleep for up to 48 hours at a time. (Sleep deprivation as a means of breaking a prisoner's resistance was euphemistically called "waiting" in the GSS lexicon.) He was kept awake by being bound for long periods in a sitting position on to a child's chair, an unnatural posture that quickly becomes extremely painful. At other times, he was handcuffed to a chair with a sack over his head, and at night his cell was blasted with loud music. Mostly, the torture was psychological. He was forced to undress and stand naked, with an interrogator threatening to photograph him in that state if he did not co-operate. He was threatened with violence against himself, against his family outside, and with long imprisonment. Such methods have since been outlawed by the Israeli supreme court.

Salah's interrogation produced a wealth of material about Hamas operations in the West Bank and Gaza. Never before had the Israelis reaped such a rich haul of information about an organisation that was at this point in history still only vaguely known, and the Israelis made no secret about the prize that had fallen into their hands, even though the information gleaned must be treated with caution because it was obtained by torture. Among the information Salah provided was a vague remark that seemed to refer to the murder of Glock. Salah described conversations he had had with the Hamas activist Adel Awadallah. Salah was travelling around the occupied territories hearing progress reports from Hamas cells and disbursing money for future operations. The Israeli government claims that, in the course of reporting to Salah, Awadallah told him that his cell had been responsible for "the operation of the doctor at Birzeit", but did not go into any detail or give any reason for it, other than the obscure explanation that he "cursed Muslims". Adel Awadallah was later held responsible for organising a number of Hamas bombings in Israel, including the September 1997 bombing in the Ben Yehuda Street market in Jerusalem.

If true, what this means is that, far from being a well-organised, clandestine paramilitary operation, as Hamas is usually perceived to be, in the early 90s a Hamas cell such as the one run by Awadallah could operate virtually autonomously, and that Awadallah could direct people to carry out a killing without reference to the movement's high command. Indeed, as if embarrassed by the killing, eight days after Glock's death, Hamas headquarters issued a public denial that it was responsible.

Even if one is convinced by the hypothesis that Hamas carried out the killing, one can still only speculate about its motive. Adel Awadallah was based near enough to Birzeit to have heard the story about the American professor who had blocked the appointment of a qualified Palestinian, and was therefore a foreign enemy, a collaborator, and also to have known Hamas sympathisers - students, maybe - who had sufficient local knowledge to carry out the shooting. A Hamas cell, whether led by Awadallah or just equipped by him, may have undertaken to kill Glock as an independent freelance operation, something that the movement's higher circles sought to distance themselves from because it was so unhelpful to the Palestinian cause.

Today, Adel Awadallah is unavailable for comment, however. On September 10, 1998, Adel and his brother Imad, by this time Israel's and the Palestinian Authority's most wanted men, were ambushed in a farmhouse near Hebron by a special unit of the Israel National Police. Both were shot dead. The INP's investigation into the murder of Albert Glock remains open.

God alone is omniscient

Extracted from PALESTINE TWILIGHT: THE MURDER OF DR GLOCK AND THE ARCHAELOGY OF THE HOLY LAND by Edward Fox, published by HarperCollins on 18th June at £19.99. © Edward Fox 2001


Little Tim

[Tim]

Spotted on the net
from the "IrishExaminer.com"






05/12/2005 - 8:22:14 AM

Govt’s chief archaeologist 'has no excavation experience'

Serious questions have reportedly emerged about the qualifications of the Government's chief archaeologist.

Reports this morning said Brian Duffy, who advised the Government on matters such as the controversial Tara motorway scheme, got the job in July 2003 ahead of candidates with superior qualifications and experience.

The reports said Mr Duffy had a general BA degree in archaeology and had no track record of archaeological excavations or publications.


The latest revelation follows the recent controversy surrounding the Government's chief science adviser, who was moved to another job when it emerged that he received his PhD from a US university known to sell such qualifications over the internet.



Little Tim

[Tim]

Spotted on the net
from the "IrishExaminer.com"






05/12/2005 - 8:22:14 AM

Govt’s chief archaeologist 'has no excavation experience'

Serious questions have reportedly emerged about the qualifications of the Government's chief archaeologist.

Reports this morning said Brian Duffy, who advised the Government on matters such as the controversial Tara motorway scheme, got the job in July 2003 ahead of candidates with superior qualifications and experience.

The reports said Mr Duffy had a general BA degree in archaeology and had no track record of archaeological excavations or publications.


The latest revelation follows the recent controversy surrounding the Government's chief science adviser, who was moved to another job when it emerged that he received his PhD from a US university known to sell such qualifications over the internet.



Little Tim

[mercenary]

I saw this myself and it didn't even generate a flicker of surprise in me. You get used to field experience seemingly counting against you when applying for non field jobs.B)

[mercenary]

I saw this myself and it didn't even generate a flicker of surprise in me. You get used to field experience seemingly counting against you when applying for non field jobs.B)

[1man1desk]

quote:Reports this morning said Brian Duffy, who advised the Government on matters such as the controversial Tara motorway scheme, got the job in July 2003 ahead of candidates with superior qualifications and experience.


Possibly true - but define 'superior qualifications and experience'. I don't know a lot about Mr Duffy, but I understand he has had a long and distinguished career as an archaeologist in the civil service. That kind of job can give opportunities to develop and apply high-level skills and knowledge, without providing opportunities to excavate or publish.

At the same time, many very experienced, highly-skilled and distinguished excavators may lack skills and knowledge common amongst non-field based archaeologists (consultants, curators etc), and in fact are often unaware that these skills and knowledge even exist.

The essential difference is that office-based types tend to be aware of the skills, knowledge etc. of the field archaeologists and respect them for it. Field archaeologists, on the other hand, tend to scorn the non-field types, essentially out of ignorance about their role and their skills.

The upshot is that Mr Duffy may actually have been the best person for the job, through posession of skills and knowledge required for the job, whereas substantial excavation/publication experience may actually be of lesser importance in doing his job.

I speak from the perspective of someone who spent a long time in the field, and who does have a track record of publication, before going into consultancy, so I can see the question from both sides.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:Reports this morning said Brian Duffy, who advised the Government on matters such as the controversial Tara motorway scheme, got the job in July 2003 ahead of candidates with superior qualifications and experience.


Possibly true - but define 'superior qualifications and experience'. I don't know a lot about Mr Duffy, but I understand he has had a long and distinguished career as an archaeologist in the civil service. That kind of job can give opportunities to develop and apply high-level skills and knowledge, without providing opportunities to excavate or publish.

At the same time, many very experienced, highly-skilled and distinguished excavators may lack skills and knowledge common amongst non-field based archaeologists (consultants, curators etc), and in fact are often unaware that these skills and knowledge even exist.

The essential difference is that office-based types tend to be aware of the skills, knowledge etc. of the field archaeologists and respect them for it. Field archaeologists, on the other hand, tend to scorn the non-field types, essentially out of ignorance about their role and their skills.

The upshot is that Mr Duffy may actually have been the best person for the job, through posession of skills and knowledge required for the job, whereas substantial excavation/publication experience may actually be of lesser importance in doing his job.

I speak from the perspective of someone who spent a long time in the field, and who does have a track record of publication, before going into consultancy, so I can see the question from both sides.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Tim]

I would like to point out I'm not attacking the people involved just reposting what I found in other places for everybodies information.

Little Tim

[Tim]

I would like to point out I'm not attacking the people involved just reposting what I found in other places for everybodies information.

Little Tim

[drpeterwardle]

Tim

This thread is about H&S could you stick to the topic and start a new thread for this discussion about Ireland

Peter

[drpeterwardle]

Tim

This thread is about H&S could you stick to the topic and start a new thread for this discussion about Ireland

Peter

[Tim]

Sorry. My fault.

Little Tim

[Tim]

Sorry. My fault.

Little Tim

[deepdigger]

I think, after all that has been said here, that if anyone is still risking life and limb in work, then it must be tattoo'd on their forehead not written!


deep

[troll]

Agreed.Lets make this the year we remember as the death of HS muppetry in the archaeological industry and not the potential death of an archaeologist. I don`t just mean gratuitous use of wobbly orange fencing either. Those of you responsible for HS out there, please-buy the SCAUM manual and place one copy per site available to site staff.Lets see professional risk assessments.Lets see if we can`t find a nice unit/university that is willing to provide professional training courses/qualifications for those charged with Health and safety. AND- lets see if we can`t get site staff to comply with HS mitigation too.It goes both ways.Happy new year BAJR.Lets make HS a priority in 2006 and beyond.:D

[BAJR Host]

Agreed }:)

Another day another WSI…

[deepdigger]

Yeah! About time too!!

deep

[troll]

At the risk of repeating myself, I did ask some time ago how many HS peeps out there commission chemical testing of sites prior to intrusive works.Disturbingly, the only positive response was from 1man1desk who clearly took the question seriously enough to do something positive about it.Anyone else?

I am sorely tempted to offer a conference paper on HS in British archaeology. I can only offer this if I am assisted by those at the coal face and, by managerial staff who choose to contribute. I have, over the past year (my one year BAJR anniversary has just past!) been receiving telephone reports of HS idiocy on a regular basis from all over the UK and regarding small units and RAOs in equal numbers. Mr Hosty has been manning the BAJR hotline in regards to HS.My endeavours are aimed at revealing the brevity and frequency of HS contraventions. To this end, I appeal again- please, send me the photos and a breakdown. Not particularly interested in the who`s and where`s (that is for the hotline) just the juicy bits.:D

[the invisible man]

HYN to you Troll, and I think you are just the person to deliver an H&S paper, splendid wheeze. I'd reckon you need to actually know the who's and where's of everything though, in order for it be a serious paper, but of course you don't tell anyone esle. Name and address supplied, sort of thing...

It would be ideal for a manager's point of view to be presented as well of course, and to introduce an elemant of dialogue. A unit director would be even better!

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[drpeterwardle]

Chemical Testing and digging.

This is actually a complex issue.

To test for contaminants to have to dig holes. If you dig holes you need archaeologists.

The best bet is working with the engineer and the archaeologist being briefed by them. I do this regularly.

Peter

[troll]

Thanx all. Good points all round. I worked on a 20 hectare site some years ago where chemical testing was carried out under the auspices of a watching brief so the conflict of interest was largely mitigated against.In terms of HS, I am simply attempting to point out that although (allegedly) there have been no deaths in British archaeology from "immediate" threat/risk-the chemical contamination of any site could result in long-term illness and even deaths that would not be instantly recognised as such in the future. I do feel that employers should have an obligation to assess ALL risk prior to intrusive works and place appropriate mitigative measures where they are needed most.

[mercenary]

quote:To test for contaminants to have to dig holes. If you dig holes you need archaeologists.



In theory true, but many of the sites I see have JCB bucket shaped geotechnical holes in them without any arch being present.

I for one would gladly sacrifice any lost archaeology to have prior warning about contaminants so the dangers of exposure could be mitigated.

[1man1desk]

Presumably the geotech crews doing the sampling know how to do the work safely and apply appropriate H&S precautions. If an archaeologist were carrying out a watching brief on such work, he/she would be working essentially as part of the geotech crew and could be covered by the same risk assessment etc. All that is needed is a bit of advance liaison to make sure it can be done safely.

Of more concern are sites where an archaeological evaluation is done separately from the geotech work, potentially with less knowledge of risks/precautions.

I have one of my staff researching this issue at present, to make sure that we can cover it better in specs.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Greetings 1man1desk.Yours is still the only pro-active resonse to this issue so far.In terms of responses, I asked some time ago whether the IFA/Prospect/Unit managers would take HS seriously enough to train HS managers to a nationally recognised qualification standard.HS officers/managers on construction sites and in industry require such.As yet, you may have noticed-not one response.Apologies to Dr Wardle-another positive response.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[troll]

Most professional HS positions require NEBOSH/COSH and MIOSH certificate/diploma/validation.As a matter of interest,here is an opportunity for any units out there to show us how it`s done in a professional world.How many HS officers/managers hold any/all of these in professional British archaeology-academic or commercial?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Galaxsea]

The problem with this is that you don't need any formal qualification to call yourself Health and Safety Advisor or Manager.
All the legislation requires is for an individual to show a "competance".
All the time this is the case then company's can get away with not having a fully qualified Health and Safety individual.
A "competance" in Health and Safety can mean as little as a one day course in the basics and buying a subscription to Croner's or a similar publication.
The re-writing of the Management Regs (1999) was supposed to address this but just made it more complicated.

Sorry for the length of this bit but the easiest way to let you see was to lift this from the reg.


Health and safety assistance
7. - (1) Every employer shall, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

(2) Where an employer appoints persons in accordance with paragraph (1), he shall make arrangements for ensuring adequate co-operation between them.

(3) The employer shall ensure that the number of persons appointed under paragraph (1), the time available for them to fulfil their functions and the means at their disposal are adequate having regard to the size of his undertaking, the risks to which his employees are exposed and the distribution of those risks throughout the undertaking.

(4) The employer shall ensure that -

(a) any person appointed by him in accordance with paragraph (1) who is not in his employment -


(i) is informed of the factors known by him to affect, or suspected by him of affecting, the health and safety of any other person who may be affected by the conduct of his undertaking, and

(ii) has access to the information referred to in regulation 10; and


(b) any person appointed by him in accordance with paragraph (1) is given such information about any person working in his undertaking who is -

(i) employed by him under a fixed-term contract of employment, or

(ii) employed in an employment business,


as is necessary to enable that person properly to carry out the function specified in that paragraph.



(5) A person shall be regarded as competent for the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (:face-thinks: where he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to assist in undertaking the measures referred to in paragraph (1).

(6) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a self-employed employer who is not in partnership with any other person where he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities properly to undertake the measures referred to in that paragraph himself.

(7) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to individuals who are employers and who are together carrying on business in partnership where at least one of the individuals concerned has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities -

(a) properly to undertake the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions; and

(b) properly to assist his fellow partners in undertaking the measures they need to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon them by or under the relevant statutory provisions.


(:face-thinks: Where there is a competent person in the employer's employment, that person shall be appointed for the purposes of paragraph (1) in preference to a competent person not in his employment.




Galaxsea - Proud to be the illegitimate son of Troll.

[troll]

Galaxsea!:DGreetings dear sir! Many , many thanx for your input.Speaking of which, can I invite you formally to keep an eye on this thread? As a man who does this for a living-you are surely far more qualified than my little self to oversee such an important thread! A couple of us have vowed to see 2006 as the year that HS in archaeology takes a much needed toe in the ass.Sir-again, many thanx-BAJR needs you!!!
p.s my love to the family xxxx

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Galaxsea]

I am, as ever, at your disposal Sir!!

Seriously, more than happy to. If ever anyone needs my input on any subject I'm more than happy to help.
You might bear in mind that as a Health and Safety bloke you will get "the ideal situation" type answers from me but I will try to be practical and not quote to much crap legislation!!

:D:D:D

Galaxsea - Proud to be the illegitimate son of Troll.

[BAJR Host]

Have spoken to Kate Brayne - the secretary of SCAUM. She has agreed to canvass members of SCAUM on thier feeling about making the (revised) manual on H&S available (I suggested even a summary version) online through BAJR. There is no printed copy, it comes on a CD ROM now - price £41 or free if you are in SCAUM - price £40

If a cut down version was available for everyone to see.... how would that sound?

Another day another WSI…

[Galaxsea]

I for one would be very interested to see it.

Galaxsea - Proud to be the illegitimate son of Troll.

[achingknees]

Not sure about the benefits of a summary - what gets missed out? Please keep canvassing for a complete on-line copy!

Just got me wondering again about who has actually seen the updated version. A BAJR poll might be interesting...

Have you seen the SCAUM H&S manual?

Yes, an original copy is on each site

Yes, an original copy is in the main office (but not on site)

Yes an updated copy is on each site

Yes, an updated copy is in the main office (but not on site)

Yes, we have an updated copy CD but it's in the unit manager's desk drawer

No, what's that then?


;)

[BAJR Host]

certainly looks like a good poll

Another day another WSI…

[troll]

I think only a full version is acceptable.A partial or summarised version of such a text would be more grief than its worth.Field crews are worth more than summarised HS practices.Don`t particularly relish the idea of toe to toe mouth-tennis over interpretations of "summaries".Clear, concise and black and white please.:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[kevin wooldridge]

This is just a thought...

If you join SCAUM and get the H&S manual as part of your membership, are you not then allowed to make it freely available to your 'staff' in whatever manner is best suitable.

If that is the case could we not raise £40 between us to make BAJR a member of SCAUM and then do likewise i.e circulate the manual amongst BAJR 'members'? I'm willing to contribute towards such a fund....

[1man1desk]

Good idea, but I am afraid that it would fall foul of the Copyright laws.

BAJR could get a copy and circulate it amongst anyone employed by BAJR - but that does not include making it available to the general public (i.e. us)!

That would be similar to a commercial book club buying one copy, reproducing it and sending it to all their members.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[drpeterwardle]

1man1desk suggests that there would be copyright difficulties in BAJR circulating the SCAUM H&S manual. How jobsworth.

This is one document that should be freely available and no restriction on copying it. Lets have some balance. Breaking copyright laws or ensuring everybody knows what safe working practices are and thus preventing accidents.

Here is an alternative suggestion. Consultants circulate said document to archaeologists they sub contract to ie employ. When they monitor a site they ask each individual if they have read said document and if not give them a copy and instruct them to read it.

Peter

[1man1desk]

Nothing jobsworth about mentioning copyright - people adopting the approach suggested by Beer Beast could find themselves getting sued!
(not by me - I've nothing to do with SCAUM).


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

I will also be asking how many non-SCAUM buy a copy for £40... As you get a free copy if you join SCAUM... it does seem a bit barking to make it non accessible unless you pay £40 as nobody seems to buy it anyway? Still with me? Good. So I would hope that as nobody buys it (I think) then whats the point of having it for sale... Just make it accessible online. It should not be seen as a perk, more a document for everyone.

Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

Iman1desk said

"could find themselves getting sued".

To sue successfully it would have to shown that there was a financial loss which would be zero or near zero. There is a legal phrase "de minimus non curat lex" - the law does not deal in trifles.

David have you asked SCAUM if they will allow BAJR to publish the manual on line or in cd form. Surely you could do it more cheaply and even pay SCAUM a royalty?

Similarly can you add a list of links to H&S documents as they are mnetioned on BAJR.

Peter

[kevin wooldridge]

I don't believe that the copyright laws actually come into this. If BAJR were too make a copy of the SCAUM H&S manual available through the BAJR library and BAJR members only consulted it for private and research reasons then it could be deemed as 'fair dealing' and allowable under the Copyright Act. Maybe Host would have to ask BAJRites to tick a box saying that they were using it for private and research reasons just to be safe.

This web link provides the best summary you will ever need regarding the Copyright Act.

http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

[the invisible man]

Might it not be tricky if the reasons for copying it are in connection with a commercial enterprise, i.e. contract fieldwork?

Surely the simplest solution is to ask SCAUM if they mind. It rather begs the question why they wrote the damn thing if they don't want it used and accepted.

How binding is it, or could it be made to be?

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

Might it not be tricky if the reasons for copying it are in connection with a commercial enterprise, i.e. contract fieldwork?

As I said there is no breach of the Copyright Act providing that the document is being consulted for private and/or research purposes. Troll's original request was how could excavation staff get to see this document to check on H&S procedures. I would count that as research.

I think that commercial organisations should buy their own copy and don't see any reason why SCAUM, BAJR or anyone else should subsidise them.