10th January 2014, 07:51 PM
Once again sense and reason from Jack.
There is another issue that a couple of the posts above have raised though, and highlight perfectly the problem with H&S as sometimes implemented on site, and that is the lack of understanding of the concepts of hazard, risk and competence, which are the bedrock of H&S. I'm sure Jack or someone else all correct me if I get the following wrong, as it's a long time since I did the CITB SMSTS thingy, and there have been a few changes in the mean time. But, the idea behind H&S is to identify the hazards, quantify the risks and introduce methods and practices that reduce those risks to an acceptable level. Part of that process is by only employing those who are competent for the task they are doing. Now, in fact, the bar is set pretty low on the competence front. It has to be, or there wouldn't be enough people to do the work. So, for many, a minuscule amount of alcohol or residual drugs in the system, a cold, tiredness, family problems, aching back etc., all of which will impair your performance to a degree, will not bring your level of competence to a level that increases the risk. To put it another way, most people perform well above the level at which they increase the risk factor.
As to PPE, as far as I'm aware the law states that it is to be used as a last resort. If every other practical measure has been taken and the level of risk is still above the acceptable limit, then PPE should be used to bring that risk level below the limit. So one of my arguments against policies that dictate full PPE all the time is that it is an open admission that all other measures to minimise the risk have, in fact, not been taken. For example, unless there are exceptional circumstances there should not be stuff flying about that could get in your eyes, so safety glasses should not be required. That risk should have been reduced to an acceptable level by other means.
I could ramble on, but it's Friday evening and I can see your eyes glazing over... Have a good weekend folks!
There is another issue that a couple of the posts above have raised though, and highlight perfectly the problem with H&S as sometimes implemented on site, and that is the lack of understanding of the concepts of hazard, risk and competence, which are the bedrock of H&S. I'm sure Jack or someone else all correct me if I get the following wrong, as it's a long time since I did the CITB SMSTS thingy, and there have been a few changes in the mean time. But, the idea behind H&S is to identify the hazards, quantify the risks and introduce methods and practices that reduce those risks to an acceptable level. Part of that process is by only employing those who are competent for the task they are doing. Now, in fact, the bar is set pretty low on the competence front. It has to be, or there wouldn't be enough people to do the work. So, for many, a minuscule amount of alcohol or residual drugs in the system, a cold, tiredness, family problems, aching back etc., all of which will impair your performance to a degree, will not bring your level of competence to a level that increases the risk. To put it another way, most people perform well above the level at which they increase the risk factor.
As to PPE, as far as I'm aware the law states that it is to be used as a last resort. If every other practical measure has been taken and the level of risk is still above the acceptable limit, then PPE should be used to bring that risk level below the limit. So one of my arguments against policies that dictate full PPE all the time is that it is an open admission that all other measures to minimise the risk have, in fact, not been taken. For example, unless there are exceptional circumstances there should not be stuff flying about that could get in your eyes, so safety glasses should not be required. That risk should have been reduced to an acceptable level by other means.
I could ramble on, but it's Friday evening and I can see your eyes glazing over... Have a good weekend folks!