That was the response I got when I phoned the emergency number to notify the local water company about a hazard that one of their contractors had left on a road not far from where I live.

It was a bright sunny Friday afternoon in April 2011 approximately 1.30 p.m. and I was standing on the junction of a road looking at a hole on the road that is big enough for all sorts of things to drop or fall into; car wheels, bicycle wheels, men, women, children, animals – the list goes on.

I had telephoned the emergency number indicated, which has connected me to the South East Water call centre. Not as you would expect, the contractor on whose sign the number was displayed.

The Call Centre Customer Service Adviser first asked me for my address and account number! Perhaps I should explain and for regular readers it will be no surprise to learn that I was out running and so would not have my account number with me, not that it would have done any good anyway because I don’t live anywhere near junction. Anyway once I had got through that I did not want to talk about my account but to report a dangerous situation that their contractor had left for the weekend – at this point do remember what the time is, 1.30 p.m.

I recently wrote a blog about contractors putting people at risk by their actions i.e. parking on the pavement. This is an example of contractor’s inaction putting people and their property at risk in other words contractors being negligent. It might interest you to know it doesn’t end there because not only would the contractor Clancy Docwra and their employees be held accountable, so would South East Water if there had been an accident. Or should I call it incident? Because that is what it will be if there is a known hazard that they have done nothing about.

Anyway back to the phone call, which took about five minutes, the Customer Service Adviser finally managed to locate the point that I was talking about. Of course there was no record of any work being completed in the area, which leads me on to another rant. Why can’t these companies communicate with their own departments? This work had been going on for over three months with multiple examples of flouting the Health and Safety legislation – more another time, I have the pictures.

Eventually the Customer Service Adviser had all the information and thanked me then said (you guessed it) “Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused”. Job done she has said that classic mollifying statement and can forget all about it now. I guess that’s exactly what she did because when I ran out along that route two days later nothing had been done about the hazard.

A friend of mine saw my last blog and asked who to contact to complain, his response to my answer of ‘The contractor’ was “the contractors won’t give a fig” and unfortunately he’s right. The bigger the contractor, the less interest they appear to have in actually looking after the safety of the members of the public who they and their staff are putting at risk of harm.

It was still there!

At 09.30 the following Sunday morning (two days or forty-four hours later) I really could not believe what I saw when I approached the junction. Not only had no one done anything about the hazard but because the action of the vehicles passing over the metal plates, they had moved making the situation was even worse. It takes a microsecond for an incident to occur and as mentioned above the injury damage to anyone could have been catastrophic, possibly even life threatening yet all these organisations and their staff were clearly prepared to ignore this hazard and the associated potential risks involved because:

• The people actually doing the work wanted to knock off early on a Friday.
• The people actually doing the work couldn’t be bothered to properly make the area safe.
• The contractor didn’t monitor the actions of their staff to ensure that they complied with the relevant Health and Safety legislation (believe me there is a lot of it).
• The contractor had not effectively informed or instructed their staff in the appropriate safe method of working (otherwise they would not have left the area in that condition).

So what should the various companies do?

It starts with the company who are having the work done, in this case South Eastern Water who should assess the risks involved in completing the task that they want to do, in this sort of activity there are potentially a lot. Once they have done that, they ask their contractor (Clancy Docwra) to provide Risk Assessments and Method Statements to show how they plan to complete the task while keeping the likelihood of anyone or anything being harmed whether that is an employee or a third party – member of the public.

The easy bit.

That’s the easy bit because it can be done from behind a desk – they are written documents. However once the work starts everyone involved from the person with the shovel in his hands to the Chief Operating Officer (whoever is the most senior person in the company) is responsible for making sure that the work is completed according to the method statement. Now this is generally the responsibility of the health & safety manager of organisations like this as well as the site manager/foreman. It is the responsibility of the site manager/foreman to make sure that work is completed safely and that no-one is put at risk of harm, it is the responsibility of the health & safety manager to make sure that the site manager/foreman does. I suggest that in this situation both of them failed.

That said it starts with inducting and training all the people in the organisation sufficiently that they understand their individual responsibilities and actually apply them, the best way is to encourage a culture of safe working, rather than insisting that everyone fills in loads of unnecessary forms that only prove that they know how to fill forms in. Followed by monitoring at all levels to ensure that everyone in the organisation actively applies safe practices so that they become a way of working life. This means that even the lowliest employee has the confidence and support of the most senior person to challenge anyone in the organisation if they are acting in an unsafe manner.

Health and safety is a shared responsibility and although the last employee in the line or that member of the public should take care not to put themselves at risk of danger, there is a whole line of people who are meant to make sure that they don’t have to.

Personally I find it incredible that any normal person thinks it is alright to leave anything in such a dangerous condition, particularly on a busy thoroughfare where roads, footpaths and cycle-paths converge.

As a business owner or manager only by making sure that you and your employees are following the instruction that they have been given can you be assured that all the people who could be affected by their actions or omissions will not be harmed by the activities of your organisation.

Are you safe?

Can you be certain that the activities of your organisation do not put anyone at risk of harm? Harm from injury in the case of an accident or harm from financial penalties or compensation claims in the case of negligence?

What to do!

Be sure to contact us at Positive Health and Safety for a free review of the safety of your business.

Picture this. You are walking along a roadside pavement when your path is blocked or obstructed by the activities of a contractor working nearby.

Actually you probably don’t have to imagine it, I expect you have had to negotiate round such obstacles.

So, why “We’re alright Jack”?

Well I assume that you have heard the saying “I’m alright Jack, pull up the ladder” when someone is referring to the selfish activities of another person or organisation.

In this example it is the activities of the contractor that I am talking about. In particular those contractors working for the railway networks/companies or utility companies.

The very nature of most of their work requires some very stringent procedures and monitoring processes for them to complete their tasks safely but what of the safety of the people around them?

Duty of Care

The Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 places a duty of care on any organisation and the people working for it directly or indirectly to make sure that their activities do not put anyone at risk by their acts or omissions. This includes members of the public – you and me.

So why when these contractors have to take precautions to keep their employees safe do they consider that putting members of the public at risk of harm by not taking their safety into account is acceptable?

I am talking specifically about railway contractors now, who quite rightly take care to ensure the safety of their teams (employees) while they are working on the tracks and adjacent areas, yet park their vans and trucks on the local paths and pavements, effectively blocking them.

Protecting their employees.

Undoubtedly they have assessed the risk to their employees and anyone who comes within the confines of their area of work (the demised area), which includes getting to and from it. But although the general public will not have access to the contractors’ area of work. They are affected by the actions of them and this is where those contractors and their employees are remiss, because they have not considered how their actions affect the members of the public that need to use the path and who they have a duty of care to protect from harm. Especially when they so inconsiderately park their vehicles on the path.

How many Risk Assessments?

There are as many variants of risk assessment as there are tasks to be completed. Most of the time an organisation will complete risk assessments specific to the task or activity that is to be undertaken. However equally often they will only take into account the immediate activities involved in the task and forget or ignore the indirect issues, which where the incidents and accidents can happen because as far as they are concerned it is someone else’s problem.

But guess what it isn’t!

Consider a risk assessment for using a ladder. Most people will make reference to ‘The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (as amended)’ without fully understanding them. For example they will identify that there is no safer or suitable alternative means of access, how to use the ladder for the task etc… What they are unlikely to take into account are things like how operative will take the ladder to the place where they are going to use it (The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, as amended in 2002) apply here,  how they are going to protect people around the area that they are working in from tools or objects being dropped or even from the user falling off the ladder. Sometime they won’t even consider how they are going to protect their employee from the activities of people outside their area of control like those same members of the public.

Stupid and selfish

From personal experience I can tell you the general public are both stupid and selfish when it comes to their own safety. Often putting themselves at risk by ignoring safety and control systems put in place by organisations to protect those same, selfish and stupid members of the public.

It is Important

This demonstrates just how important it is to consider all eventualities because if one of those members of that public does get injured, even if they have ignored the precautionary measures, you can bet that they will claim that the contractor was negligent in his duty of care to protect them and so are those contractors working on the railways by parking their vehicles on the paths and pavements.

Put up a barrier.

Just putting up barriers to prevent access is not enough, what an organisation should do is manage the situation i.e. put an alternative route in place that does not inconvenience the people that they are meant to be protecting.

The most commonly used but inappropriate option with most situations is to stop the activity or exclude unwanted intrusion, which is why “Elf ‘n’ Safety’” gets such bad press.

Good management

By properly managing an activity the task will be completed as required and everyone will be happy as well as safe without being unnecessarily inconvenienced.

What to do!

Are you certain that your risk assessments are secure enough to protect you from claims of negligence? To be sure contact us at Positive Health and Safety for a free review of your documents.

People ask me “Why we have to have Health and Safety?”

Simple – because of the idiots out there.

This morning I caught a train from Whitstable to London. I was early for the train, so being the restless person I am I wandered up and down the station platform.

At one end there is a vending machine and as I glanced at it I realised that some idiot had thrown something like a brick or lump of concrete at the glass display window and shattered it, which almost completely obscured the view of the displayed products.

After I stopped, took photos and started my mental train of thought, I wandered  back down the platform. The idiots had been at work/play there as well, there were two recently repaired windows in one of the station buildings.

Now I am no fan of Southeastern Railways and their heavy handed attitude to customer management but with idiots smashing things up on a regular basis it is little wonder that organisations like them take a protective or defensive approach.

I went back to the vending machine, looked again and realised that what I thought was a laminated glass panel, was in fact a tempered glass panel with a sheet of Perspex in front of it.

Why?

Well, for two reasons.

One – the most obvious when you think about it, is to stop people breaking the glass and stealing the stock.

The other thing it is there for is to stop those idiots from hurting themselves or anyone else.

It makes you think.

One idiot in any walk of life even one with good intentions can ruin things for a lot of people.

At least I thought that.

This is a particular favourite of mine. How often have you seen a safety sign placed to warn you/people of a hazard that is actually a hazard in its self?

Skid Risk

I recently saw a sign warning traffic of a “Skid Risk” which you might say is a good idea and in principle I agree. However the person who placed the sign clearly had not thought about the danger it was creating.

The reason for the sign was to warn drivers that because tractors were turning on to the road from a field and depositing mud on to the road surface there was a risk of them losing control of their vehicles and by inference that they should slow down and drive according to the road conditions.

Good/not so good?

Now that is a good thing in part because it does warn drivers of the risk but it does attempt to transfer the responsibility of the hazard to the driver rather than take ownership of it and removing it by clearing it away, which in turn would remove the hazard and therefore the risk.

For many people living in or near the countryside and driving around country lanes it is not uncommon to see mud from fields transferred on to roads near farm and field entrances. This was the reason that these signs were put up, to warn drivers that the “Skid Risk” was caused by mud on the road surface.

Hazardous signs

The problem in this instance was that because of how the signs themselves had been placed, they were actually a greater risk than the slippery road surface. They were on a bend in the road, which when approached from one direction were not visible until the driver had committed themselves to steering round the corner. Then suddenly, there at the side of the road, right where the side of their vehicle would be, they notice this metal sign and of course they swerved to avoid it, right into the path of the oncoming traffic, the driver of which in turn had to swerve to avoid a collision, often having to leave the road to do so.

I have seen a great many other examples of warning signs being placed to warn people, generally the public of danger, with absolutely no consideration of the danger that they could be creating. For example wet floor warning signs being placed outside a closed toilet door. It is absolutely right that a sign should be placed but, on a carpet, outside a solid door – no. All that it needs is for someone to come out of the toilet – where incidentally the floor was wet and therefore slippery and with no warning sign – and trip over the sign and all that good intent would have been wasted.

The same goes for the road signs. What happened to the signs for the “Skid Risk”? Well they were very quickly hit by vehicles and left flat at the side of the road where they did no good at all.

In another example on a straight road a warning sign was placed into a hedge, partially obscuring the information and sticking out into the road causing an unnecessary obstruction. Again the sign didn’t last long before it was knocked over.

Department of Transport Guidelines

In all cases a little bit of fore thought would have actually warned people of the danger and been safer. The Department of Transport is very prescriptive about how warning signs should be placed (which is quite worrying in its self and possibly indicative of why people do not think for themselves – because they are worried that they are breaking a non-existent law), although they do contradict themselves. For example “Precautionary measures – If at all possible place signs so that they do not obstruct vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians or other road users. Where there is no street lighting, place a Road Danger Lamp alongside signs which are on, or partly on a footway to warn pedestrians at night.”

And then on the next page “Set out the Road Works Ahead sign at the distance which you have already decided. Measure or pace out the distance. Then put one sign on the left-hand side, and another on the other side of the road if required” . This is where it goes wrong because most of the contractors only follow the instruction to put a sign on the left-hand side of the road. But what happens if the sign is on the inside of a bend? People/drivers don’t naturally look at the inside of a bend at ground level, their line of sight is on the middle of the road, so it is a shock when a metre high sign suddenly appears in their peripheral vision and of course they swerve to avoid this unexpected obstacle.

Forward planning

Now what would happen if because someone had thought about that before placing the signs?

Instead of having to place them so that they created an obstruction, with only a little planning they could be placed on the other side of the road, actually in the sight line of the drivers and well away from the edge of the road. Then the purpose of warning drivers of the danger would have been fulfilled and the signs would have stayed where they were put.

The signs outside the toilets?

Only needed to be put where they could be seen by people coming out of the toilet, to have done their task of warning people going in and not been a hazard themselves.

I saw a tweet on Twitter this week by someone from in the Yorkshire area to say that they had freezing rain up there and that he’d been out to spread salt to make it safer.

But does it?

Is ice as slippery as, principally the media would have us believe?

Ooh I can hear you all taking that breath in to shout at the screen and comment but hold it for a minute, let me explain.

Early snow

In the last few weeks we in the British Isles have had quite a bit of early snow. The southeast admittedly has had less than most of the rest of the country, although by the way everything came to a standstill, you wouldn’t believe it.

Anyway we have but what makes roads in particular slippery and does the application of salt make them safer?

I would say not always.

Salt

What salt does is reduce the freezing point of water, even brine (a saturated solution of 23.3% salt to water) will freeze at -21.11⁰C (-6⁰F). So at the dilutions that occur when salt is spread around the roads in the UK it is unlikely that it will prevent ice from forming at temperatures much below -6 or -7⁰C.

For anyone who has watched The Ice Road Truckers they will know that ice (certainly at those temperatures) actually has quite a lot of grip and so does snow. Both ice and snow become slippery when they start to melt, when there is some form of lubricant on the surface or when they break up and become slushy.

My explanation

Let me explain those individually although you will see a common theme as we go through.

Firstly when snow gets near to freezing point and the air around it is at a higher temperature, it will pack together and the wetter it becomes the more it packs together BEFORE it starts to melt. If it does freeze, it goes hard and there is not much grip. However when the air around it warms the surface up again condensation forms on the surface which quickly becomes water and then it is very slippery.

On to the lubricant on the surface, as mentioned above this could be water. It could also be any other liquid, some of which are not water soluble (oil is the obvious one). It could be a powder, even a fresh snow fall. Snow on top of ice or packed down snow is quite simply treacherous, however it is still effectively a lubricant because it creates a layer between the surface of a shoe or a car tyre and completely removes any gripping properties that the shoe or car tyre might have.

Now on to the slushy bit. When snow and ice melt they become soft and slushy, I am sure that most people have experienced stepping on what appeared to be a sound surface, only to have it squelch under your foot. The same happens when you drive on those sort of surfaces, they break up and turn to slush and that slush gets between the tyre and road surface to make driving conditions slippery.

And the theme is?

So the common theme here is a lack of grip between the road and the tyres on a vehicle.

Salt is?

What then is salt, particularly the salt that is so liberally spread around on the roads during the winter?

It is a medium for melting snow and ice.

It does not clear snow, at least not until the snow or ice starts to dissolve the salt and that in turn melts the snow and ice. It is self perpetuating.

So the benefit of spreading salt is that it melts snow, what else does it do?

Apart from the negative environmental effect and assisting the rusting process of our vehicles, the down side is that putting salt on the roads actually reduces the gripping properties of many of the tyres supplied in the UK.

Absorbing salt

The salt absorbs moisture and in doing so creates a lubricating mixture between the tyre and the road surface that means there is less adhesion, a damp salty road has less grip than a wet road. Even when the salt is dry there is still a film of salt between the road and the tyre.

Now if we go back only a few years salt was mixed with grit and sand. The purpose of this was to improve the purchase that could be obtained by adding a rough surface to the slippery one. Therefore if the slush froze into ice there was still some grip to be gained from the aggregate frozen into the surface. Now because of various cut backs those organisations save money by spreading salt alone because the residue does not need to be cleared up afterwards, it just washes away. I believe it used to be collected, mixed with salt and spread on the roads in winter. All very environmentally sound.

Coal ash

In the days of coal burning fires people used to spread the ashes on snow and ice for exactly the same reason, to improve the grip on the frozen snow, slush or ice.

What is the best solution?

I am certainly not advocating covering the road surfaces with anything that is going to reduce traction.

The first and simplest thing with snow is remove it from the road surface, the very same vehicles used to spread the salt nearly always have snow ploughs fitted to them, which rarely, if ever get used.  Once the snow has been cleared then is the time to spread something to improve the grip and melt the snow or ice.

Safety on ice

As with most things in safety removal of the hazard is the first and safest option. Equally as with most things in safety, that is often complicated by the human factor, people either confusing a relatively simple process or finding reasons (excuses) for not doing something that benefits everyone.

So the next time (and I don’t expect it will be long) that the outside temperature drops to freezing or below think about what is between the road and your feet or vehicle tyres and rather than depend on the supposition just because salt has been spread on the roads that it is safe to drive as if they are dry. Remember that anything between the road and the tyres will reduce the grip, so look out for your own safety by driving in a way that suits the conditions because by looking after your own safety you could also be looking after the safety of other people.

What to do!

The biggest cause of major injuries to workers in the UK is slips, trips and falls and the same rules apply to footwear as to tyres, they should be suited to the conditions. These are some of the topics covered in our Level 2 Health & Safety courses for more information call us on 01227 275521 or contact us by e-mail.

Think and be safe

This week I decided to pay my Income Tax because as I am sure you all know at the end of January the tax man wants paying. I thought I would accept the invitation to pay it online and this is where my gripe starts, so if you don’t want to read about me whining about my view of the inefficiencies of public sector management and their apparent lack of business acumen, I suggest you stop now.

Alternatively you could read on, tell all your friends about it and send it viral. Then just maybe someone in central government might realise that rather than manage the situation “the powers that be” are mismanaging it very successfully.

The rest of the picture.

Now to fill in some of the rest of the picture my grievance is that although I have the funds in my Bank I decided to pay my tax bill by credit card, which would be paid off on the due date by direct debit. The reason for using my credit card is that it is a supermarket credit card and in paying my tax with it I would be credited with a lot of loyalty points for the supermarket. I believe it is called working the system.

DO THEY WANT MY MONEY OR NOT?

That’s all well and good but someone; probably one of the QUANGO bean counters has decided that to pay by credit card you also have to pay a premium for what they obviously consider to be a privilege.

With all the talk at government level about improving efficiency I really cannot understand how they think that charging for making a payment to them is efficient. The charge in this case is not huge at around £15.50.

What would you have done?

Probably what I did.

When I got to the stage in the process (because it was not made clear at the start, deceitful I call that) of confirming the payment I did what any astute business person would do and cancelled the transaction then wrote out a cheque.

Why? Because I baulk at paying extra to pay for anything unless it is my choice. I certainly object to paying a premium for making a payment that I have no choice about.

Pay tax V’s get prosecuted for not paying it – pay the tax it’s that simple!

Although income tax is not the only thing that is charged for, it is done on Vehicle Tax and National Insurance, so I believe it is safe to assume that charges are made for payments to public sector departments by credit card is the norm.

They are not alone

I am getting into my stride now so look out because this is not just confined to the Government and Public Sector’s, some bigger industries like the holiday industry also charge for providing a service that ultimately benefits them. What happened to investing in your customers has now turned into ripping them off at every opportunity.

So all these organisations are missing something here by charging for credit card payments?

The thing that they are missing is that by charging for a service like this the financially shrewd among us will find another method of payment like paying by cheque or make their payment to the public sector through a post office, in which case the public sector will have to pay for the processing.

I have free banking, don’t you?

The obvious costs

Now, rather than receive the payment quickly and efficiently by an electronic transfer (Which is after all what a credit card payment is) the public sector department have got to:

• Open the envelope
• Record the receipt of the payment
• Process the cheque into and through a bank

AND

• Pay bank charges for processing the cheque.

When you take into consideration the cost in peoples time and effort as well as the bank charges, even at minimum wage, which I suggest none of the people working in any of the HMRC offices will be on, how inefficient is that?

You can guarantee it is a lot more than automating the process and removing the credit card premium. But you can equally guarantee that the bean counters at the head of these organisations do not have the business acumen to understand how business works, look what happened to some of the Banking institutions that were run by accountants

To stick with the Government/Public Sector organisations, even if the cost is deferred to an organisation like the Royal Mail, there is still a cost and is deferring it a fair option when the alternative is much more practicable and efficient? I suggest not.

The hidden costs

On top of all those options what about the hidden costs of running the equipment that helps the system to fail at the final obstacle – the computer systems.

How many people stop the payment at the stage I did and how much does that cost those public agencies in unnecessary power to mismanage their departments?

I wonder if anyone even thinks to answer these questions or do they simply keep their heads down and stay safely out of the glare of any form of publicity in their comfortable safe (until the next round of redundancies) jobs?

Ooh I feel better now.

What does this have to do with safety?

Now you might be wondering what on earth this has to do with safety. Well…..nothing directly, however if you apply the same thought process to the safety of your business I believe you will quickly identify what can be done to improve the safe working environment for you and your employees as well as improve the efficiencies of your business.

Think of it as an investment in safety.

To benefit from our sensible and positive approach to the safety of your business call us on 01227275521 or contact us by e-mail.

Oh by the way the RSS feed is now working, so please subscribe to it.

Think and be safe.

It’s that time of year again, when people start burrowing around in their loft or shed to find out what has happened to their Christmas decorations and getting ready to dust them off to put them up for the festivities. They dig out the Christmas lights and check them to see if they will work this year or if they need to replace them.Do you replace them or not?

While looking around a DIY store for a new set of fairy lights they see a pack of replacement bulbs for the set that they are about to replace, then the kids and partner excitedly present them with a sparkly new up to date fashionable box of lights that are bigger, more twinkly and brighter than they have ever had before. So not wanting to disappoint the family they spend the little bit more than planned and slip the replacement bulbs in to the trolley as well. It’s such a shame to waste those lights that have twinkled on the tree and around the house since before the kids were around, isn’t it?

Where do we plug them in?

Now there is the challenge of where to plug the lights into the electricity supply. The plug sockets are already loaded with multi-plug connectors for the television, the music system, the DVD player, the computer, printer and speakers, iPod and mobile phone chargers but with the addition of the 4 plug gang lead bought at the DIY store and a bit of rearrangement both sets of lights will work fine.

New bulbs

The new bulbs are fitted into the old fairy lights and hey presto they work, so in time honoured tradition the last light in the run is strapped to the back of the Christmas fairy and placed at the top of the Christmas tree to shine with all its might. What has not been noticed though is that the insulation has suffered the ravages of time and the attention of an inquisitive mouse. So what was once a well insulated and safe piece of electrical equipment, is now an incendiary device in the waiting.

Insulation and fire

It is not long before the insulation breaks down completely and short circuits the fairy lights causing an  the already overloaded plug connectors and extension leads to heat up and start to melt the plastic surrounding the terminals, which in turn creates yet more short circuits, heat and fire.

The Christmas fairy is really lighting things up now.

This tragic scenario or something like it happens every year and often it is the equipment that is blamed, when actually it is a human failing, after all electrical equipment does not plug itself in.

Electricity in the workplace

The same thing happens with equipment in business although not quite so dramatically, however the principal is the same. How often have you been in an office, a shop or a workshop and noticed overloaded sockets or stretched insulation on wiring. I have seen it in some of the most prestigious retail stores in London, as well as in workshops and offices throughout the southeast on England.

Vacuum cleaner in the workplace

The difference is that in the workplace there is legislation to prevent it. A company or employer has a legal duty to reduce risk to an acceptable level and if possible to prevent it altogether. With electricity however there are a great many unseen hazards, let’s take the humble vacuum cleaner with a retractable lead as an example. Most people using it will unwind only enough lead to vacuum the area that they want to clean without realising that the coiled lead could overheat because of the increased resistance caused by tightly winding it and the electricity going through it.

The same can happen to coiled extension leads, overloaded sockets and multipoint leads. Quite often people will string extension leads together (daisy chain them) to get to an out of reach area.

The perspective

To put things into perspective, for a one off job cleaning an out of the way area this activity is just about acceptable provided the lead can handle the load, because it would be impracticable to install power sockets to complete an isolated task. If however this is a regular or even a daily task the installation of suitable power sockets is in my view essential, particularly as it protects both the employee and the building from the risk of several different types of harm.

Power in the workplace

Now if you consider the workplace where quite often there are not enough electrical sockets to power the ever increasing number of electrical appliances and where people are under pressure to get equipment working, all too often they resort to a temporary solution that quickly becomes permanent. They plug in an extension lead with a gang socket, then because that does not reach they plug another one in to one of the gang points and plug all the appliances into the remaining available sockets without considering the demand that each appliance will put on the supply. They only realise that something is wrong when they smell burning or a fuse blows and even then the most likely action will be to replace either the lead or the fuse.

More electrical sockets

It really does not take much. For standalone computer and the associated equipment you need 4 or 5 sockets alone, although in a big networked office it could be less. Even then I have seen offices where little consideration is given to how many appliances are plugged into one power socket. It only takes six two amp appliances plugged into multipoint leads and drawing power to stretch a thirteen amp power socket to the limit when the resistance of the leads is included into the total.

Is action expensive?

The correct action is more expensive, it is also infinitely safer to both the occupants and the building and it is as simple as installing a few more sockets.

Installing sockets

So when is the best time to install these extra sockets? In the ideal world it would be before the premises is occupied or during a refurbishment. That way it can be planned in to the installation of fixtures fittings and furnishings. As well as taking into account the ergonomic benefits of good workplace management planning it could potentially save the cost of having to make changes once the workforce moves in.

Forward planning

The most important part of any operation whether it is a minor office adjustment or a full scale refurbishment is the planning, which should include consultation with the people who are going to be using the equipment or the area, after all they know what challenges they face. That way you can make sure that you have everything you need before you start and it will help make the change management run more smoothly with the work force.

What to do

While safety should always be a major consideration, so to should the cost and use of the equipment or area. To make sure that you and your staff are safe and not going to light up like the Christmas fairy contact us by telephone on 01227 275521, e-mail at hello@kent-health-safety.co.uk or via our website www.kent-health-safety.co.uk to discuss your company’s safety, productivity and efficiency.

A friend recently asked my opinion about the need for an expensive piece of equipment for a school where she is a governor. She had received a strongly worded request for a petrol driven mechanical sweeper, it used emotively persuasive terminology and made references to Health and Safety to support their argument.

Like many people the person writing the request to coin an old phrase was “using a sledge hammer to crack a nut”.

The Autumnal challenge

The basic problem is a seasonal one, in particular the autumn when the leaves are falling from the trees littering the paths and walkways around the school. The suggested solution was a list of proposed petrol driven vacuum sweeping machines similar to those used by street sweepers in town centres.

Although Health and Safety had been mentioned apparently no thought had been given to comparing the hazards created in the use and storage of the machine. When you consider the options available, a man with a broom and a bag for collecting the leaves and debris in, or a bulky self propelled machine that actually would not reach into some of the areas a broom would. In addition to those hazards there is the fact that the machines are petrol driven, which has its own hazards like flammability, the explosive properties and the fumes. Which would you say carries the least risk?

There were other factors thrown into the mix such as the time it takes the caretaker to sweep the paths and walkways. Would a bulky difficult to manoeuvre machine take any less time? Probably not, and when you add the cost of maintenance and storage in as well, suddenly it does not look quite such an attractive proposition.

A broom and a bag

My recommendation as you can imagine was to provide the caretaker with a broom, plastic sack and a means of picking up the leaves like the plastic grabs that can be bought in DIY stores or supermarkets, then schedule leaf clearance into his work routine.

The question raised the issue of over resourcing or over engineering, which you can see in a lot of areas and often Health and Safety is cited as the reason for the demand for needing the equipment, where a more economical alternative will do the job at least as well and often more efficiently. The Health And Safety At Work Act 1974 states that the solution to the risk should be practicable, which means that it should not be unnecessarily expensive.

Clearing up with machinery

This brings to mind a situation near my home town where the local authority were clearing
cycle path that I use. It took two men with a brush cutter (a big strimmer) a leaf blower and a shovel over a week to clear a half mile stretch of the tarmac path that could have been done more quickly with a sickle, a shovel and a broom in a couple of days. I saw one of them wasting time, fuel and the nylon line by cutting through a Burr dock stem which took 5 minutes instead of cutting through it with a sickle in seconds.

A tractor to trim a hedge

Then at the end of the week they had a tractor (third man) with a flail cutter going over the same area as well as cutting back the trees. However the path was not wide enough to accommodate the size of the tractor so instead of trimming the trees he broke them off with the tractor. It certainly cleared the path – if not in the way that they had planned.

Whose safety is it anyway?

Now there are arguments that it is safer to use the equipment that they did but for who, the public or the operator? I suggest it is the company that employ the operators who are protecting their best interests and in doing so failing to comply with their duty of care to the members of the public by ensuring their safety.

Let me explain

The company have provided equipment and machinery to protect themselves against claims from their workforce for manual handling or repetitive strain injuries. However in doing so they have also failed in their duty to sufficiently train those very same people in their workforce how to use the equipment in such a way that is safe for them and the members of the public who might be affected by their use of the equipment. If the operators are for whatever reason incapable of using any of the equipment described, that is an entirely different issue and one that to be dealt with by the Human Resources or Personnel departments rather than put other people at risk.

The old way

At the risk of inviting criticism from the killjoy brigade and anti sharp instrument lobby, what is wrong with a conventional sickle and bill hook? Surely there is less chance of someone being hit by one of those instruments than by something being expelled at speed from a brush cutter or a flail cutter. In fact only if the sickle or bill hook are misused is there any real likelihood of harm to the general public.

To train or not, what for?

The operators/employees are a slightly different matter because they should be trained to use the equipment that they are provided with and I will admit that there is marginally more risk of an operative hitting themselves with the sharp blade of a sickle or billhook but is that risk actually more substantial than them being hurt by a piece of engine driven machinery and all the associated risks of petrol, fire and explosion?

Practicablility

When you consider the cost of the equipment compared with the effective productivity in these circumstances I still recommend the use of manually operated equipment.

Good reason for machinery

That said there is a very good reason for the use of large and powerful equipment of the sort described for clearing big areas of vegetation at roadsides, playing fields and parkland where the productivity is vastly increased when it is used, although oddly the equipment seems to have been diverted away from those areas to save costs. But does it?

What to do?

Positive Health and Safety provide a realistic approach to business safety that takes into consideration all aspects of the business to make your company both safe and efficient. Contact us by telephone on 01227 275521, by e-mail at hello@kent-health-safety.co.uk or via our website www.kent-health-safety.co.uk to discuss your company’s safe productivity and efficiency.

One of my remote clients (Andy who is an expert traditional painter and decorator)

www.traditionalpainter.com

contacted me recently with an interesting question, that lead me to explaining how the relationship and responsibility for safety in the workplace should be approached. It started with him quoting for a job to repair and decorate a ceiling in a small office. He agreed that the work would was to be completed over a weekend while the office was not in use.

However once the quote had been accepted Andy’s customer decided that they wanted the work done during office hours and this is where the conundrum started. He was quite rightly concerned that there were several hazards that posed risks and that if he did complete the work while the office was in use the likelihood of someone getting hurt was hugely increased. So he asked my advice.

Setting the scene.

If he had agreed to work in the offices while they were in use it would have meant that he was working over at least three desks and apart from him being a distraction to the staff the job required him to be in and out of the office fetching and carrying materials and waste. There was also a real risk that something could be dropped or fall on one of the customer’s staff or that they could be affected by the fumes of some of the materials he planned to use.

In addition to that if there had been an accident the finger of blame would have been firmly pointed in his direction, which could have led to the cost of defending a claim and/or making a claim against his own public liability insurance, that would invariably have led to an increase in his premiums. Always assuming that his insurers had accepted the claim, which they will avoid if they can prove reasonable doubt about the safety of his method of work. Whichever way it turned out it could have cost Andy a lot of unnecessary expense as well as the stress of sorting it out and the worry if it had gone to court. It is well known that defendants, particularly the innocent ones suffer extreme stress when waiting to hear if they will be prosecuted or not.

What to advise?

I recommended that Andy pointed out the additional precautions necessary for him to work safely for both him and his client would require a reassessment of the costs because in his original quote he had understood that the premises would be vacant while he was working.

Practicalities

The practicalities of working in an area with the clients staff in it and him using paint and primer as well as the possibility of tools, equipment and debris being dropped are hugely increased when the tradesman has to work with other people in the vicinity.

Could he afford to turn the work away?

A decision to challenge a client is a brave one and one that depends on whether someone can afford to turn business away. It also has to be weighed against if they want to lose credibility by being forced into working in a way that they know to be unsafe.

Two way responsibility for assessments.

It was at this point I pointed out that his client should be completing their own COSHH Assessment (an assessment of the affects of a substance that could be hazardous to people’s health) and risk assessments, or ask him for his. This lead to an interesting debate about the responsibilities of the various parties concerned, since the employer who in this case is the client as well and in the broadest sense, is also the contractor’s employer should be assessing the risk to everyone working in or on their premises.

Whose responsibility is it anyway?

There is a fairly glib response to that question that is bandied around in the corporate world by Health and Safety managers “The owner of the business or the most senior person in the business i.e. the Chief Operating Officer” which basically means I’m alright, if you don’t do what I recommend, it is you that will be prosecuted.

Not many CEO’s want to hear that; they employ Health and Safety managers to prevent just that.

It is however technically correct although equally correct is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. So in this situation there is a shared responsibility and duty of care between the Employer/Client and the Contractor/Tradesman.

Employer/Client responsibility.

It is the responsibility of the Employer/Client to make sure that anything done in the workplace that they are in charge of is completed safely, which in principal means that they have to ensure that a safe process of work is agreed and followed. They can either go to the time consuming and expensive way of doing this and write method statements, risk assessments and COSHH assessments or they can pass that responsibility on to the contractor/tradesman. A great many large organisations insist on written documentation, which is an unnecessary challenge to small businesses, particularly when they are not legally required to document their processes and assessments. After all who is a self-employed lone working contractor going to give written documentation to?

Him/herself?

Well actually it might be advantageous to have printable documentation to give to clients and potential customers, although it is not a legal requirement.

Specific duty of care.

Now in this particular circumstance the Employer/Client has a duty of care to guarantee that their own directly employed staff are not put at risk of harm by a contractor or tradesman and the best and easiest way is to ask the tradesman to provide them with a method statement of how they are going to complete their work. If the method statement is done correctly it will identify any hazards and the associated risks. So for Andy there would have been the risks of working in a busy office with building and decorating equipment and materials and would have included COSHH assessments and risk assessments.

What a nuisance!

As part of his communication Andy stated that he did not want to be held accountable for an accident that could have been avoided. For example one of the products that he needed to use, the fumes of which could have caused irritation as well as the risk of working up a step ladder with people moving around him, let alone the nuisance of dust, paint, primer, filler etc… all the by-products of decorating that could have contaminated their equipment and paperwork. The joint responsibility is to take all reasonable measures to prevent harm to people and property.

What did I advise?

My advice was simple (it’s easy when you are not directly involved and can take an independent view). It is much easier and safer to cover everything up and complete the work when the offices are unoccupied. Simple but not easy, as I mentioned earlier it takes courage to challenge a client and risk losing their custom. On the other hand it also maintains professional credibility.

In my professional opinion the safest option was to complete the work out of normal working hours when the office was unoccupied. So I suggested that that it might be simpler to point out that if he had to complete the work while their office was open it would extend the time necessary to do it, which in turn would increase the cost.  Both in the extra time and the additional equipment that he would have to use to enable him to avoid potential risk to their staff.

The legal bit.

So the legal angle is that the Health and Safety legislation makes it everyone’s responsibility to look out for their and everyone else’s safety, which could mean that Andy’s clients staff could and should have challenged their employers decision to have the work completed around them, although that is a matter of confidence. The employer whether direct or indirect is responsible and has a duty of care for making certain that all work taking place in his/her workplace is completed safely and without risk to employees, contractors and visitors to their building.

The conclusion was-

I am pleased to say that Andy went back to his client armed with my recommendations and they agreed that the safest and most cost effective way to have the wok completed was out of office hours over a weekend.

What we do

As a Business Safety Adviser I provide support in smoothing out some of the misunderstandings of the Health and Safety legislation, as such I am delighted with the outcome and it is a pleasure to quote Andy when he says “I get it now, thanks for explaining. I have done a couple of risk assessments before; I just found them a bit laughable, whatever happened to experience and common sense? But I never really thought much about the 2-way street aspect. So now I am a little less cynical!”

What you should do.

For those of you cynical or not who are challenged about how Health and Safety legislation should be applied to your business please phone Positive Health and Safety on 01227 275521 or 07837604279 or contact us. We will be happy to provide business safety support for your business that extends way beyond just Health and Safety into the areas of how your actions affect the safety of your company structure, how do your staff react to each other and does it cost you money or improve your efficiency.

Think and be safe

Adam

Shortly after coming into power the government ordered a review of Health and Safety. Lord Young who is due to outline his report at the Conservative Conference has hinted at the content which has already prompted a huge amount of speculative activity by the news media, Trade Unions and Claims Solicitors Associations. Much of the content appears to be unfounded since all that he has said so far is that he wants to encourage a more common sense approach to safety in general.

Health and Safety at work

After all it is the Health And Safety At Work Act 1974 that is often being used to impose safety conditions on non work related situations. The fact that people and organisations involved with dangerous pastimes go much further than the legally required ‘take all reasonable steps’ to ensure the safety of the participants, spectators and officers just goes to show how seriously they take the safety of those concerned.

Indeed as a Grasstrack Sidecar passenger of fifteen years I accepted the risk that I might get injured or killed. That did not stop me from participating in something that I loved. However what everyone involved with the sport did, was do everything that they could to make sure that accidents and injuries were few and far between.

If I want to do something stupid!

So when Lord Young says “Frankly, if I want to do something stupid and break my leg or neck, that’s up to me. I don’t need a council to tell me not to be an idiot. I can be an idiot all by myself.” I whole heartedly agree, however if I or anyone else was involuntarily forced to participate in a hazardous activity there would justifiably be an outcry.

Common Sense?

You would be surprised at the number of people who say to me “Safety is just common sense isn’t it?” to which I generally reply “Yes but common sense isn’t common is it”. People now expect to be told what is best for them, if they are not told and have an accident they look for someone to blame. I believe that is why insurance companies set uncompromising conditions and such high premiums and why there is a compensation claims culture.

Who pays the cost?

The only people who do not agree that a common sense approach to safety is the best way forward are the very people who gain financially from people making claims for compensation and that ranges from the claimant through the claims lawyers to the insurance companies themselves.

Oh you don’t think the insurers foot the bill do you?

Rightly or wrongly Insurance companies are there to make a profit (personally I believe that is wrong but that’s another discussion). To make a profit they have to offset the cost of any claim by increasing premiums, particularly those of organisations that have made claims against their public liability or other such protective insurance.

Just to be clear in the vast majority of cases when an individual makes a claim for compensation against an organisation (employer or otherwise), the organisation generally claims settlement of the cost from their Public and Employers Liability insurance.

The best action to take.

In my view the most cost effective way for an employer to protect themselves against prosecution for failing to comply with the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974, The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and subsequent regulations as well preventing compensation claims is to have sufficiently robust Health and Safety procedures and documents in place.

Now I would say that since it is what I do for a living and here’s the BUT if those procedures and documents are in place and effectively managed, productivity, efficiency and profitability are all positive by-products of good health and safety.

With good safety management there is little or no need to poor money down the drain defending legal suits and compensation claims which are guaranteed to cost more than introducing safe working practices and management.

A convenient excuse!

In addition Lord Young said “Sadly, in recent years, health and safety has been used as a convenient excuse for avoiding doing things, when the actual risks involved are perfectly manageable.”

“We certainly need more clarity on why decisions about public activities are taken.”

He went on to suggest that local authorities who ban events on unfounded grounds of Health and Safety when the risks are easily manageable could face big compensation payouts and guess who will be offering to support those claims?

Mine is on those very same lawyers who have spent years taking advantage of the people who have made claims through them and the compensation culture that is prevalent in the UK.

What to do?

What can you or your organisation do to turn this restrictive culture into one that benefits you, your staff and potentially your efficiency leading to improved profits? Contact us at Positive Health and Safety where a NEBOSH qualified safety professional with over 20 years of practical service industry business management experience will give you a completely unbiased assessment of your safety policies and procedures.

We will help you challenge those decisions by local authorities or organisations that put obstruction in your way by providing a positive approach to your safety that will ultimately pay for itself.

To be sure that your business is safe and viable contact Positive Health and Safety or telephone us on 01227 275521.

Think and be safe

Adam