These adverts really annoy me.
"I was installing a fire alarm at work one day and was given the wrong ladder to use"
No mate - you were installing a fire alarm at work one day and climbed up the wrong ladder. No-one was pointing a Glock at your head forcing you were they?
"I was strapping the curtains to my truck one day and I fell badly injuring my knee"
That's you're own fault then isn't it? YOU were strapping the curtains to YOUR truck but you'll sue the place you were unloading it at?
Suffice it to say, I really hate the ads!
|
|
|
Health & Safety at work laws are even stronger than that, Brompto.
The employer (in this notional case) would be presumed guilty and would have a very hard job in deed to establish he was not criminally guilty and civilly liable.
Only hope for employer would be to show that there was a hierarchy of safety measures in place that equalled the best in the industry.
These would include: warning signs, training records, audit records, disciplinary records, equipment service records, management standards, supervisory standards, availability of operating procedures.
I find it unlikely that an employer would not be prosecuted, in virtually any cirumstances.
Possibly, a civil court may find contributory negligence by employee. This may reduce civil compensation by, say, 25 to 50% but the employer should expect multi-thousand pound criminal fine.
|
|
|
|
As the poster states above HSWA looks at the reality - did the employer give the nod, encourage even, dodgy practices because it was superficially quicker than the correct way?
|
What happened to a little personal responsibility?
|
|
When your boss is saying that you don't have the time to use the proper equipment/the money's not there to buy it, you're earning £15k, have few qualifications and debts to pay and/or a family to feed, you can be pulled in different directions by your responsibilities.
|
You know exactly what I mean though David. Ordinarily I'd agree with you but how many of these cases are legitimate and how many are people on the take?
I'd cut corners in a job to get it done quicker (not dangerous ones) but I certainly wouldn't put a rickety old ladder up against a wall and climb up it.
A few years ago, I had a part time job in a well known big supermarket chain. One day, I was standing up because I'm so tall, the chair was getting uncomfy. I tried to reach over to get something, slipped and cut my hand. Not badly at all. The tiniest cut you've ever seen - I was susprised I'd even broken the skin.
Anyway - there was barely any blood but there was a rush of supervisors and even a manager ordering me to go to the First Aid room and calling a First Aider.
I realise it's not their fault and that they're covering themselves but it's all because of this blame culture. It's only going to get worse too. I'm waiting for the first post on here saying that someone jumped out in front of them just to get the compensation. It'll happen.
|
I'd cut corners in a job to get it done quicker (not dangerous ones)... ...A few years ago, I had a part time job in a well known big supermarket chain. One day, I was standing up because I'm so tall, the chair was getting uncomfy. I tried to reach over to get something, slipped and cut my hand. Not badly at all. The tiniest cut you've ever seen - I was susprised I'd even broken the skin. Anyway - there was barely any blood but there was a rush of supervisors and even a manager ordering me to go to the First Aid room and calling a First Aider.
I'm glad your injury was only minor, Adam. However, the employer had to establish that you had not, for example, sprained or broken hand/wrist bones/muscles or done some other injury that you hadn't noticed (or could have got worse without treatment).
Your employer should have carried out a (perhaps very brief) accident investigation to look for underlying causes. This may have established, for example, that your work station did not meet your individual needs (because you're too tall). The correct outcome might have been that tall employees need to have special training / supervision / chairs to make sure they don't over-balance and risk injury.
For every 100 employees who have the same experience as you, 90 might get a relatively trivial minor injury like you, 9 might get a more severe injury (break / sprain), 1 might get a serious injury (e.g. very bad break or fall over and bang head).
At the very least, your former employer has demonstrated 'care' to you.
|
|
|
|
In theory yes. But if the employer knowingly permits >>dangerous practices and/or has a reward structure that encourages or even >>requires cutting corners they are quite rightly in the dock.
There is also something in law called 'contributory negligence', which does not let the organisation itself of the hook.
I agree with the point about Co safety culture; it is possible for an organisation to rigorously train people to do things by the book but then conveniently turn a blind eye or don't check that they actually do this in practice. Of course, sometimes the book is genuinely badly written and over-cautious. E.g. written procedures for changing a light bulb...
|
I agree with the point about Co safety culture; it is possible for an organisation to rigorously train people to do things by the book but then conveniently turn a blind eye or don't check that they actually do this in practice. Of course, sometimes the book is genuinely badly written and over-cautious. E.g. written procedures for changing a light bulb...
I would answer this, Ziggy, with 2 words: RISK ASSESSMENT
If, as you say, a particular activity incurred 'low risk', then that can be established & recorded and little or no time & energy wasted dealing with it.
Don't get me started on changing light bulbs though; you might be surprised at the injury rate associated with this activity; exposed live conductors, falling off ladders, etc.
|
|
I don't know how many of you use cars you own for work. The next big thing being pursued in the H and S world is that you will have to provide proof of servicing to be allowed to do so....when will this nightmare end ?
|
I don't know how many of you use cars you own for work. The next big thing being pursued in the H and S world is that you will have to provide proof of servicing to be allowed to do so....when will this nightmare end ?
The 'nightmare will end' when you get your car serviced according to manufacturer's guidelines.
Presumably you get a mileage allowance from your employer which includes a proportional financial contribution to the service costs; they can reasonably expect you to spend this on, err...service costs.
There are many companies who have a zero work fatality rate for their employees (which is good!) EXCEPT from road traffic accidents on works business(perhaps 1 or 2 people killed per year out of 10s of 1000s of employees).
Given this fatality rate, and given the presumption of employer liability, employers need to demonstrate that they have done everything that they imaginably could have done to manage & eliminate this risk.
This might include:
(1) Establishing that drivers have a current license
(2) Monitoring drivers records for accidents & convictions
(3) Establishing that, through manufacturer's recommended servicing, that cars used on works business are as safe as can be reasonably expected.
(4) Raising the profile of safety on the road by discussing safety with company drivers (taking breaks, not speeding, advanced driver training, etc)
|
|
|
|
I think most of us agree that a sane balance has to be found. At one idiotic extreme everyone is so obsessed by the possibility of injury that no conceivable risk is taken, or there is little time to do anything between the demands of training and supervision. One consequence is that the cost of producing or achieving anything becomes so high that more work goes overseas where they aren't so fussy. Clearly workers must not be asked to work unsafely, but equally employers cannot be expected to be responsible for absolutely everything the employee does. For one thing, employers or supervisors are not around evety minute of the day.
|
|
My new next door neighbour, a charming replacement for the chavs from Hell who were the subject of requests for legal advice here a few weeks ago, tells me that he has reams of paperwork to do with his lease car. He has to certifying, in writing, that he has carried out daily checks of oil, fluids and tyre pressures. I am fairly keen and I do fluids once a week and tyres once a month or before a long journey. He tells me that this is just employers keeping themselves in the clear.
|
|
|
|
I don't know how many of you use cars you own for work. The next big thing being pursued in the H and S world is that you will have to provide proof of servicing to be allowed to do so....
That's exactly why one large firm I worked for shortly after college strictly forbade employees using their own cars for any aspect of their work.
We had offices at opposite ends of the same estate. If you wanted to go between them, you had to sign out a pool car (and present your full UK licence to do so). That way, they could be certain the car was roadworthy and properly insured to be used for work.
They even had a camera fitted to the car park exit to ensure employees cars only left the premises at lunchtime or at the end of the working day!
|
|
|
That'll be interesting as I do most of my own! Maybe I can stamp my own service book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
