Fifth Avenue - Fire & Safety Consultants

Health and safety madness: a menace with ancient British roots?

2012-03-05T07:55:00.004-08:00

Here’s an interesting take on the question of what really is at the root of the problem when people talk about ‘elf n safety gone mad’. The author of this blog is suggesting that we, as a nation, sometimes welcome the opportunity to say no to a reasonable request just because we can – that it’s in our nature to do so – and that we use ‘health and safety’ as the convenient rationale for doing so. We keep blaming it on the health and safety industry but could it just be the innate stroppiness of the Brit? I think he may have a point………

Feb 27th 2012, 12:12 by Bagehot
The Mail on Sunday ran an interesting feature this weekend about an example of what certainly sounded like a health and safety overreaction. It told the tale of a man who drowned in a shallow boating pond in his local park, after suffering an epileptic seizure while feeding swans. A passer-by (a woman who was in charge of a small child so did not dare enter the pond) called the emergency services. But the first firemen to show up announced that they only had Level One training, for ankle-deep water, and needed to wait for a specialist team with Level Two training for chest-deep water. By the time that team arrived, the man had been floating in the pond for 37 minutes. While waiting for that specialist help, the same firemen also strongly urged a policeman not to attempt a rescue in the pond, even refusing to lend the policeman a life-vest. Then the policeman's control room told him not to enter the water, as the victim had been in the pond so long that it was a body retrieval mission, not a rescue.
The MoS, which sent its reporter out into the same pond equipped with no more than rubber waders, called it a story that "shames Britain". Certainly its photograph of the eventual retrieval of the poor victim's body, featuring 25 separate emergency workers, an inflatable tent, several fire engines and a helicopter, is suggestive of an over-reaction after an under-reaction.
It is tempting to conclude that Britain has fallen into a serious problem with regulation, red tape and crippling risk-aversion. Certainly, the newspapers have recently been filled with all manner of depressing stories about pancake races being cancelled, policemen being urged not to pursue criminals onto roof tops, party bunting being outlawed or council workers refusing to mount shoulder-height step ladders to fix broken signs without logistical back-up once reserved for the cleaning of the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
The government, shortly after taking office, commissioned a report from Lord Young of Graffham, a former cabinet minister from Margaret Thatcher's day, who called for more common sense in the application of health and safety rules, and changes to the rules governing civil litigation.
All of which is sensible. You don't have to be a wild-eyed libertarian to suspect that something has gone wrong with the management of risk in Britain. It is also depressing to see so many advertisements for ambulance-chasing lawyers, urging anyone who has had the smallest accident to sue. Anecdotally, members of parliament grumble about the role played by some insurance companies who hold special advice-sessions on liability for local councils, seeking to terrify them into taking out expensive cover and in the process filling the heads of municipal bosses with all manner of scare stories.
I found myself wondering if the British character may not also play a role. Read the report by Lord Young, or even the detail of the admirably comprehensive Mail report, and the rules themselves are sometimes less the problem than their interpretation. It turns out that emergency workers can break all sorts of health and safety rules when lives are at stake, without fear of prosecution, for example. And those guidelines on Level One and Level Two water training were intended for rescuers in fast-moving flood waters, the inquest into the pond case was told.
I am not going to guess at what motivated the specific fire crews in the pond case, not having done any of my own reporting on that story.
But I am strangely reminded of the madness of 1970s Britain, when I was a child, and the trade unions still had the country in a powerful grip. Lots of western countries had strong unions at the time, but there was a malign genius to the pencil-sucking, more-than-my-job's-worth-mate restricted practices invented in Britain. Something stroppy deep within the British soul bonded with the trade union movement to produce workplaces where a toolbox could not be moved by a member of the wrong union, or—in my own newspaper industry—where a journalist could not pull a sheet of paper out of a special type of teletype printer, but had to grovel to a member of the printers' union to tear the sheet off for him.
Go back still further to the second world war, and the finest accounts of that conflict (such as Evelyn Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy) do not only talk of heroism and danger, but of the suffocating bossiness and illogicality of the wartime clerk and bureaucrat, seizing the chance to inflict petty misery on all around.
In short, when I read accounts of a rescue worker refusing to take a risk or a council worker refusing to climb a three-rung ladder, I wonder if—in addition to being a country with a red tape problem and over-active lawyers—Britain also has a problem with authority and attitudes to power.
Margaret Thatcher, helped by tireless allies such as Lord Young, prised the grip of over-mighty trade unions from the throat of the British economy. To a degree that makes it an outlier in western Europe, Britain now has strikingly flexible labour markets and weak unions (certainly in the private sector). Add on such forces as automation and globalisation that have weakened worker-power all over the developed world, and many Britons enjoy strikingly limited autonomy when they go to work.
Except, that is, when they can cite health and safety, when suddenly their power returns. This is a blog posting not a finished article, so I offer this as a thought, and not more than that. But if my hunch is even half-right, tackling the worst excesses of British red tape—though an important and worthwhile task—may not be fully within the gift of any British government. Stroppiness may be part of who we are.

should we train our staff to use fire extinguishers?

2012-02-26T03:05:00.000-08:00

That old chestnut about whether we should or shouldn’t be prepared to use fire extinguishers came up again last week. The official view is that you should have some capacity to deal with fires when first discovered but you’ll hear operational fire crews say ‘forget the extinguishers – everybody should get out and leave it to us’ – but is that really valid when brigades are beginning to take the view that only life is important i.e. if everyone has evacuated should they risk their safety to save the building?

“The RRO says the Responsible Person must, where necessary, take measures for fire-fighting in the premises and nominate competent persons to implement those measures.
Who do you think should be trained in the workplace to tackle fires?”
Let me ask you some questions before I move on; what is your policy in the event of a fire? How many employees are trained in the use of extinguishers? Have you provided the basics of fire safety training?
Amidst the disparate views and opinions is an underlying agreement that the importance of life safety is imperative when discussing this and any organisation should ensure that their policies and procedures have this at the forefront of their mind.
Some say that all employees should be trained to fight a fire. Others believe that it would be safer to adopt a no fire fighting policy; therefore there would be no need to train anyone to tackle a fire. Among these strong views are also the individuals who believe that determining who and how many should be nominated is part of your risk assessment and something that should be resolved from this process.
It is impractical (and also against the law) to suggest that no staff should be trained in the use of fire extinguishers. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO) clearly state that “the Responsible Person must, where necessary, take measures for fire-fighting in the premises... (and) nominate competent persons to implement those measures” This all needs to be adapted taking into consideration “the nature of the activities carried on there and the size of the undertaking and of the premises concerned” RRO, Chapter 13
The need for basic fire extinguisher training is not only essential but is also the law. This forum showed me that the majority of professionals out there do believe that fire extinguisher training should be given but to whom and how many was the question. As there is no definitive answer then it remains among the individuals of the organisations to figure this out for themselves. As I quoted above, the RRO affirms the need for organisations to adapt to what is suitable for them. It would be impractical for a hospital to train every single member of its staff but would this apply to a small organisations where staff numbers are low? It is wrong to generalize in circumstances such as these and what is important is to remain focused on what is significant to you and that is ensuring the safety of occupants within your building.
It is true though that the RRO states that the Responsible Person should nominate competent persons to implement those measures with regards to fire-fighting and fire detection (RRO, Chapter 13). As it says in the newly released CFOA Guidance Document :

"Nominated relevant persons should be able to tackle a fire if it is safe to do so and they know how to do it safely. They must not put themselves at risk to fight fire; their personal safety remains the priority. Nonetheless this priority must not be used by responsible persons to avoid compliance with this requirement. Many employers believe that to comply with this requirement involves a necessity to train some of their employees as fire-fighters. This is clearly not the case; and inspecting officers should be seeking compliance from employer responsible persons by training an adequate number of employees to undertake first aid fire-fighting duties and inherent in that training must be the teaching of employees to recognise when first-aid fire-fighting is or is not safe to implement."
The most important thing to remember is that life safety is the priority and no member of staff (whether they have been trained to use fire fighting equipment of not) should be put in any situation where it may cause harm to themselves or others.”
If you decide you want to train some staff as Fire Wardens then we can provide a course which includes a practical session on Fire Extinguishers. For further information please contact me on derrick@healthandfiresafety.co.uk

Coping with change at work in these uncertain times

2012-02-13T00:49:00.001-08:00

Uncertain times in the workplace and across the wider world inevitably bring with it a certain amount of change. People are asked to learn new skills, do new things, let go of responsibilities and work with new people. This can have a big impact on morale, both for the organization as a whole and for each individual. Companies and organizations need to take account of the impact of organisational change so that they can minimise the impact on the health of those affected and ensure the company continues to thrive despite it.

However individuals themselves also have a responsibility for their own welfare, and when it comes to change that means cooperating and engaging with their employer. Whilst sometimes change can seem out of their control, the way individuals approach it can make a huge difference to how they feel about it.
So here are some tips for coping with change to minimize its impact on you and your life at work:
• Change will happen. Taking a pragmatic view that ‘change will happen’ will help you adjust to it when it does.
• Understand what’s happening. Organisational change is usually well signposted, with clear stages along the way. Make sure you understand how each aspect affects you.
• Ask questions. If there is any aspect of the change you don’t understand, you need to ask. No-one will think less of you for doing so; in fact your colleagues probably have some of the same questions. If the change process includes a period of consultation, use it – this is your chance to ask questions.
• See the bigger picture. In current times it is likely that the local change in your area is part of wider change across the organisation. Seeing the big picture will help you appreciate why the change is needed and what it is trying to achieve
• Be flexible. By its very definition change means doing things differently, the more you are able to adapt to new systems or new ways of working the better your chance of making it a success for you.
• Be prepared. A successful change outcome will depend very much on how you respond to it. Preparation is key – whether for a job interview or taking up a new role. Make it your mission to know everything there is to know about what lies ahead.
• Carry on working. Whilst the change process is underway there will be a job to be done, even if it’s tempting to ease off. Working hard and showing perseverance is likely to impress a potential new boss.
• Support each other. You and your colleagues will all be going through the change together, some will be more positive than others. The friendship and support you give to each other during this period will be invaluable.
• Access help and support. Make the most of the help and advice available to you. There are a number of sources of support available in the organisation; these are listed in the ‘get help’ section on the intranet.
• Be positive. Where possible try and see change as an opportunity. Your mission should be to be able to look back in 12 months and say ‘that was the best thing that ever happened to me’.

Cameron’s failure to wear cycle helmet “irresponsible”

2012-02-05T09:54:00.001-08:00

David Cameron was today “under fire” for choosing to cycle without a helmet. And, as the news prompted an online row about whether it is “sanctimonious” to highlight cycling safety, it emerged that one of the leading campaigners for compulsory helmets is a Tory MP.
Just weeks ago, Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough spoke out in favour of making helmets compulsory for children up to the age of 14:
“If somebody said 16 per cent of people who died in road accidents could be saved, you would bite their hand off … The savings to the NHS alone would be enormous … I believe individuals can make up their own minds whether they want to kill themselves. Youngsters can’t, however, and we have to do it for them.”
In January 2010, Bone asked a question in parliament about the Department for Transport’s assessment of the safety case for children to wear safety helmets. He received this response from Paul Clark, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DfT:
“The Department commissioned a research project on cyclists’ road safety, which included a new review of cycle helmet effectiveness.”
The review concludes that, assuming cycle helmets are a good fit and worn correctly they should be effective at “reducing the risk of head injury, in particular cranium fracture, scalp injury and intracranial (brain) injury for users of all ages but would be expected to be particularly effective for children”. The report that Mr Bone highlights also includes the results of a forensic case review of more than 100 British police cyclist fatality reports:
“[The] case review … highlighted that between 10 and 16% of the fatalities reviewed could have been prevented if they had worn a cycle helmet.”
It also found that helmets would be “particularly effective” for children.
I think there are two points to consider here. The first is whether there is real evidence that helmets reduce injuries – and certainly the language of the report demonstrates that its conclusions are not based on much hard evidence or research – and the second issue is whether the Prime Minister is required to ‘set an example’ i.e. to wear a helmet when it is obvious that he doesn’t actually believe that helmets are particularly necessary. Just because one group of people think its important to wear a helmet doesn’t make it true – and therefore doesn’t require public figures to ‘set an example’.
This is yet another example of the PC culture we live in nowadays, where a single issue pressure group manages to get the media to repeat the message they want us to believe until it becomes the accepted view point. This is how we have reached the position that everyone thinks health and safety is full of nonsense decisions – it’s the same process at work – we must all insist on thinking for ourselves!

I won’t be a law breaker soon!

2012-01-29T03:51:00.000-08:00

It seems that the Government intend to raise the speed limit on motorways to 80mph in 2013. Their rationale is what you’d expect: the current limit has been untouched for years and vehicle safety has improved dramatically in that time and driving on motorways is ‘safer’ than on other roads.
But in an interview with The Times, Philip Hammond (the Transport Secretary) said that he believes we operate in a ‘democracy of policing by consent’. He reckons that if 50% of the population are breaking the law then it’s the law that needs looking at and not necessarily the law-breakers. He’s probably got a point because few people stick to 70 or below on a motorway in my experience.
Predictably road safety campaigns are up in arms about it, but there again they won’t be happy until we’re all pedestrians in any case. I have to say that I’m with you Phil! You’re a refreshing change! Stupid rules, or rules that are perceived to be stupid, just don’t get followed and frankly we (as a country) don’t enforce this particular law very well anyway do we? So why have it?
Phil’s argument got me thinking too. You see at the moment one of my key strategic priorities at work is to do with getting people to work safely because they want to and not because they think if they don’t they’ll get told off by the boss.
Although we’ve been making progress on this (which is just as well as part of my bonus is riding on it!), I wonder now whether we’ve been coming at it from the wrong angle. Maybe the biggest lever for change is really in understanding what safety rules and processes need to be changed.
Arguably if people choose not to the follow some rules and there hasn’t been an accident surely the rule is a waste of time. I mean, if the rule was to wear eye protection when doing X, and people don’t wear the protection when they should you’d expect there to be more incidents involving stuff getting into peoples eyes when they do it, right?
If the rule is really important, why hasn’t it been enforced harder either by the line manager or organisationally? After all, organisations don’t make up rules for the sake of it, most consider them very carefully. So if it’s that important it should be enforced.
Just like if the 70mph speed limit on a motorway is that important there should be more tickets given out but there isn’t. Why? Because the police are too busy dealing with other more serious issues like murder, scum mugging old ladies and drug dealers.
To help me get my bonus (I have a new drive to pay for) we’ve set up some focus groups with front line employees to talk about some of these things (not mugging and drug dealing, I mean safety rules!), and hopefully we’ll come up with some stuff that we can ‘police by consent’. In other words the rules we’re left with are the really important ones rather than what we might have now: really important ones and a whole heap of other non-important stuff that we get upset about when people don’t follow them! And of course, fewer rules the more chance you’ve got of people remembering them.
So my challenge to anyone reading this blog is to have a think of things from a different perspective: are you too worried about getting people to conform to a rule when what you should be wondering is, is that the right rule is in place? Only when, you’ve confirmed that it is, should you try to change people’s behaviours.
Now I’ve got my head round that, I just need to work out if Phil is Conservative or a Liberal Democrat – after all I don’t want to give credit to the wrong party do I, you only get one vote!
Ah, thank the Lord for Google, he’s a blue!

not just a tick in the box

2012-01-15T13:05:00.001-08:00

At Fifth Avenue Fire and Safety we have always had the ethos that health and safety should be just one of a number of key business drivers that any business should work towards improving. It does not have to be the number one focus at the expense of all others but it must be given sufficient focus and taken seriously.
Experience has shown us that where businesses are prepared to consider there is room to improve and that health & safety is not just a burden then many benefits can be achieved. However to make this happen then the business needs to understand where and how these improvements can be made; this is where competent advice comes in.
We are concerned that part of the bad press health & safety receives is down to the poor understanding of what the mass of regulations are trying to achieve; which is ultimately to keep people and businesses safe and healthy. The ‘must get the tick in the box’ brigade don’t help as often they lack the basic business understanding to make health & safety work for the business and not against it.
We feel our role as trainers & consultants is to advise our clients on how an approach can be adapted to achieve both compliance and a positive business outcome. We know that often in business things don’t go how they were intended but it is how you adapt to this that makes the difference.

Mr Camerons "health and safety monster"

2012-01-07T02:49:00.000-08:00

“Are you sitting comfortably? Then I will begin… Once upon a time there lived a monster, a big scary monster that many people were frightened of. He lived down in the swamp near a village. Each night he came out and scared off all the burglars and ghosts and other bad things that the villagers were frightened of. One day the villagers decided they didn’t like having a monster living near them as it wasn’t good for house prices or tourism. They commissioned a 9 month review of the monster lead by an eminent monster expert. He decided that, on the whole, the monster was doing a pretty good job keeping people safe at night. Despite this the head villager decided the monster needed to go as it was his fault no-one in the village had any money and the price of bread was so high. He ordered the monster to move away from the village and everyone lived not-so happily ever after.”
For anyone wondering if I’ve lost my marbles you probably haven’t seen UK prime minister David Cameron’s characterisation of the UK’s health and safety regime as a ‘monster’ – see him here. This comes hot on the heels of the government-commissioned independent review of health and safety that, in essence, determined it was fit-for-purpose. At the time I blogged about my annoyance at accompanying government spin about cutting red tape and reducing the burden on UK businesses, indeed why let the truth get in the way of a good story. Listening to Cameron this time his ire is directed at the more unsavoury aspects of the insurance and legal profession and so-called claims culture. However to tar the whole health and safety profession as a monster is simply unfair, and not only is it unfair but it compounds the press-fueled stories of abandoned pancake races, banned conkers and cancelled school trips that really do strike fear into employers and the general public.
The ‘great big machine of health and safety’ Cameron refers to saves lives and reduces accidents and ill-health on a daily basis. Keeping workers fit and healthy at work is good for business. For all the good the well-received Lofstedt report achieved we seem to be back to square one.

The blog above was written by John Hamilton, of Leeds University. His little parable about the law of unintended consequences is very apt of course. There will certainly be unintended consequences if Mr Cameron continues with this constant harping on Health and Safety being the problem rather than the solution – and those unintended consequences will be more workplace accidents and/or ill health – and ultimately more cost to business!
The real problem is the compensation culture and the ‘claims’ industry that has grown up in our land – and he doesn’t seem to be able to separate that from health and safety regulation. The compensation culture is now endemic but it hasn’t come about just as a result of health and safety regulation – it goes right through our society. Listen to what happens when next you hear someone say that they had a car accident and were hit in the rear – the very next thing you will hear is someone suggesting they ‘claim’ for the whiplash! People expect to be ‘compensated’ for every minor injury – its almost as though such incidents are embraced as opportunities to ‘claim’ compensation - or if they were daft enough to sign up for some worthless financial package without reading the small print.
And isn’t this really about taking responsibility for your own actions. If my father tripped over in the street he would have blamed himself for not looking where he was going – he wouldn’t have been looking to find someone to blame so that he could ‘claim’ for it.
Perhaps Mr Cameron ought really to be looking at why we react to these incidents in the way we do now rather than in the way we used to.

Clear as mud!!

2011-12-19T10:34:00.001-08:00

When it comes to health and safety, UK employers operate within a tough regime of liability. The goal setting approach set out in the primary piece of health and safety legislation has its benefits in that it does not prescribe what employers need to do, rather it sets out the outcomes that should be achieved. However the strict liability nature of the duties provide for only one defence, that the employer took measures that were ‘reasonably practicable’. If you then factor in the reverse burden of proof (AKA guilty until proved innocent) and its easy to see why the HSE’s prosecution success rate is 94%.

So with ‘reasonably practicable’ sitting at the heart of the decisions employers make about how far to go in preventing accidents and ill-health you’d think that the concept would be well defined, well understood and well promoted. Most health and safety practitioners will tell you that assessing what is ‘reasonably practicable’ involves weighing the risk against the cost, resources, and effort of prevention – but that the cost side of the equation has to be disproportionately higher than the risk i.e. you would still be expected to spend the money, time and effort unless the cost of doing so is disproportionately high in relation to the benefit gained in risk reduction.
But exactly what does this mean in practice? More importantly how would an HSE inspector assess whether the measures you were employing met this test? Buried deeply in the HSE website is the answer, although as the HSE itself admits ‘it can get very complicated… there is no simple formula for computing reasonably practicable’.

A component part of the HSE’s assessment of reasonably practicable is whether the measures an employer is using constitute ‘good practice’. The HSE defines this as the ‘standards for controlling risk which have been judged and recognised by HSE as satisfying the law when applied to a particular relevant case in an appropriate manner’, with possible sources of ‘good practice’ including regulations, approved codes of practice, guidance notes, and ‘unwritten sources that satisfy the necessary conditions’. It acknowledges that good practice can change over time, because of increased knowledge, or because of ‘changes in the acceptability of the level of risk control achieved by the existing good practice’.

So that’s clear then! Not only is this confusing and impenetrable for employers, particularly smaller employers who lack expertise and knowledge in this area, but it also becomes a circular argument. The definition of reasonably practicable relies on the definition of good practice which in turn relies on sources of the law which are qualified by doing what is reasonably practicable.
Its little wonder that the recent review of UK health and safety law recommended that the HSE produces better guidance on what constitutes ‘reasonably practicable’. Hopefully when it arrives it is written in plain English and is illustrated with real world examples that would make a real difference to employer when faced with decisions about how far to go to protect their workers.

HSE cost recovery scheme gets the go-ahead!

2011-12-12T01:13:00.001-08:00

In case you hadn’t heard it is now official that from April next year the HSE will charge employers who breach health and safety law at an hourly rate of £124 for its intervention, which will be counted from when a letter or e-mail recording the companies breach is sent. What this means in practice is that if an inspector finds fault with the way you manage health and safety, the costs of that inspector’s time in dealing with the offence (as calculated by the inspector) can be recovered from you (the employer at fault).
This proposal was agreed by the HSE Board based on a presentation of the outcome of the recent consultation on the fee-for-intervention scheme (FFI).
This has come about because the cut in government funding for the HSE means that they cannot continue to carry out their traditional enforcement role at the same level as they do now unless they can generate revenue of their own – so hence they will be charging you if they can find that you are failing in any of your health and safety management duties. To my mind this is a bit like the police force charging a criminal for the time and cost of investigating the crime and taking the criminal to court – though I can hear some of you saying that would be a good idea too.
However the scheme’s Director – Gordon MacDonald - stressed that the relationship between the regulator and the regulated will not suffer. “You will not see a different HSE as a result of this scheme. We will only apply FFI where it is warranted, and not frivolously.”
Nevertheless the new approach will obviously have a financial impact on those companies whose non-compliance requires the intervention of the HSE, and many business leaders are concerned that the hourly rate – which has now been decreased to £124 per hour from the initial estimate of £133 – could be the final straw for some SMEs in the current economic climate.
The HSE will now formally recommend to the minister for employment that the draft Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012 should come into force next April (2012). So unless you are confident that you are fully complying with your statutory duties on health and safety and/or fire safety you might want to review your safety management policies and procedures now!!

How do they know its not a real fire?

2011-12-05T08:56:00.000-08:00

Many of you will know that some fire and rescue services (I still prefer to call them ‘fire brigades’) will not attend an AFA (automatic fire alarm) unless there is a supporting phone call from the affected premises to confirm there is a real fire.
There is an argument that says we shouldn’t be wasting their time – but in most cases all that’s being wasted is the fuel to drive the fire appliance since the crew would otherwise be undertaking training or doing maintenance on their equipment. Its also worth remembering that in this risk averse culture we now live in it is routine for businesses to respond to any fire alarm with a total building evacuation – so often they won’t know immediately if they do or don’t have a real fire. It can only be a matter of time before one of these unconfirmed fire calls turns out to be a very big fire but the fire brigade won't know that until someone passing by notices it - at 3am?

I’ve reprinted below a blog written by the CEO of the Fire Industry Association, questioning why the fire brigades are taking this stance. If you have a view i.e. you are concerned that this approach may represent a risk to your business, I suggest you write to the chief fire officer of your counties fire and rescue service.
FIA CEO Graham Ellicott writes…………………
When Government research points to attendance at automatic fire alarm (AFA) signals my question is, why are the fire and rescue services (FRS) opting to reduce attendance to them?
Quoting the DCGL’s newly published, ‘Fire Statistics Great Britain, 2010 – 2011’; “There were 337,300 false alarms attended in 2010-11, a decrease of 5% from 2009-10 and one third lower than the peak level of 507,000 in 1995.”
The number of false alarms is obviously still far too high but not as high as you might have been led to believe by English Fire and rescue Services. In many cases the FRS has now withdrawn or greatly reduced attendance to AFA signals to which it is not possible to confirm a real fire with a ‘call back’ from the Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC). They believe that every call that cannot be confirmed as a real fire is a false alarm. Well, I wish I had this amount of foresight – choosing lottery numbers would be my first port of call!
The inability to confirm that a fire is actually occurring could be down to several factors, not the least of which is that the occupants of the building can’t get to the phone to answer the ARC because they are trapped by the very thing that needs confirmation!
So, what should the approach be with regard to responding to AFA Signals? This subject has been looked at by the Department for Communities and Local Government in their 2008 report, ‘Costs and Benefits of Alternative Responses to Automatic Fire Alarms – Fire Research Series 2/2008’.
The report looks at the “Optimal response to AFA calls” and concludes that:
“the analysis shows that the optimal strategy minimises fire fatalities and maximises resources released to fire prevention activities while ensuring that response to actual fires is not delayed. The closest match is achieved by a Time and Risk strategy. The analysis presented herein suggests that the T&R1 policy which corresponds to a one pump attendance at day time AFA calls, two pumps to night time sleeping risk and one pump to night time non-sleeping risk properties is the most favoured AFA response strategy.”
So, you may ask if DCLG concluded the above in 2008, why then three years later are English Fire and Rescue Services such as, Warwickshire, West Midlands, Essex and Royal Berkshire not attending some AFA signals? The FIA has asked the question and, to date, has not received any answers other than that which infer the economic climate has changed and thus the way that the Fire and rescue operates has to change as well.
Well, times are tough out there, God knows FIA members know this only too well. Doesn’t this mean that there’s likely to more, rather than less, fires? And that any cut in attendance could be considered foolhardy in the extreme, particularly as DCLG has concluded that an alternative approach is the most appropriate one?
But the madness continues with several other English Fire and Rescue Services also announcing proposals to reduce attendance; the latest ones being Kent, West Yorkshire and Hereford and Worcestershire. Have they not read the Government Research…?

The Loftstedt Review - a fresh start for health and safety?

2011-11-28T01:24:00.000-08:00

Today is potentially a very big day for business and the health and safety ‘industry’ because it’s the day we get the results of the Lofstedt review of health and safety regulation. Professor Ragnar Löfstedt of King’s College London has been considering opportunities for “reducing the burden of health and safety legislation on UK businesses while maintaining the progress made in improving health and safety outcomes”.

As ever, the print media have blended the issues to fit the headline and in recent days we have seen references to an anticipated shake-up “that will remove the employer’s strict liability for accidents at work even where the employee has acted irresponsibly”.

There is no doubt that the plethora of regulations and codes of practice is a burden for the average employer to find their way through and implement. Many of these could be replaced by the general duties already set out in what are known as the ‘management regulations’ and the ‘workplace regulations’ – plus a series of addendums setting out indicative standards.

Equally it cannot be right in some senses that the employer has strict liability for everything that happens on his premises and in his name. Yet when it comes to compensation for those injured the only realistic prospect of the plaintiff being adequately compensated arises out of the requirement for employers to buy liability insurance – there would be no point in taking a fellow colleague to court unless that person was independently wealthy.

It’s a bit like having a traffic accident. If you hit by another car you have every prospect of getting your car repaired at the expense of the other party – because they have to be insured by law. But if you’re hit by a cyclist and the car is damaged you will be repairing that at your own expense.

So we have to hope that the professor has been clever enough to think through the implications of any recommendations he makes. I await the report with bated breath and hope for a sensible and workable outcome. We cannot go on as we are with ‘elf and safety’ being the Aunt Sally that the print media turn to when they want to get your attention.

For the record, the formal terms of reference were to determine:
• the scope for consolidating, simplifying or abolishing regulations;
• whether EU Directives have been 'gold-plated' in the UK with extra requirements;
• what can be learnt from other countries;
• whether there is a clear link between regulation and positive outcomes;
• whether there is evidence of inappropriate litigation and compensation arising from health and safety legislation; and
• whether legislative changes are needed to clarify the position of employers where employees act irresponsibly employees

Safety First System Flawed

2011-11-21T02:59:00.001-08:00

Don't get me wrong on this, occupational health and safety legislation has been a life-saver for all of us, addressing a century-long tradition of worker-abuse. That employees are no longer forced to risk life and limb for miserable wages and conditions; that employers are now made to treat their welfare as a priority, is evidence enough of the success of the laws. For far too long, industrial "accidents" had been accepted as the norm.
Having said that, I wonder if we've not become a shade carried away with the no-risk approach to life. Playgrounds for the children often carry few challenges, diners at restaurants are forbidden from tucking bags under their tables, schools are being compelled to abandon their swimming pools, not because they can't afford to administer them, but because they can't afford to pay for the sufficiently-trained instructors required. Games such as conkers have been banned.
Granted, most of the extreme cases we hear of are usually exceptions to the rule, and there's no doubt lives have been saved along the way. If there's one real concern, however, it involves the application of OSH regulations within the roles of our emergency personnel, be they police, fire-fighters, search and rescue folk or environmental experts. Fair enough, risk assessment is critical for these people too, but danger is also the name of their game.
It seems to be a growing problem. Police and paramedics have been criticised for refusing to help dying gun-shot victims because of the risk of offenders still being on the scene. A Factory burns down and hundreds of workers are out of work because the fire brigade say why risk injuring firemen when there is no one in danger.
Call me old fashioned, but there used to be a time when emergency personnel not only understood and accepted the risk, but were allowed to get on with the job.
You've probably heard the stories. Two community police officers refused to attempt a rescue on a drowning ten-year-old because they hadn't received training in water safety. The boy died. The Metropolitan Police commissioner was prosecuted after two officers were injured pursuing a criminal over roof-tops. Emergency workers refused to help dying 2005 bomb victims because of a fear of a second blast.
It's a strange world that we live in, isn't it? I mean, apparently it's fine for motor-racing drivers to die in the pursuit of a tin-pot race; it's okay for pilots to blow themselves into oblivion while attempting needless acrobatic manoeuvres, and for boxers to risk brain injury every time they step into a ring. But for emergency personnel to put themselves in emergency situations is a bridge too far? You couldn't make this sort of stuff up.
Thankfully, the UK parliament saw the light this year, introducing new legislation to exempt emergency workers from the demands of the health and safety laws. No-one's talking about a return to the bad old days when working class lives were cheap. But if we're going to have highly-trained emergency personnel, it only makes sense to allow them to respond to emergencies. Don’t they say practice makes perfect?

Health and safety 'excuse' for unpopular decisions

2011-11-14T03:14:00.000-08:00

Councils and companies are using health and safety rules as an excuse to make "unpopular decisions" banning low-risk activities, a watchdog says.
The Health and Safety Executive has published a list of what it says were the 10 most "bizarre bans" on health and safety grounds over the past year.
They include bans on kite flying on a beach, sack races for children and pins used to secure commemorative poppies.
But experts have warned of many cases where risks are underappreciated.
The HSE said complying with health and safety regulations was often used as a "convenient excuse" for organisations to justify unnecessary decisions.
Among examples on its list were a school's decision to ban football games unless the ball was made of sponge, and a ban on street parties to mark the royal wedding in April.
'Undermining confidence'
The most high-profile case it cites was the decision by the Wimbledon tennis authorities to stop showing television coverage of a key game on a big screen on "Henman Hill" - a popular vantage point where crowds have congregated for years to watch matches.
The decision, taken because of concerns about safety conditions after hours of heavy rain and poor visibility, led to a row between the watchdog and organisers The All England Lawn Tennis Club.
The HSE also questioned the rules for dodgem rides after reports in April that Butlins had banned people bumping into each other at its Skegness holiday camp on health and safety grounds.
At the time, ministers cited the case as evidence that regulations were being wrongly applied, saying it had no basis under current laws and they were "disappointed" by the decision.
The HSE said such cases "started to undermine people's confidence in health and safety law and the work it does to protect people at work from serious risk".
While there were a clear set of laws regulating health and safety in the workplace, it said "what other people choose to see as health and safety is quite vague and ill-defined".
'Safe environment'
The All England Lawn Tennis Club said it had acted on the advice of its own safety officials, based on their assessment of the risks caused by conditions and crowd numbers on one particular evening.
"The term health and safety gets bandied about but it (the decision) was nothing to do with health," a spokesman said. "It was entirely to do with safety and the personal risks from a specific set of circumstances at a specific time. "It was not a blanket decision that every time we get rain we are going to shut it down."
And Butlins said there had been "no change" to the way it ran its dodgem rides. "Like most operators of dodgems we decided long ago that a 'no deliberate bumping' policy means that everyone - even our youngest riders - can enjoy a fun experience in a safe environment," a company spokeswoman said.
"This is not a response to legislation but ensures that all our families enjoy their time at our resort."
An independent review of current health and safety legislation in the UK is due to report in October, with ministers keen to consolidate or simplify existing regulations.
'Harmless things'
In response to the HSE report, employment minister Chris Grayling said members of the public should "challenge health and safety myths" and overzealous practices.
"We have seen an epidemic of excuses wrongly citing health and safety as a reason to prevent people from doing pretty harmless things with only very minor risks attached," he said.
"This has to stop. The law does not require this to happen - people must be encouraged to use their common sense."
One health and safety expert said the law required people to approach risks in a balanced and proportionate manner.
"Overzealousness about trivial risks gives health and safety a bad name but there are actually many more cases where people are under-hitting," said Roger Bibbings, occupational safety adviser for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
Good health and safety practice was all about "exercising judgement", he added.
"People in authority such as councillors and managers need to be much more 'risk literate' or 'risk intelligent'. And third partiers such as clients, funders or insurers need to avoid requiring people to do things in the name of 'elf 'n' safety' which are not actually required by the law."
Top 10 'bizarre bans'
• Wimbledon's "Henman Hill" closed because it was wet
• Dodgem cars bumping into each other at Butlins in Skegness
• Royal wedding street parties
• Removal of an unwanted TV from a pensioner's home for recycling
• Carnivals with fancy dress parades
• Kite flying on a popular tourist beach in east Yorkshire
• Pupils playing on playground monkey bars in Oxfordshire
• Using pins to secure commemorative poppies
• School football games - unless the ball is made of sponge
• Children taking part in a sack race on sports day
Source: Health and Safety Executive

Driving for Work

2011-11-07T02:38:00.000-08:00

Inspiration for blogs can come from a variety of sources, this week it was Twitter. The Institution of Occupational Safety & Health retweeted a post that read ‘travel to and from places of work is activity related to employment. Shouldn’t it be covered by HSE rules and jurisdiction?’. The original source of this tweet was an online blog called mansgreatestmistake.com, a one-person campaign against the motor industry. Admirable though the blog’s idealistic aims are, when it comes to extending employers liability to commuting I have to draw the line. There are numerous legal and practical reasons for this not least that commuting, by definition, occurs in an employee’s own time and is well beyond the direct control and supervision of the employer.
The car-hating blogger would have been better advised to focus their ire on the fact that driving at work is one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities and accidents, and yet for the most part falls outside the UK Health and Safety Executive’s jurisdiction and statistical reporting. For many workers driving at work is the most dangerous work activity they undertake, with an estimated 20 deaths a week involving people at work. These 1000 or so deaths a year compare with 171 official workplace fatalities last year that did fall within the HSE’s remit.
Unless the Police detect that work was a factor in a fatal road accident then any resulting action is contained within the ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ offence created by the Road Traffic Act 1991. With no specific occupational road risk legislation, and no remit for investigating work-related road deaths the HSE remains impotent in such cases. Of course corporate manslaughter legislation might change this in time, but its still early days.
The question therefore is should health and safety legislation and HSE’s enforcement remit be widened to include driving on company business? Compelling employers that do require their staff to drive significant distances to implement a road risk management system that comprises risk assessment, provision of information and where necessary additional training might seem like the logical answer. But even asking the question at the present time is a somewhat academic exercise given the dramatic reduction in HSE resources and the government’s focus on reducing the regulatory burden on business.

absenteeism or presenteeism

2011-10-31T06:36:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine will proudly tell you he’s never had a day off sick in 31 years, sure he’s had ‘bad colds, hangovers, back pain, but never had to make that call to the boss’. Much research and managaement theory has been dedicated to reducing employee absenteeism and thereby reducing the cost to business of lost wages, productivity, customer service etc etc. But the concept of presenteeism, defined by some as a situation where employees go to work despite perceiving they are ill enough to call in sick, is thought to cost business over £600 per employee every year through factors such as reduced productivity and potential spread of illness to other employees.
There have been a number of studies into the factors that influence why an employee would attend work when feeling ill, as opposed to ringing in sick. One such study* of Danish workers examined three broad areas; work related factors (excessive workload, control over work flow, relationship with colleagues and employment terms), personal factors (financial situation, family life, and individual mindset) and attitudes (potential impact on customers or colleagues, sense of duty etc). It found that all the work factors, apart from control, influence the rate of presenteeism. The personal factors are less influential on absenteeism, indeed the study found that poor family life might encourage presenteeism.
As well as environmental factors, employers can directly influence a range of factors that have an effect on whether an employee takes sick leave or attends work. These were the subject of a UK study^ that interviewed employees from a range of private and public sector organisations. These work factors included trigger points in sickness absence policies, HR absence management regimes, return to work interviews, management style, culture and impact of bonuses, incentives and promotion prospects. As perhaps might be expected, the financial impact on individuals of not being at work, through stringent sick pay policies or reduced bonuses, appeared to encourage presenteeism. The style of approach taken by management and HR through return to work interviews or policy rigidity was reported as placing additional pressure on employees to attend, as was the perception it might impact on career progression.
What both studies show is that in many instances, employees are able make a choice about whether to be absent from work whilst ill or stay at home. The danger for employers is that by rigorously driving down absence levels the workplace may not actually be any healthier or any more productive, and may in fact be costing the employer more. The lack of compassion reported shows the importance of not just what employers do to manage absence, but how they go about it too. After all not every employee is the conscientiousness, disease -free specimen my friend appears to be.
*Hansen, C. D. & Andersen, J. H. (2008) Going ill to work “ What personal circumstances, attitudes and work-related factors are associated with sickness presenteeism?, Social Science & Medicine, 67, 956-964
^Baker-McClearn, D., Greasley, K., Dale, J. & Griffith, F. (2009) Absence management and presenteeism: the pressures on employees to attend work and the impact of attendance on performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 311-328.

well being programmes

2011-10-17T08:52:00.003-07:00

I often get asked why employers should bother with taking a broader view of employee wellbeing i.e. not just health and safety but overall wellbeing. Once an employer recognises the value of employee wellbeing the question then becomes where to start and how to get the most out the resources available.
Why is organizational wellbeing important?
A simple question but the answer is not straight forward. There are three drivers behind any safety, health and wellbeing initiative; legal, financial and moral. Legal compliance is generally the least effective of these, particularly when it comes to traditionally low-risk working environments. Many employers in my experience are interested in the moral angle and ‘doing the right thing’ for their workforce, however the financial driver is equally important. There is strong evidence that good wellbeing and employee engagement programmes can lead to improved staff satisfaction, lower absence, reduced turnover, better engagement and increased productivity. This short film gives the employees perspective…
A comprehensive wellbeing programme doesn’t have to cost the earth and is within the capability of organizations of all sizes. Here’s why…
How can we engage the whole organization?
It is vital that a collaborative approach to employee wellbeing is taken. This ensures that employees can see they are part of the programme and that it isn’t something that is being done to them. One easy way to achieve this is to form a wellbeing team representing all areas of the organization, maybe through widening the remit of the company’s health and safety committee to include wellbeing and provide oversight to the programme.
With the team in place, give your programme a brand, something to launch it and maintain it. Organisations focus a lot of time and resource branding their products and services for external customers, and don’t always focus the same attention on promoting their organization as a great place to work. You don’t need to spend a fortune on design consultants, your organization may have in-house graphic design resource you can call on. Alternatively you could ask employees themselves through a design competition.
Why is good communication a factor? What role does the internet have to play in this?
Having assembled your programme you need to shout it loud from the roof tops so that everyone in your organization is aware of it. Training, particularly for managers, is essential and needn’t be costly or onerous. In-house HR and health and safety training resource can be used to deliver the message alongside existing training programmes. There are a number of cost effective online training packages available, however you can create your own online material by saving presentation slides in a web format and asking your IT team to help publish them.
Alongside training is the wider promotion of the programme. This doesn’t mean spending a fortune on t-shirts and stickers, a regular column in the employee magazine/newsletter can be just as effective. Where employees are mainly desk based then e-newsletters promoting the latest initiative or campaign are very effective. For all employees getting items into their regular team talks will help spread the message. Aim your campaigns as broadly as possible; for instance smoking cessation has a limited audience and could be better placed as part of a wider ‘healthy heart’ campaign. An intranet website provides a good central point for all your online training and promotional activities, and isn’t costly to develop. The work done at Leeds Met shows how this can be done.
What other resources are available?
Taking a broad view of employee wellbeing means you can include lots of existing resources within the scope of your programme. Many organizations already operate an employee assistance programme providing counselling and legal advice services. Your organization may also run other employee benefits schemes such as childcare vouchers, cycle to work or discount travel cards. All of these fit into the broad definition of wellbeing so promote them to your employees as part of your wellbeing programme.
Similarly your organization will have a number of HR policies that align themselves to wellbeing. A good example is a flexible working policy that allows employees to adjust their working hours temporarily or permanently to fit around issues away from work. Being flexible in this way may be the difference between an employee remaining at work or going off sick.

no bumping!!

2011-10-10T04:44:00.001-07:00

Remember when you were a youngster on the dodgems at the fairground and you got told off for crashing into other bumper cars? Well now the Health and Safety Executive are suggesting that’s an example of Councils and companies using health and safety rules as an excuse to make "unpopular decisions" banning low-risk activities, a watchdog says.

The Health and Safety Executive has published a list of what it says were the 10 most "bizarre bans" on health and safety grounds over the past year. They include bans on kite flying on a beach, sack races for children and pins used to secure commemorative poppies.

The HSE said “the need to comply with health and safety regulations” was often used as a "convenient excuse" for organisations to justify unnecessary decisions.

Among examples on its list were a school's decision to ban football games unless the ball was made of sponge, and a ban on street parties to mark the royal wedding in April.
'Undermining confidence'

The most high-profile case it cites was the decision by the Wimbledon tennis authorities to stop showing television coverage of a key game on a big screen on "Henman Hill" - a popular vantage point where crowds have congregated for years to watch matches.

The decision, taken because of concerns about safety conditions after hours of heavy rain and poor visibility, led to a row between the watchdog and organisers The All England Lawn Tennis Club.

The HSE also questioned the rules for dodgem rides after reports in April that Butlins had banned people bumping into each other at its Skegness holiday camp on health and safety grounds.
At the time, ministers cited the case as evidence that regulations were being wrongly applied, saying it had no basis under current laws and they were "disappointed" by the decision.

The HSE said such cases "started to undermine people's confidence in health and safety law and the work it does to protect people at work from serious risk". While there were a clear set of laws regulating health and safety in the workplace, it said "what other people choose to see as health and safety is quite vague and ill-defined".

'Safe environment'
The All England Lawn Tennis Club said it had acted on the advice of its own safety officials, based on their assessment of the risks caused by conditions and crowd numbers on one particular evening. "The term health and safety gets bandied about but it (the decision) was nothing to do with health," a spokesman said. "It was entirely to do with safety and the personal risks from a specific set of circumstances at a specific time. "It was not a blanket decision that every time we get rain we are going to shut it down."

And Butlins said there had been "no change" to the way it ran its dodgem rides. "Like most operators of dodgems we decided long ago that a 'no deliberate bumping' policy means that everyone - even our youngest riders - can enjoy a fun experience in a safe environment," a company spokeswoman said. "This is not a response to legislation but ensures that all our families enjoy their time at our resort."

An independent review of current health and safety legislation in the UK is due to report in October, with ministers keen to consolidate or simplify existing regulations.

'Harmless things'
In response to the HSE report, employment minister Chris Grayling said members of the public should "challenge health and safety myths" and overzealous practices.

"We have seen an epidemic of excuses wrongly citing health and safety as a reason to prevent people from doing pretty harmless things with only very minor risks attached," he said.
"This has to stop. The law does not require this to happen - people must be encouraged to use their common sense."

One health and safety expert said the law required people to approach risks in a balanced and proportionate manner. "Overzealousness about trivial risks gives health and safety a bad name but there are actually many more cases where people are under-hitting," said Roger Bibbings, occupational safety adviser for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

Good health and safety practice was all about "exercising judgement", he added.
"People in authority such as councillors and managers need to be much more 'risk literate' or 'risk intelligent'. And third partiers such as clients, funders or insurers need to avoid requiring people to do things in the name of 'elf 'n' safety' which are not actually required by the law."
Top 10 'bizarre bans'
• Wimbledon's "Henman Hill" closed because it was wet
• Dodgem cars bumping into each other at Butlins in Skegness
• Royal wedding street parties
• Removal of an unwanted TV from a pensioner's home for recycling
• Carnivals with fancy dress parades
• Kite flying on a popular tourist beach in east Yorkshire
• Pupils playing on playground monkey bars in Oxfordshire
• Using pins to secure commemorative poppies
• School football games - unless the ball is made of sponge
• Children taking part in a sack race on sports day
Source: Health and Safety Executive

The HSE can’t have it both ways – they have been at least partly responsible for engendering the idea that there’s no such thing as an accident i.e. that where there is an injury there must be a culprit - and they have demonstrated that regularly by some of the prosecutions they have taken.

An offer you can't refuse?

2011-10-04T11:10:00.000-07:00

Ladder Exchange is back! This annual initiative provides

businesses with an easy and simple way to replace broken, damaged or bent ladders and trade them in for safe new ones.

This year’s programme will run for 3 months from 1 September until 30 November.

The concept behind Ladder Exchange is simple; a user who has a ladder which is broken, damaged or bent can exchange it for a new one at a discounted list price. Some of the firms taking part in ladder exchange will give up to 50% off selected ladders!

The Health and Safety Executive has been working with local authorities & businesses to remove their faulty ladders & steps and supply customers with safe & compliant ladders. Since its launch, Ladder Exchange has resulted in nearly 7 000 dodgy ladders being removed from use. Check out the link below for more information on the scheme.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/ladderexchange.htm?ebul=hsegen&cr=11/04-oct-11

You will also find a link there to a useful tool for assessing how to do work at height safely. If you don’t work at height very often or are unsure about which type of access equipment to use, it’s important that you assess the risks and select the right equipment for the job.

‘WAIT’ – Work at height Access equipment Information Toolkit – shows you some possible solutions.

Sex n Drugs n Rock n Roll

2011-09-26T06:02:00.001-07:00

Sex n Drugs n Rock n Roll

The recent announcement that police forces would begin to trial the use of a roadside device to test drivers for drugs must be of interest to employers. It is intended that they will be used in a similar way to the existing breathalyzers for alcohol testing.

Those businesses that run fleets of vehicles will already know that they are regarded as at least partly responsible for what their drivers do when on the road – and must exercise due diligence to ensure that their drivers do not drive when affected by drugs or alcohol.

We all know that it’s possible to still be over the alcohol limit in the morning as a result of what we drank the night before – and I guess we all know now that the evidence of drug use can stay in the blood for longer than alcohol.

Research sponsored by the HSE (http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr193.pdf) has confirmed that some 30% of people under 30 years of age have used drugs within the last 12 months – and with the relaxation in licensing hours the potential for drivers to be still drinking 4 or 5 before the early shift is greater than ever.

It’s not just about driving though. The same body of evidence confirms that drug and alcohol use impairs cognitive function, perception and motor skills “both at the acute and chronic levels” – in other words not just at the peak of the effects of the drugs or alcohol but all the time if the use is persistent. So what if the job requires the worker to be ‘on the ball’ - to be ‘sharp’ – to react to rapidly changing situations – to rely on motor skills to avoid something going wrong and maybe causing an accident? In that kind of job ‘impaired cognitive function, perception and motor skills’ could easily result in an accident to the worker or to his or her colleagues.

The HSE thinks that now we know all this you – the employer – should develop and implement a policy to manage substance abuse and what they call ‘alcohol misuse’.

In respect of alcohol they say “Employers should adopt an alcohol policy, in consultation with their staff. This should include matters such as:

1. how the organisation expects employees to limit their drinking;

2. how problem drinking will be recognised and help offered; and

3. at what point and in what circumstances you will treat an employee's drinking as a matter for discipline rather than as a health problem”.

In respect of drugs the advice is even starker - “This policy should aim to support affected employees rather than punish them, though your policy must say that possession or dealing in drugs at work will be reported immediately to the Police. If an employee admits to being a drug user, your policy should seek to help them rather than lead simply to dismissing them.”

So what can an employer do about it?

If you think any of this could apply to your workplace – that you have a workforce that includes people who might drink the night before or take illegal drugs socially – if they are required to have their wits about them as soon as they are at work so as to avoid causing an accident or harm to others - what can you do to control it?

The HSE advises that employers should adopt drug and alcohol misuse policies but advises caution in the way the policies are implemented. It recommends that the policy should emphasise support to find help and reduce use rather than leading directly to dismissal. But these will be difficult issues for SMEs to manage, not least because the average SME doesn’t have a dedicated HR resource to help them with this.

Help is at hand however – and some of it is free!

At http://www.work2health.org.uk/projects/mepmis.pdf you’ll find a link to a training resource designed to give you the skills and tools to do this. The aim of the MEPMIS project is to ‘develop a training resource (web based, & face to face (hard copy) for trainers and managers in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that will equip them with the appropriate skills and sufficient knowledge and understanding to enable them to deal both proactively and reactively with the issue of alcohol and drug use by staff when that impacts on their work and employment.’

If you are interested in the training resources that have been developed as part of the MEPMIS project you might also find the work2health site worth a visit as well.

http://www.work2health.org.uk/projects/mepmis.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr193.pdf - the scale and impact of illegal drug use by workers

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg91.pdf - drug misuse at work – a guide for employers

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg240.pdf - a guide for employers on alcohol at work

http://www.alcoholdrugsandwork.eu/ - maximizing employee performance by minimizing the impact of substances in the workplace

Risky Business

2011-09-19T08:18:00.000-07:00

It often surprises people to hear of some of the risky things I’ve got up to over the years. In my private life I’ve always been one of those people that dashes in without thinking first – but for some people that doesn’t square with their idea of me as a health and safety adviser.

Do as I say and not as I do? I don’t think it is.

For a start, whilst it is up to you what risks you take in your own time the law says you mustn’t take unreasonable risk in the workplace and that the employer must ensure that his employees are not put at risk – so you don’t really have a choice because you have to comply with it or risk prosecution.

The fact is that as individuals we all have a different appetite for risk. Not only that, our appetite changes over the years – young people love a bit of danger but as you get older you prefer to take the safer option.

Our perception of risk varies too. Jensen Button is regarded as being in a high risk occupation. He drives a car in a way you couldn’t possibly get away with on the road but it’s a special kind of car and a special kind of road – if you run out of road at Silverstone you’re not going to hit a lamp-post. On the other hand youngsters who steal cars and drive them around housing estates are at much greater risk because the cars are not so well engineered and they are not so skilled as a driver – and when they crash they are likely to hit a lamp-post or something even harder and people can get badly hurt.

Workplace health and safety is not about not taking risks, it’s about recognising the risks that are there and taking steps to mitigate their likelihood and impact. To take the driving analogy a little further, motor racing involves high risk, but with care and attention the risks rarely materialise. The cars have crash protection, up-rated suspension and brakes, an on board fire extinguishing system and the driver wears fire proof overalls and a crash helmet – and the circuits have ample run-off areas, and legions of safety marshals and medical staff. It doesn’t mean they won’t crash but they will be far safer crashing on the track than on the local roads and much less likely to hurt themselves when they do.

And finally, on the issue of risk perception……….year after year statistics show that fishing is one of the most dangerous sports. Now who would have thought that!