Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Martyh, it's probably a good idea to read these type of reports before citing them as some sort of placebo for what you think you want to hear.
By way of example I give you Lord Youngs comment contained in the Executive Summary, paragraph one thereof wherein he states thus:-
"In my review of the workings of this Act, none of my recommendations applies to hazardous occupations where the present system, although probably overly bureaucratic, is nevertheless effective in reducing accidents at work".
See what he did there? Yes, that's right, he just kept you in work replacing the windows and doors in thousands of council property dwellings for the forseeable future.
Are you in a rush to end up on the dole?
|
I have nothing at all against H&S that is sensible and is in place for a genuine reason as it has without doubt saved thousands of lives .I do however strongly disagree with elements of the legislation that apply in the non-hazardous part of my job and there are plenty of them .It would be nice to have a simplified uniform implementation of H&S regulation across all industries not relying on different interpretations of the same rule at different locations .
A classic example ,(i believe i have used this before in a different thread) .On some sites we can use ladders as hanging out of windows to work on the outside is deemed dangerous (which in my opinion is correct)on other sites no ladders are permitted not even step ladders we are told during induction that we will have to hang out the window .This is the type of ludicrous conflict that i would like to see eliminated .
There are plenty of other cases that happen every day that i could quote ,but i do take your point that chiefly the revue is targeting the overzealous officials that block school trips,or force companies to have H&S officers doing costly risk assessments to move a filing cabinet