But it’s just common sense ….

When I’m delivering health & safety training I’m often faced with a response along the lines of “We don’t need health & safety laws because health & safety is just a matter of common sense.”

Well, they’re sort of right … in a way.

To begin with, it’s perfectly true that health & safety is based on common sense, and for evidence of this all you have to do is look at the requirements of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.

The obligations placed on the employer include a requirement to provide a safe place of work; to provide safe working practices; to provide appropriate training and information; and so on.

All common sense stipulations, are they not? Of course they are, but time and time again these basic conditions are not met.

Construction sites with no edge protection to prevent people falling off the roof; workers being given equipment which is not suitable or is not properly maintained; staff working unsupervised on tasks which they don’t properly understand; and so it goes on.

And it’s not just the employers who are at fault.

I recently saw a worker wearing a duffel coat over his reflective safety jacket, and I’ve come across a construction worker, on the top of a building with no fencing, whose safety harness had an arrest strap longer than the drop. This meant that he’d have to be a metre below ground level before the harness pulled tight and “saved” him!

If it’s all just a matter of common sense then why do people put their lives at risk by doing such things, actions which are patently absurd?

Behavioural psychology is a complex subject, but, sadly, the obvious conclusion which can be drawn is that common sense just isn’t that common – which is why we need health & safety legislation.

It’s only taken me about seven years …..

In October 2011 I was formally admitted as a Chartered Member of the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health (CMIOSH) and, shortly afterwards, I was accepted onto the UK Register of Occupational Safety & Health Consultants.

Bearing in mind that I started my health & safety studies in late 2004 (with the NEBOSH General Certificate) a quick calculation shows that it’s taken me seven years to get to this professional pinnacle.

Which is roughly the same time as it takes to qualify as a doctor!

Next stop a Fellowship …..? Just a thought!

The Gatwick effect

I recently watched a documentary on Gatwick Airport showing how they battled to keep open in the face of blizzards last year. Ultimately, as history shows, they lost the fight and the airport ceased operations for some 24 hours.

It was a very interesting programme in its own right (okay, I admit it – I like aircraft!) but what really struck me was the unassuming attitude of one of the managers as he looked back over the closure and its impact on the business.

He readily admitted that closure of the airport was never a matter to be taken lightly; and that doing so had cost the company tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of pounds in lost revenue; and then he made a comment which apparently summed up his point of view.

He stated, without drama, that ultimately it was all about safety. If the runway was unsafe to use, and if they were unable to make it safe, then so be it. They were duty bound to cease operations regardless of the financial impact.

Well said that man!

What intrigues me is why other companies – in other sectors – cannot follow the Gatwick example and put the safety of lives before profit. Time and again there are cases brought before the Courts in which people have been injured, or even killed, because the employer has been cutting corners in safety to save a few quid.

A case that springs to mind is that of the Moseley Rubber Company who were based in Manchester (http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-nw-054moseleyrubber.htm).

The manufacturing process they used to make rubber rollers involved a piece of equipment called an autoclave – essentially an oven working at high pressures and temperatures. As one would expect, equipment like this needs to be regularly serviced to ensure it’s working safely – indeed, such maintenance is a legal requirement – but it seems from evidence tended at the subsequent prosecution that the company weren’t overly concerned about such things.

Matters came to a head in February 2008 when the autoclave exploded with such force that the concrete roof of the factory was lifted bodily from its supports and a 5-foot girder was thrown across the factory floor.

Had a member of staff not been away on an early coffee break then the girder, which landed on his machine and destroyed it, would also have hit and killed him.  As it was he was still hit by flying debris and injured.

During the prosecution proceedings evidence was heard that the company, instead of having the autoclave regularly serviced as legally required, had instead simply cancelled the maintenance contract. Consequently the equipment had not been maintained properly for over ten years – so it’s little wonder it eventually expired in such a dramatic and dangerous way.

Greed, coupled with a disinterest in safety, nearly led to a man dying – and to unnecessary tragedy blighting the lives of his wife, four children and ten grandchildren.

If only more employers would embrace the “Gatwick effect”!

Chep UK and Royal Mail (Vehicle Services) – what do they know that maybe you don’t?

This is a reprint of a blog written for, and at the specific request of, Argyll Lone Worker (http://www.argyll-loneworker.co.uk/). Andy Farrall is delighted to be working with Argyll as a specialist adviser to their clients on health & safety issues.

 

What they know, and have proved,  is that effective health & safety management – often maligned as bureaucratic nonsense – is actually a very good way of increasing their profits.

Let me repeat that bombshell: good health & safety management makes you money!

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? It goes against all the pundits and soothsayers who’ll tell anybody within earshot that “elf’n’safety” is a waste of time; that it’s all “common sense”; that it’s just mindless paper pushing by clipboard jockies; that …. well, you’ve no doubt heard them all before.

But – shock/ horror – the prophets are wrong about the profits! (Sorry, couldn’t resist it).

Don’t just take my word for it. You can see their case studies, and those of other companies both large and small, on the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/casestudy.htm

Put simply, the companies in these studies have proved that money invested in effective safety management can result in a substantial positive effect on their bottom line.

In the case of Royal Mail, for example, a system costing about £160,000 per year to implement and manage resulted in savings in the region of £370,000 per year, i.e. an increase in actual profits of about £210,000 per year.

However, what does not appear on the bottom line are the indirect benefits of having effective safety management in place. So let’s look at these benefits in a bit more detail.

It follows that if you manage health & safety effectively then the chances of your staff being involved in an accident – especially those staff involved in lone working, such as delivery drivers – are greatly reduced. That, after all, is the whole point of health & safety.

And if the chances of an accident occurring are minimised then the possibility of the company having to face subsequent legal action is also minimised. So far, so good.

But, is legal action for a health & safety breach really that much of a threat to the company? Or is it just like getting a corporate parking ticket – an annoying irritation, so you simply pay up and move on?

Oh, if only it were that simple! But since when has a parking ticket – even one you’ve paid – had the power to follow you like a curse for maybe five years?

You see, that’s what can happen if your company is convicted of a breach of health & safety.

Not only is there the fine to consider (up to £20,000 per breach at the Magistrates’ Court, or an unlimited amount at the Crown Court) but there is also the effect on the company’s ability to gain further work.

Let me explain this often forgotten point.

If your company tenders for work with corporate clients, government departments or local authorities then you will be asked to complete a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) as part of the tender process. And within that PQQ will be a question about your company’s health & safety history.

Oh dear! This is where your health & safety conviction really starts to bite.

There will be a question asking you if your company has been convicted of a breach of health & safety within the past (probably five) years. You’ll have to answer “Yes” to this question because the company’s conviction is a matter of public record and will be shown on the HSE prosecutions database (http://www.hse.gov.uk/Prosecutions/).

And what will your prospective client do with your application once you’ve admitted your conviction for a breach of health & safety? In all probability they’ll file your application in the nearest waste bin.

And that will keep on happening while the conviction remains “live” as far as the PQQ is concerned.

Let’s be clear that your potential client is not being superior, or self-righteous. It’s because they have a clear legal obligation to employ only competent contractors, and it’s difficult to defend as competent a contractor with a proven track record for breaching health & safety. They have no option.

There are other factors to consider, such as minimising the chance of being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, or facing civil proceedings seeking damages for negligence, but space is limited and these may be topics for further articles.

So, with our limited space in mind, let’s take stock. What have we established (with the help of numerous companies large and small)?

We have seen clear evidence that effective safety management can actually improve the bottom line, and we have also considered (albeit briefly) the potentially catastrophic damage (in both the short term and long term) that a breach of health & safety can cause to a company’s viability.

Now it’s up to you.

You may still wish to believe the soothsayers and the urban myths; or you may choose to go with hard facts and cold logic. It’s your choice, but bear in mind that Chep UK, the Royal Mail, and all the others have already made their decision ……!!

“Fire the contractor!” – the sequel

As I mentioned in my last post [So I said: "Fire the contractor ....!"] one of my clients recently had a serious problem with a contractor whose attitude to safe working at height was appalling.

Well, there has been a very interesting development.

The CEO of my client company, acting on my advice, rang the contractor’s head office and spelled out in no uncertain terms that she was very unhappy with their cavalier attitude to safety. She made it perfectly clear that, assuming they wanted any further work from her company, they needed to review their safety practices and start taking health & safety seriously.

Today the contractors came back to make some adjustments to the communications lasers on the roof. Not only was the technician properly equipped with safety kit, he was accompanied by his managing director who apologised unreservedly to my client’s CEO for their previous failings!

Makes it all worthwhile somehow

So I said: “Fire the contractor …!”

I recently had a call from a client asking me for health & safety advice about working at height and the management of contractors.

Their problem arose from a visit they’d just had from a contractor who was fitting a new data transmission system for their computers. The proposed system required a data link between their building and a second building a couple of miles away across the city, and for technical reasons that link was being established via a laser transmitter on their roof.

So far, so good.

Now, let me make it perfectly clear that my client had no problem with the use of a laser link to transmit data, i.e. they weren’t worried about dazzling the pigeons, or anything like that. Their problem arose from the attitude of the specialist contractors who had been commissioned to install the laser on the roof, in particular in their attitude to safety.

My client takes health & safety management seriously (I can say this with authority because I’ve trained a number of their managers!) so when the contractor first arrived on site they were given clear instructions that they were not to access the roof area without a safety briefing – instructions which they simply ignored.

This was a worrying start to the day because the client’s building is old and the roof has very limited room in which to move about safely– one false step and you’ll nose dive three floors onto spiked railings. So you can understand my client’s concern that the contractors had just taken it upon themselves to stroll around the roof without waiting for the safety briefing.

What made the situation worse – and increased my client’s concerns – was the fact that the contractors were totally unconcerned and unrepentant when taken to task for not waiting for the briefing. In fact they went so far as to claim that they only worked in accordance with their own risk assessments (which they had failed to produce) and would only use safety harnesses if the client requested that harnesses be used.

This is an appalling attitude from a supposedly professional company who spend their days working at height installing data transmitters.

The first point to note is that they cannot ignore the client’s risk assessments or safety instructions. The client has a legal responsibility to ensure the contractor’s safety while on their site, and the contractor has a legal responsibility to cooperate with the client.

Second area of concern – and this is the issue which really set my alarm bells ringing – was the cavalier remark about harnesses only being used if the customer asked for them!

Safety harnesses are vital equipment designed and used to protect life. They are not intended as part of a glorified PR exercise, being used as cynical window dressing to pacify an anxious client.

That a supposedly professional installation company could even think of treating safety equipment in this way horrifies me. Their attitude is not just arrogant or foolish, but is bordering on the criminal since it can only be a matter of time before their luck runs out and somebody is killed.

If an opportunity arises I shall certainly speak to their management to point out the foolishness of their ways, but in the meantime my concern has to be for my client. Under UK legislation they have a responsibility to ensure that contractors working on their site behave in a safe manner, and this particular contractor is proving to be a liability.

Hence my advice to my client’s CEO, as reflected in the title of this article: “Fire the contractor …!”

The mystery of the green box ….

UK businesses of all kinds have a green box on the wall. Why?

The reason can be found in my latest article on Constructaquote:

http://www.constructaquote.com/2492/section.aspx/1475/First-aid-It%E2%80%99s-More-Than-Just-A-Green-Box