Nearly one million UK workers suffering from Work Related stress, depression or anxiety - 11% rise

 

Check out this article in the IOSH website about the 11% rise in work related stress reported by the Health & Safety Executive in their annual report. Very worrying for employers and unions. The HSE believe that nearly half of these workers believe this is linked to the Covid pandemic, while 123,000 believe that their occupational ill health was caused by catching Covid at work (which I believe happened to me last year but luckily I haven't suffered any long term effects).

I also remember many reports during the pandemic on the massive underreporting by many employers of workers killed by exposure to Covid while at work.

The cost of ill health and injuries at work is estimated to cost the UK a staggering £18.3 billion (pre pandemic). I continue also to shocked by the 13,000 workers who died from work related diseases (nevermind the 123 workers killed in accidents - this figure does not include all those who died at work in traffic accidents). 

That means around 36 workers die every day from work related ill health. If terrorists killed 36 people in a single day, we would quite rightly be outraged and "demand something be done".

I will be bringing up this finding on work related stress with my employer as a trade union appointed safety rep and also will see if I can find out more about what is happening to Newham workers as a Councillor on our health scrutiny committee.

"Do you know about work-related stress? Take the test"

Hat tip to the Health & Safety Executive & IOSH. If you care about stress at work and what to do about it then give this short quiz a go.

"A report from Deloitte puts the total annual cost of poor mental health to UK employers at £56 billion – that’s 25 per cent up on 2019. Test your knowledge of this growing issue with the HSE quiz".

Click here

Why are cases of Covid in the workplace not being reported in the UK? Alice Martin

 
Check out this excellent article in the Guardian by PIRC researcher, Alice Martin, about the massive under reporting scandal of workplace deaths and infections from Covid.

"At Pensions and Investments Research Consultancy (PIRC), we’ve been tracking how Riddor (official employer reports to the Health & Safety Executive - HSE) is being used by companies in different sectors. Only 365 cases have been recorded by the HSE in food processing (despite us finding at least 2,666 cases reported in local media), and only two fatalities – a dubious figure given that our research of media reports alone have covered 11 deaths and we know of several others.

In warehousing, only 397 cases have been reported, and three fatalities. But there have been monthly outbreaks in the picking and packing facilities that serve online retailers and supermarkets. And we know there have been more deaths – the Office for National Statistics dataset of Covid-related deaths by occupation, compiled from the death register, has recorded 120 fatalities among warehouse workers (classed as “elementary storage occupations”). So where are the corresponding reports from employers?

One of the starkest discrepancies is that only 20 cases in “security and investigation activities” have been disclosed, and no fatalities. But male security guards have one of the highest Covid death rates across all occupational groups". 

Unless deaths and infections in the workplace from Covid are reported, investigated and then appropriate action taken, how can such workers be protected? 

Should not investors in such employer's be concerned about making sure that such employee stakeholders are protected and that there is no legal or reputational risk from doing nothing to tackle this scandal? 

Check out also the report from PIRC last September on "Unreported deaths"

Unreported Deaths - Covid_19 cases in UK Food Processing Plants

 A damning report by PIRC here into the failure of many UK food processing plants (the UK's biggest manufacturing sector) to properly report the deaths of their workers from Covid_19 to the Health & Safety Executive and to take effective action to protect them. 

Private sector pension trustees and Local Government Pension committees (and boards) ought to be pressing their fund managers and advisors to be taking this issue seriously. The reputational and legal risk to investors is potentially huge. 

It is about time the "S" in ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) is taken as seriously as "Environment" and "Governance". 

We have the term "#GreenWashing" to describe the prentence by some fund managers and advisors that they take Environmental issues seriously. 

What can we call those who don't take any real notice of #social issues? 

"Workplace safety law is top life saver" says Daily Telegraph

A very surprising article by a Torygraph Leader writer. What next I wonder? "Paying taxes is good for you!"? Hat tip TUC Risks e-letter 

"Britain’s workplace safety law has probably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, an article in the Telegraph has said.
Telegraph leader writer Philip Johnston noted: “Health and safety has become synonymous with nanny statism, interfering jobsworths, ludicrous litigation and risk aversion.

And yet the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA), which is 40 years old this summer, has arguably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, including the ban on drink driving or the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. It may well have reduced deaths by 5,000 or more.”

He added: “Forty years on, the Act has achieved what it set out to do, which is to insist upon high standards of health and safety in places of work. All we need do now is to apply the law with the common sense that inspired it in the first place.” The article mirrored comments earlier this year by HSE chair Judith Hackitt.

In a January blog she wrote: “This year will mark 40 years since Health and Safety at Work Act received Royal Assent. Arguably it is one of the best pieces of legislation on the statute books – although we know it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It has protected millions of British workers, and driven sharp reductions in incidents of occupational death, serious injury and ill health.”

This week the government’s latest attempt to weaken the lifesaving law, measures in the Deregulation Bill to exempt most of the self-employed from HASAWA’s scope, returned again to the House of Commons.

Ÿ  HSE news release.Ÿ  The Telegraph.Ÿ  IOSH news release.

SERTUC Health & Safety Seminar 2013

I arrived late and then had to leave early from this excellent health and safety seminar organised by SERTUC (South Eastern Trade Union Congress) which took place the other week at Congress House.

When I arrived Gerard Stilliard, a partner at trade union solicitors, Thompsons (seen
at London UNISON safety committee earlier this year) was speaking about the removal by the Government of Civil liability therefore returning workers protection to that of pre-1878 and the need to prove negligence. He finished his speech by thanking the audience and wishing us all "Good luck" in the future since "we will need it".

Next to speak was  Mike Wilcock, Head of Operations in the South East Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Mike (see picture above) became interested in health and safety because he trained as an industrial chemist and got blown up in a factory in France. He was unimpressed that the French safety inspector looking into this incident was more concerned about going to lunch with the factory owner.

He is very proud of the work of the HSE and concerned that due to reductions in the number of his staff, they now have act more as Policemen and are not "here to help". Real health & safety is not about banning conkers, its about stopping people being killed and injured. Regarding the recent reviews of safety legislation, he accepts that simplification and clarity is good. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. In Qatar 40 workers have already been killed building the 2022 World Cup stadiums. In the UK we had no deaths when building the Olympics. 

He can now only send inspectors into the highest risk employers. Those who kill and injure the most.  But what and who fills the gap? It has to be the professional safety advisers and trade unions safety reps. Use to have 70% proactive inspections now 70% plus are reactive. HSE will now charge employers £122 per hour if they have to write to them or issue a notice.

In Q&A I asked if trade union safety reps were being expected to help fill the gap caused by the reduction in HSE Inspectors, they should be given the power to issue provisional improvement notices? (PINS) This would give reps greater credibility. Martin disagreed and said that safety reps are already credible and often are better trained than managers. He also didn't think it was at all likely in the "current landscape".

Next speaker was Dr Jenny Harries,  Regional director South of England for Public Health. For her  good health is good for business and the workforce. Public health is everyone's business. See the Marmot Review. Clear link with good employment and good health.  Poor employment and unemployment with poor health.  The affluent tend to retire without disability and live longer.

Stress is still the biggest cause of sickness. Companies with higher levels of staff engagement have 13% lower staff turnover, they have less than half the UK average sickness absence rate and consistently outperform on the FTSE 100 (reference Sunday Times : Best companies to work for in the UK).

I then had to leave for another meeting which is a shame since as a union safety rep I want to know more about "well being" at work as well as avoiding direct injuries and diseases. It is an area that I don't think the unions or the employers do anywhere near enough on.

"Benefit cuts put frontline housing staff in danger"

A good article in Guardian Housing network page.  Except Councils and Housing Associations shouldn't just wring their hands about the obvious and foreseeable increased risks to their staff .

They should be actively consulting with staff and trade unions on revised risk assessments and violence at work procedures.

Health and Safety enforcement agencies (the HSE for Councils and Councils for Housing Associations) should also be making sure that staff safety is being taken seriously.

Housing managers do not realise that they face imprisonment and unlimited fines for serious breaches of health and safely laws (and that they could even lose their homes since the employer and insurance providers cannot pay such fines).

"Housing providers have become de facto enforcers of many benefit cuts and are finding themselves at greater at risk of harm.
 
The recent shooting of a housing association employee and bailiff during an eviction should be of real concern to housing providers, and a reminder that our frontline workers often have to deal with the consequences of policies created in Westminster.

Reform of our welfare system was long overdue, but the pursuit of savage cuts is having a profound impact. Housing associations are well-placed to understand and explain the real effects of welfare reform in action. This is an important part of our role; acting as advocates for our customers, many of whom are not able to speak out for themselves, is one of the ways in which we can influence policy and support social justice.

Benefit cuts are putting many people in severe debt and, as that debt is often owed to their landlord, an increase in evictions is inevitable.

Housing providers are not the authors of these policies, nor their advocates, but have become the de facto enforcers of the new regime, and it's our colleagues who are having to bear the consequences of people's anger.

'Why are you doing this to me?'

At Curo housing association, our money management adviser has had several meetings recently with tenants in tears who, faced with benefit cuts and caps, don't know how they will pay their rent or clear their existing rent arrears. A question often asked is: "Why are you doing this to me?"
The adviser told me: "In my experience, the tenant will pay the creditor who shouts the loudest, leaving shortfalls elsewhere to cover the rest of essential household expenditure."

As housing associations do not chase debts as aggressively as payday lenders, banks or mobile phone companies, rent arrears can build up as tenants fail to prioritise rent payment when faced with threatening notices from others.

We will do all we can for customers who turn to us for help, but we also have to deal with the realities of running a business and have a responsibility to safeguard the financial viability of our organisations, for the sake of all our customers and for those who will need affordable homes in the future. Evictions are an inevitable consequence of the welfare reforms, and it is our staff who come face to face with the backlash.

We're dealing with rising numbers of people wishing to move, increased arrears and greater demand for debt advice. On an individual level, where the real story is, we're seeing greater levels of anxiety and stress as people, many of them vulnerable, try to cope with serious hardship.

We are concerned for those who are really struggling to make ends meet, but also concerned for our own frontline staff who put themselves at risk of harm through their association with policies they had no part in forming.

Victor da Cunha is chief executive of Curo housing association".

UNISON NDC 12: Defend the attacks on health and safety standards

On Thursday lunchtime I went to this fringe. UNISON National Health and Safety Committee Chair Nick Green chaired, John Bamford, Health and Safety Adviser, Greater Manchester Hazards Campaign spoke first. Followed by Robert Baughan, National Officer for Health and Safety.  Who is deputising for Hope Daley who is on a secondment.

During the fringe I made comments on some key points on Twitter again which I have used on this post. It saves making notes.

John started by arguing that there is "no evidence that health and safety is a burden to to business. Evidence instead that it is a benefit to business". "Today it the Longest day. We now have had 3 longest days since Cameron became Prime Minister and 700 long days to come".

"The "Brown Book" which contains the 1977 Safety Representative & Safety Committee regulations is the most powerful piece of worker legislation in existence". Regarding the new "Fit notes" for people off sick. John said that the only decent one he had seen was the one from a GP that said an employee can return to work "if the employer sacks the manager that is bullying him".

There has been a "1/3 cut in proactive safety inspection" by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Tories are now talking about "Getting rid of all safety protection for "low risk" self employed". The "Tories argue that work is not dangerous anymore! The TUC estimate 20,000 work related deaths per year. While Hazards believe that it may be as high as 50,000 deaths" 

Robert spoke about how we cannot rely on the HSE. Many of their officers are very good but it is fighting for its survival. In the Q&A I made the point that not only are cuts to the HSE making work more dangerous but that in my sector front line housing staff will take the blame for trying to deal with the cuts in Housing benefit as will other local authority staff dealing with the impact of government cuts. Check out the Inside Housing report here.

Housing staff pay price of Cameron’s Britain

Inside Housing magazine published today research showing a huge year on increase in violence against housing staff.

“Spat at and slapped. Bitten. Punched. Forced to the ground and beaten. Every day in the UK a front line housing worker is falling victim to this kind of violent assault”

"Shadow housing minister Jack Dromey said: ‘Government cuts to housing are not only hitting tenants hard but putting at risk the safety of those who serve the public. To add insult to literal injury, changes such as the bedroom tax might see tenants vent their anger on those in the front line.’

While "Jake Berry, parliamentary private secretary to the housing minister, said: ‘Any assaults on housing staff are absolutely unacceptable’, and that Mr Dromey’s comments linking changes to benefits to violence were ‘utterly baseless and completely disgraceful’.

I was quoted as "John Gray, housing association branch secretary at public sector union Unison, said: ‘This is what happens in the everyday life of housing officers up and down the country.’

He added that tenants who fall into rent arrears as a result of the government’s welfare reforms and are threatened with eviction ‘won’t blame the coalition, they’ll blame the infantry’. So you can see which side of the debate I was on.

Since I think what Jack Dromey said is very true. Things will get even worse with the bedroom tax. Not only that but due to Coalition spending cuts in the Health and Safety Executive and local authority enforcement there will be less protection and support available for staff.

It wasn't reported that I had also said when interviewed by Inside Housing that part of the solution was  employers and trade union safety reps working together in partnership to protect staff.  However there were certain "rogue employers" who refuse to work with unions and frankly treat their staff with as much disdain as they do their residents . 

If assaults and injuries occur in organisations where risk assessments are not properly carried out or implemented, incidents not investigated or polices not enforced then the CEO and senior management teams of these organisations need to be targeted by the HSE/Local authorities and dealt with under the law as criminals in the same way as the actual perpetrators of the violence. 

Health and Safety Christmas Myths

Check out the list of Christmas "myths" (or rather complete porkies and distortions) about health and safety. This "Top 10" list was  compiled by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 

The same old (dare I say) chestnuts are here - such as children being banned from having snowball fights and carol singers being classified as a health and safety risk.  This is indeed a load of old nonsense but this has nothing to do with safety regulations.  Some organisations just use 'elf n' safety as an excuse. While many Tory politicians and their media just make things up about safety issues in order to make cheap political points.

If trivialising health and safety wasn't such a serious issue you would be amused by the attempt of the Daily Telegraph who covered the story here as some sort of attack on "health and safety killjoys" yet completely missing the point that the problem is not the safety regulations but myth making and grossly inaccurate reporting by...(amongst many others)... The Daily Telegraph.  See their coverage here of Brownies being banned from carol singing. Never mind the rubbish put out by its political stable mate the Daily Mail. 

Finally check out this piece of common sense written last year by IOSH Chair, Rob Strange. 

SERTUC Health & Safety Seminar 2011

This seminar in Congress House had Hugh Robertson (TUC) and Judith Hackitt (HSE) speaking and was chaired by SERTUC regional

secretary, Megan Dobney (right of picture).

Hugh made the case that under this government, the cuts to the HSE and getting rid of essential safety enforcement and regulations, will lower standards and result in more work related accidents and illnesses.

In the Q&A that followed I said that things are very depressing but trying to make a small positive out of a huge negative - the best safety protection at work comes from trade union organisation. Many workers currently have completely unrealistic expectations of their legal rights and safeguards. We have to tell them that they will have even less rights in the future. So to protect themselves at work they must join a union and the union must recruit and organise the workforce to make things safe.

Judith accepted that there was unprecedented change but that the cuts do not have to mean that people will be less safe. The HSE is going to try and cut the backroom not the front line. Reviews can be a good thing. The aim is to remove unnecessary bureaucracy not protection. 

In the Q&A there was some "heated" comments which as usual Judith took on the chin and batted straight back. Megan had to remind people that they were "entitled to make forceful statements but must remember to remain on the right side of civility" (a wonderful Chair's intervention which I will steal). Judith did speak out against low fines for criminal breaches of safety laws. She would rather that there was much higher fines but that is the job of the Courts. She thought it was a disgrace that the death of a member of the public was worth more than a worker. She ended by saying the HSE were "not the enemy". That is true. 

While I do expect more people to be injured at work (and worse) due to the Tory and Lib Dem cuts in the HSE budget and the getting rid of essential protections, we have to blame the coalition and not the civil servants. Who at times have to implement and defend the indefensible.

I will post later on the Lofstedt report.

UNISON health and safety seminar 2011: Judith Hackett on the cuts and charging for enforcement?

Today the national UNISON Health & Safety Seminar took place at the ICC in Birmingham. There were around 250 delegates from all over the UK and all parts of UNISON. Assistant General Secretary (and member of HSE Board) Liz Snape chaired the seminar. She told us that UNISON has 12,000 safety reps protecting members and although our work is often invisible and behind the scenes are role is absolutely vital. Our keynote speaker was Judith Hackett (left) who is the Chair of the Health & Safety Executive who was described as someone “who says it as it is”. This reminded me of the last time I had heard Judith speak.

Judith also thanked safety reps for the important work that they do. The core mission of the HSE is still to prevent death, serious injuries and work related ill-health. She believes that despite the cuts and recent Coalition reports and pronouncements they still fall with the broad HSE strategy that was started in 2008. Safety reps and managers need to lead in safety matters. Need Joint working such as the “Safe and Sound at work - do your bit” course. In which there is joint training with reps and management. Finding solutions together rather than being confrontational. .  

The Comprehensive Spending Review meant a 35% saving on public funding over the next 4 years. However, a bit of context. 35% cuts are the norm in the Department of Work & Pensions. So we are not being dealt with harsher than anyone else under this remit. She accepts that many of us think there should not be any cuts at all.

1/3 of their work is claimed back already from industry. The cuts apply to the rest. Moving the HSE headquarters from London to Bootle has saved money. 200 HSE staff left in a voluntary exist scheme recently. Rationalisation of estate and cuts in back office services will result in further savings. Recognise the importance of saving front line services as far as we can. Will not change in high risk industries but will look to modernise. Other services we will not change are reactive work including inspections and responses to complaints and reports. Reactive will remain unaffected but somewhere pain is inevitable. Numbers of inspections will have to be will have to be reduced in some areas. Have to target inspections with regard to risk. Compare other possible methods of interventions than individual premise inspections. In some workplaces, pro active inspections remain the best but in other sectors evidence points to effectiveness of other interventions. We will not take decisions in isolation, we will speak to stakeholders. We will learn as we go on. Over time a company or sector may improve performance and receive less attention or if they deteriorate they will receive more. 

On Monday the Minister said the clear intention is to take tough line with those who flout the law. See the idea of cost recovery from firms who do this. We can discuss what “low risk” is. However “low risk” does not mean no risk. In future we may have a supporting role rather than leading role in the production of guidance. Charging for HSE inspections. This is a fair deal. It should be welcomed by vast majority of employers since they claim they are complaint so they have nothing to worry about. It only penalises those who don’t comply. It brings a level playing field with costs. It is another form of enforcement. We may charge for some advice. But will not go back on our policy to make all information and guidance free to download from our web site. Our ideas need to develop and work out the detail and we need to consult. So context again: there is not a 35% reduction in everything we do. We already recover costs so it seems fair to extend this. It puts an increased onus on those who at fault. So they should be charged for the costs we bear to put their house in order.  

Summary. Foolish to deny times are tough. What is still constant is that we both share similar concerns and a “shared mission”. We won’t agree on everything but we all agree on this. Now we need your support and all of you to play your part. To be our eyes and ears. This is not where you want to be but despite the problems we all need to work together and do our bit.

In the Q&A she was asked is it sending the wrong message by saying office’s are “low risk” when many office workers suffer from high stress levels and asbestos is found in offices? She said again that low risk did not mean no risk. It is obvious that the level of risk in a corner shop will be different from that found in a Timber cutting yard.

I asked whether she was suggesting that safety reps should be taking the place of HSE inspectors and if she envisage a “beefed up” role for reps? If so this would maybe help change the governments mind about cutting inspections? She responded by repeating our importance as being their eyes and ears.  

She confirmed that the “Killer Asbestos” campaigns will continue and that she was not sure whether a reduction in RIDDOR reporting from 3 to 7 days was a good idea. But we need to review RIDDOR since there are a lot of problems with it such as under reporting. She dismissed the question that did the cuts mean that the HSE was now a toothless tiger by saying that the organisation has delivered amongst the best health & safety record in the world. Things are not perfect but you should not forget this. The safety system in the UK does not depend on the HSE alone. You do yourself a disservice if you think this. 

'elf & Safety Posters - Falling from Height - Soviet and HSE

Picture of Soviet Union 1930's health and safety poster and modern day HSE equivalent.

Some dangers do not change.

Check out the first historical safety poster in this series here.

'elf and Safety Poster - Soviet Style (1)

Well, I suppose it makes the point in a rather graphic Socialist realism kind of way.

Not the sort of stuff that we would expect to see on our dear old HSE web site but it does make the point.

Would such realistic posters make a difference to health and safety at the workplace? 

Would it change or influence behaviours?

Or do such images just "scapegoat" and lay the blame on individual workers for accidents rather than significant failings in the Company Safety Managment system in place at the time?

Discuss!

(you can guess my view)

Getting rid of 'elf & safety cowboys?

Some sort of "good news" on the safety front for a change.  IOSH report here that a new scheme to accredit "Health and Safety" consultants will be announced in the "next few weeks".  This scheme will be chaired at first by the HSE. 

Currently anyone can call themselves a "safety consultant" and small organisations in particular are prone to being ripped by inexperienced unqualified "cowboys". 

"IOSH members working as consultants will have to be Chartered to join the scheme, so that clients can be confident that they will get advice from someone with a degree level qualification in safety, practical experience, and a formal commitment to Continuing Professional Development".

But the scheme will be "voluntary" and therefore have no real teeth.  Big companies usually (not always) get competent advice.  Small companies and organisations will continue to be sold unsuitable "off the shelf" safety policies and risk assessments that will gather dust on office sleves.   Guess what size organisations tend to have most deaths and serious injuries at work?

This is I suppose a start and better than nothing but it needs to be put on a legal footing and properly regulated.  It should be a criminal offence to sell safety advice without adequate experience and qualifications.  The HSE need to continue to Chair and lead this scheme.  

Trade union safety reps should check on the competency of all advisers employed by their organisation (see SRSC regs Brown Book reg 4A).

"Managers behaviour are key" to getting sick workers back to work

Remember the BBC comedy sketch when Basil Fawlty suggested Sybil that she should enter “Mastermind” and her specialist subject should be “the bleeding obvious”?

This recent "back to basis" guidance on what Managers should do with long term sick workers is from the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personal & Development supported by the Health & Safety Executive amongst others)

"Staying in touch regularly with the individual while they are off sick

• Reassuring them that their job is safe

• Preventing them from rushing back to work before they are ready

• Providing a phased return to work

• Helping them adjust to the workplace at a gradual pace

• Asking the individual's permission to keep the team informed on their condition

• Encouraging colleagues to support the individual's rehabilitation

• Holding regular meetings to discuss the individual's condition and the possible impact on their work"

I would add regular consultation with trade union reps as also being key but all of this is a welcome start.

"We didn't Vote to Die at Work"

I've just joined this health and safety Facebook group set up by Hazards.

This is what it is about...'We didn't vote to die at work' is the Hazards Campaign's response to the Con-Dem government attacks on workplace safety and health. We need to fight against: deregulation; the misrepresentation of health and safety as silly red tape instead of our human right; the lie that health and safety is a burden on business; and cuts in enforcement that are proposed by the new coalition government.

The coalition is moving on many fronts, including Lord Young's review of health and safety, Vince Cable's deregulatory review of all regulation, Nick Clegg's requests to name a law to be cut, and the overall massive cuts in budgets which will reduce funding for the enforcement agencies - the HSE, local authorities, the rail regulator and others. The Health Protection Agency, which covers many occupation-related issues like radiation exposure and pandemics, has already gone. Health and safety is not a burden on business. Good health and safety pays for itself. When it comes to poor health and safety, business does not face so significant a burden - because business externalises the cost onto us all, paying less than 25 per cent of the costs arising from work-related deaths, diseases and injuries. Instead, it engages in cost shifting to the victims, their families, the public purse and the community as a whole".

Health & Safety Executive CEO Geoffrey Podger at IOSH 10

Geoffrey Podger, Chief Executive of the Health and Safety Executive on YouTube! Whatever next? He is interviewed about the new HSE strategy at IOSH 10 conference.

It is only 2 minutes 17 seconds long so if you have never seen or heard the senior Government official in charge of British Health & Safety - have a click.

It’s not exactly aimed at the average trade union safety rep but he does mention the role of “worker involvement” and the involvement of trade unions in the new strategy. “Partnership” is still key but he states he is concerned with “outcomes” of policies and making sure that “safe working” is built into every day work practices.

Sometimes you have to say "this is just crap and you know it”.

Plain speaking Judith Hackitt, Chair of the Health & Safety Executive tells it as it is. This was in response to a question from a trade union safety rep at today’s joint SERTUC/HSE safety conference “The Healthy Workplace”.

The rep asked what he should do when he gets fobbed off by managers with silly arguments and excuses. Ms Hackett thought that the excuses sounded like a “rich trapeze of rubbish” then suggested using the C**P argument.

I don’t remember reading this negotiating advice in any HSE pamphlets or even during my TUC safety courses? As branch health & safety officer I hesitate to recommend this to UNISON safety reps but I suppose since this advice is from the Chair of the H-S-E! So who am I to differ? (this is a Joke, repeat Joke)

The conference was very good. The emphasis was on preventing work related ill health and promoting well being rather than traditional safety issues. Dealing with health issues is usually more complex than safety.

The day kicked off with a speech by the SERTUC regional Secretary Megan Dobney. Megan pointed that even in a recession you do not cut health & safety. Also the widespread disappointment that there was no mention in recent Queen’s speech about asbestos and plural plaques.

Next was Judith (2nd from left) who talked about the new HSE strategy and 3 key issues. 1. The importance of enforcement action to achieve justice. 2. All HSE leaflets are now available for free on the internet and 3. Safety campaigning - especially on asbestos. There are 2 million suffering from work related ill health. Apart from the suffering and emotional pain the business case for dealing with this is compelling. Prevention is better than dealing with it afterwards. Health more important than safety. Need to raise our game on health.

Ed Sweeney the Chair of ACAS was the next main speaker (on right). A healthy workplace has good communication and consultation; equality and dignity; good relations with trade union reps and their organisations. It is useless having excellent procedures and policies if they are not implemented. Or Managers not trained or supported on how to properly implement. He stressed the importance of good line management and importance of employee engagement. The role of the rep is an advocacy, influencing, supporting, training and development role in providing good working places for people in the UK (and the rest).

In the Q&A my former TUC Occupational H&S course (1999-2000) colleague Phil Hood asked about the risk to existing safety regulations if the Tories are elected. A Tory think tank is proposing that if a company carries out an “independent” inspection then HSE inspectors will be barred from inspecting them. Ms Hackitt said that companies complain that the HSE doesn’t carry out enough inspections! She pointed out that she came from a chemical engineering and business background and believes the role of safety reps is vital and it would be fundamentally wrong to prevent enforcement.

My question to her was about what the HSE can do about the rogue consultants who just sell businesses (especially SME) unsuitable off the shelf; one size fits all safety policies which are not consulted upon with workers never mind safety reps? Judith agreed that she had been astonished when she took up her present post that there is no legal regulation of those who call themselves safety advisors. She thought it was not a HSE responsibility but agreed that companies are spending thousands and being ripped off. She thought that the IOSH and the other safety professional organisations need to sort things out and there needs to be a way to discipline such rogue consultants. She pointed out that she had a degree in engineering but was not deemed competent in her field until she had proven herself at work.

The blacklisted and disgracefully victimised construction safety rep Dave Smith (my former TUC tutor) asked Judith why when he was sacked from job after job, because of his blacklisting and safety rep duties, he would contact the HSE for advice only to be told that this was an industrial relations matter, not a safety matter and they were unable to help. Judith confirmed that blacklisting because you were a safety rep was indeed a matter for the HSE. She apologised if wrong advice had been given in the past. She pointed out the (unspecified) action that the HSE had taken against the North Sea offshore energy rigs companies who had “deemed” certain union safety reps NRB (not required back).

Which raised more questions than answers but I feel that most of us (IMO) felt that Ms Hackitt would have a very sharp (and unprintable?) opinion of companies or organisations who in the future victimise or blacklist safety reps.

This was the morning session. I will hopefully soon post on the afternoon which was also really useful. But I’m just a little behind on a number of posts at the mo.

Tate & Lyle fined £270,000 over workers' death in Silvertown

I came across today this Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report on the conviction last Friday of sugar giant Tate & Lyle over the death of one of its workers in 2004. Tate & Lyle have a refining factory in Silvertown and are an important employer in my borough Newham. They generally have a very good reputation. I am however shocked by three things about this avoidable death.

Firstly the “accident” occurred in March 2004 and has only now come to Court? Justice delayed is Justice denied?

Secondly the victim 53 year old Keith Webb died while he was in the cab of in a 9 tonne digger which was being hoisted by a crane from the dock inside a massive raw sugar container ship. The digger came away from the crane and crashed into the ship and then into the harbour killing Keith. Check out this article in the Independent.

How anyone ever thought that it was a safe practice to transport both driver and machine via a crane at the same time is beyond me? The risk must have been clearly and wholly foreseeable? The company has been fined £270,000 (and £90,000 costs) for serious managment failings but why hasn’t anyone been held individually responsible for this death? Hopefully recent changes to Corporate Manslaughter law will change things for the future (and help prevent such incidents happening again).

The Judge on Friday held that the death was the direct result of the company "failing to discharge its duty". It had not "provided and managed a proper means of access to ships being unloaded". He said it had also "failed to manage and control its staff properly to prevent being carried in vehicles lifted by crane". Although there were guidelines in place regarding the use of ladders "the unavoidable conclusion is that the actual practice on the site was that instructions were sometime ignored". "This is a serious failure of management and supervision for which the company must bear responsibility, and I sentence on that basis."

Last and not at all least thirdly "Above all, however, this is a human tragedy as Mr. Webb leaves a widow, two grown up children, and two grandchildren, one of whom he was sadly never able to meet. This terrible accident should never have been allowed to happen." HSE Inspector John Crooks.

Mr. Webb's widow Avril, who was present in court, said: "Although Keith died five years ago, for me, it's like yesterday. My husband was ripped from my life, from our family's lives. There was no illness to prepare us for our loss. "I'm still trying to fill the huge void left by his death, still trying to pick up the threads of a life that I can no longer enjoy. I am half of a whole person. I am no longer part of a couple."

Later this month it is European Health and Safety Week which will aptly concentrate on making sure that all work activities are covered by suitable and adequate risk assessments.