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. 

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. 

Striking over Safety

Strange, last month the “Daily Hate” launched a typically sensationalist attack upon the Health and Safety Executive “nanny state gone absolutely bonkers” et al. In this Jackanory they referred to a largely made up non-story about Tower Hamlets Council “banning staff from putting up Christmas decorations and lights in case they got hurt”.

In the real world, UNISON and GMB safety reps have actually been trying to persuade the Council not to remove safety screens, from the reception desks in the newly refurbished “Homeless Persons Unit” (HPU). The HPU assesses people to see if they are eligible to be rehoused by the council, if they are “homeless” and “vulnerable”. The vast majority of applicants are perfectly decent who are not any threat to staff. However, there is a small minority of homeless applicants (or their friends and family) who can be extremely violent and threatening. Management say that they want to improve the “customer environment” for users and that screens can even provoke violence. Everyone wants to work and provide quality services in clean, bright and modern offices but not at the expense of safety.

The HPU has always had security screens because of the potential risk. In the past screens were removed from local housing offices and “One Stop Shop’s”. However, they had to be reinstalled after a series of assaults and attacks on staff. One of our members on reception was punched in the head and knocked to the floor. She was severally injured and off sick for several months. In another incident a man with an axe jumped over a counter. Staff managed to retreat into a lockable room while he smashed up the office with his axe.

When I last posted on this issue staff had just voted to carry out an indicative strike ballot. In a meeting on Thursday, the results came back from UNISON members, 44 in favour of strike action and 5 against. So we will go for an official ballot. Members at the meeting also voted to support anyone who does not feel safe enough to work on an open reception and in favour of a protest (see picture) on Monday 21 May, when the new unit is due to open. Further details to follow.

On Wednesday 16 May UNISON has employed the respected health and safety specialist, Mick Holder, (member of IOSH) from the London Hazards Centre (LHC) to carry out an inspection of the new office. If management won’t pay any attention to what the people who carry out the job think then perhaps they might take notice of him and start thinking outside the box.

Another irony is that in recent years, the Council has built a number of “Idea Store’s” which manage Adult learning and Libraries services for the borough. These Stores have been very poplar. However, due to violent attacks and hooliganism, they have been forced to employ licensed doormen as security guards. I have spoken to these guards, many of whom are ex-military, who after their shift at an “idea store” go on to work at night clubs wearing body armour. So we have the ridiculous situation that licensed security guards are employed to protect library staff while the HPU will just have untrained “customer service assistants” (who have been told they are really “meeters and greeters”) to protect them.