Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Shirking from home
Posted by: Bofem Dec 2 2010, 02:12 PM
My staff are all "working from home" today, and I am sat in this empty office wondering where I'm going wrong 
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 2 2010, 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Bofem @ Dec 2 2010, 02:12 PM) 
My staff are all "working from home" today, and I am sat in this empty office wondering where I'm going wrong
If your office is in the Newbury/Reading/ Wokingham vicinity then there is no reason why anyone should not have turned up for work. If Hampshire however then they could be justified. Perhaps you need to have a "word"
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Dec 2 2010, 02:56 PM
I made it to the office in Newbury but my colleagues living in Basingstoke could not get in. Our offices in London have closed early but only a few staff managed to get in.
I originally put "skeleton staff" and then knew what a clobbering I would get for that one !!! 
Posted by: Jayjay Dec 2 2010, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 2 2010, 02:19 PM)
If your office is in the Newbury/Reading/ Wokingham vicinity then there is no reason why anyone should not have turned up for work. If Hampshire however then they could be justified. Perhaps you need to have a "word"
Your staff also have to live in Newbury/Reading/Wokingham vicinity.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 2 2010, 03:15 PM
QUOTE (Jayjay @ Dec 2 2010, 02:58 PM)
Your staff also have to live in Newbury/Reading/Wokingham vicinity.
Yes of course.
Posted by: user23 Dec 2 2010, 07:23 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 2 2010, 02:19 PM)
If your office is in the Newbury/Reading/ Wokingham vicinity then there is no reason why anyone should not have turned up for work. If Hampshire however then they could be justified. Perhaps you need to have a "word"
Flexible working isn't just for poor weather you know. Many organisation allow their staff to work from home all year round.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 2 2010, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 2 2010, 07:23 PM)
Flexible working isn't just for poor weather you know.
Many organisation allow their staff to work from home all year round.
Many organisation allow their staff to work from home all year round.
...and quite a few are beginning to see that like 'flexitime' it's a great mistake! Flexitime and home working are incompatible with customer service.
Posted by: ossy1 Dec 2 2010, 09:25 PM
QUOTE (pinkfluffyclouds @ Dec 2 2010, 02:56 PM)
I made it to the office in Newbury but my colleagues living in Basingstoke could not get in. Our offices in London have closed early but only a few staff managed to get in.
I originally put "skeleton staff" and then knew what a clobbering I would get for that one !!!
I originally put "skeleton staff" and then knew what a clobbering I would get for that one !!!
Interesting, i managed to get from Basingstoke to Newbury!!
Posted by: Jayjay Dec 2 2010, 10:20 PM
On the news last night it showed a motorist who had called out the RAC as they could not negotiate a small hill to their house. A cover was put over the tyre and away they went. Does anyone know what this device was and where you can get one. It looked like a soft fabric strip that went around the tyre and secured across the hub with a soft spiders web appaearance. A little like snow chains, but you would be able to use them on cleared roads as there are no spikes.
Posted by: Darren Dec 2 2010, 10:29 PM
QUOTE (Jayjay @ Dec 2 2010, 10:20 PM)
On the news last night it showed a motorist who had called out the RAC as they could not negotiate a small hill to their house. A cover was put over the tyre and away they went. Does anyone know what this device was and where you can get one. It looked like a soft fabric strip that went around the tyre and secured across the hub with a soft spiders web appaearance. A little like snow chains, but you would be able to use them on cleared roads as there are no spikes.
Not sure about that, but Snow Socks for a similar thing. Roofbox.co.uk but I wouldn't expect them to have many left now.
Posted by: x2lls Dec 3 2010, 04:04 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 2 2010, 08:45 PM)
...and quite a few are beginning to see that like 'flexitime' it's a great mistake! Flexitime and home working are incompatible with customer service.
Utter rubbish.... I worked for a major IT services company for over five years and it worked just fine.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 3 2010, 06:30 AM
QUOTE (x2lls @ Dec 3 2010, 04:04 AM)
Utter rubbish.... I worked for a major IT services company for over five years and it worked just fine.
Certainly not my experience. Just one example, one organisation I took over used a service company who did this, thought they provided a fantastic service...they did...until you saw the results...and the cost. Must admit, much is down to management; but doing that by remote control is awkward. As firms with 'off shore' call centres have also now discovered.
Posted by: Cognosco Dec 3 2010, 09:09 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 3 2010, 06:30 AM)
Certainly not my experience. Just one example, one organisation I took over used a service company who did this, thought they provided a fantastic service...they did...until you saw the results...and the cost. Must admit, much is down to management; but doing that by remote control is awkward. As firms with 'off shore' call centres have also now discovered.
Usually the computer says no!!!
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 3 2010, 09:15 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 2 2010, 07:23 PM)
Flexible working isn't just for poor weather you know.
Many organisation allow their staff to work from home all year round.
Many organisation allow their staff to work from home all year round.
I said this before but flexible working is an opportunity for ineffective management to turn a blind eye to staff who want to pursue their own personal agenda without the risk of being discovered.
Working from home likewise.
I believe where public money is being expended that both of these "work styles" should be stopped and staff made to be more accountable by managers who know how to manage.
Posted by: Brewmaster Dec 3 2010, 10:05 AM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 2 2010, 02:19 PM)
If your office is in the Newbury/Reading/ Wokingham vicinity then there is no reason why anyone should not have turned up for work. If Hampshire however then they could be justified. Perhaps you need to have a "word"
I drove from the Hungerford area to Henley via Reading early yesterday evening and back again at about 10.30 pm. There was absolutely no problem with the roads and the only snow I saw was in the pavements - and not very much of that either.
Just for once West Berkshire appears to be blessed!
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 3 2010, 08:36 PM
Can anyone explain how come the Hospital opened, supermarkets opened, the Council offices opened, shops opened, Northcroft opened, the cinema opened, and the parks were full of kids playing, having been, in many cases, taken there by their parents, yet schools were closed? Why are teachers so precious?
Posted by: Darren Dec 3 2010, 08:40 PM
The argument has always been that teachers don't live local. For many village schools that is true as they cannot afford village prices.
According to the article, it was the rural schools that were closed.
Posted by: user23 Dec 3 2010, 09:29 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 3 2010, 09:15 AM)
I said this before but flexible working is an opportunity for ineffective management to turn a blind eye to staff who want to pursue their own personal agenda without the risk of being discovered.
Working from home likewise.
I believe where public money is being expended that both of these "work styles" should be stopped and staff made to be more accountable by managers who know how to manage.
Good management isn't about keep one's staff on a leash though, it's about getting the best out of them whilst keeping them accountable. If one has to check up on their staff every five minutes then one is not a very good manager.
Working from home likewise.
I believe where public money is being expended that both of these "work styles" should be stopped and staff made to be more accountable by managers who know how to manage.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 3 2010, 09:53 PM
My sisters firm in York seems to have an answer. Call takers work from home, using their own kit via internet. Paid only for the calls they take. Seems to work - they have more than they actually need but only pay for what work is done. There was quite an investment in mapping the processes and working out the rates.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 4 2010, 03:58 PM
QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Dec 3 2010, 09:36 PM)
Can anyone explain how come the Hospital opened, supermarkets opened, the Council offices opened, shops opened, Northcroft opened, the cinema opened, and the parks were full of kids playing, having been, in many cases, taken there by their parents, yet schools were closed? Why are teachers so precious?
I think many, many people ask themselves the same question every time there is a millimetre of snow (or even the threat of it).
I think it is our modern elf n' safety culture working overtime again to protect the little darlings!
Posted by: Darren Dec 4 2010, 04:09 PM
On the rare occasion I've worked from home, they have been some of my most productive days.
You work in a comfortable environment, a ready supply of food, drink and treats to keep you going. Most importantly, no numpties appearing at your shoulder asking you a question, that if they had actually read the document you sent then, they should already know the answer to!!!
<calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean>
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 6 2010, 09:25 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 3 2010, 09:29 PM)
Good management isn't about keep one's staff on a leash though, it's about getting the best out of them whilst keeping them accountable. If one has to check up on their staff every five minutes then one is not a very good manager.
Yes, I can't argue with that however one is also not agood manager if one ignores the fact that staff are "swinging the lead".
Aside from this shouldn't all those staff working from home have their working environment audited and approved by a Health and Safety representative to ensure they they work in a proper and safe environment. Isn't this a legal requirement? I wonder how many public sector staff "working from home" have this documented and recorded?
Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 6 2010, 10:08 AM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 6 2010, 09:25 AM)
Yes, I can't argue with that however one is also not agood manager if one ignores the fact that staff are "swinging the lead".
This entirely depends on whether the role is task driven or time driven.QUOTE
Aside from this shouldn't all those staff working from home have their working environment audited and approved by a Health and Safety representative to ensure they they work in a proper and safe environment. Isn't this a legal requirement? I wonder how many public sector staff "working from home" have this documented and recorded?
Risk assessments only need to be undertaken if working from home is a regular (or normal) situation. Otherwise, any temporary change of venue would require endless risk assessments.
Providing a safe working environment and practices is the legal duty. There is no legal requirement to do inspection; but it might later be hard to prove that provision was safe without some written evidence of risk assessment, etc.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 6 2010, 10:32 AM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 6 2010, 10:08 AM)
This entirely depends on whether the role is task driven or time driven.
One could argue that if it is task driven then the public purse should only pay for that.
QUOTE
Risk assessments only need to be undertaken if working from home is a regular (or normal) situation. Otherwise, any temporary change of venue would require endless risk assessments.
The argument then is what constitutes a "regular" or normal situation. If a staff members working culture is changed by allowing them to work from home then this would be considered "normal" and if it is one day a week, every week then this is regular.
QUOTE
Providing a safe working environment and practices is the legal duty. There is no legal requirement to do inspection; but it might later be hard to prove that provision was safe without some written evidence of risk assessment, etc.
How would say WBC defend a position where they knowingly allowed a staff member to work from home and that staff member electrocuted himself and died because his/her work station was not safe. I would think that unless all staff working from home are properly assessed then WBC are libel for claims for injury and illness resulting in compensation claims and considering that money would come out of the public purse then I believe that WBC and any other public body should not be taking this risk.
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 6 2010, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 6 2010, 10:32 AM)
One could argue that if it is task driven then the public purse should only pay for that.
The argument then is what constitutes a "regular" or normal situation. If a staff members working culture is changed by allowing them to work from home then this would be considered "normal" and if it is one day a week, every week then this is regular.
How would say WBC defend a position where they knowingly allowed a staff member to work from home and that staff member electrocuted himself and died because his/her work station was not safe. I would think that unless all staff working from home are properly assessed then WBC are libel for claims for injury and illness resulting in compensation claims and considering that money would come out of the public purse then I believe that WBC and any other public body should not be taking this risk.
The argument then is what constitutes a "regular" or normal situation. If a staff members working culture is changed by allowing them to work from home then this would be considered "normal" and if it is one day a week, every week then this is regular.
How would say WBC defend a position where they knowingly allowed a staff member to work from home and that staff member electrocuted himself and died because his/her work station was not safe. I would think that unless all staff working from home are properly assessed then WBC are libel for claims for injury and illness resulting in compensation claims and considering that money would come out of the public purse then I believe that WBC and any other public body should not be taking this risk.
A simple on-line risk assessment module would cover the company in most cases as the memeber of staff would be required to complete and pass it before being allowed to work from home. This would create a record of the company's effort to take every reasonable, practicable steps to ensure it's duty of care to the employee.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 6 2010, 11:39 AM
QUOTE (Chesapeake @ Dec 6 2010, 10:59 AM)
A simple on-line risk assessment module would cover the company in most cases as the memeber of staff would be required to complete and pass it before being allowed to work from home. This would create a record of the company's effort to take every reasonable, practicable steps to ensure it's duty of care to the employee.
Yes that could work and such software exists but an employee could tick all the boxes just because he wanted to work from home. Shouldn't there be some independent verification of the work station? After all an employer has a duty of care and it should be demonstrated that this has been adhered to.
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 6 2010, 11:54 AM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 6 2010, 11:39 AM)
Yes that could work and such software exists but an employee could tick all the boxes just because he wanted to work from home. Shouldn't there be some independent verification of the work station? After all an employer has a duty of care and it should be demonstrated that this has been adhered to.
There are loads of computer training programmes out there that take employess and companies through Health & Safety procedures, Manual Handling, Computer Workstations, Fire Safety, First Aid etc. etc.. In these days of difficult financial climates more and more companies are going for on-line training rather that in house trainers or bringing in an external trainer as they are much cheaper and have a much smaller impact on the daily running of a business. Please also remember that not only is it up to a company to have a legal duty of care to it's employees but it is also up to an employee to do everything that is reasonably praciticable to look after their own health and safety and those around them. It's a two way street, a company cannot force an employee to follow it's procedures or it's Health & Safety practices but can only do as much as it can to provide the resources needed to help it's employees to be as informed and safe as possible.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 6 2010, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (Chesapeake @ Dec 6 2010, 11:54 AM)
There are loads of computer training programmes out there that take employess and companies through Health & Safety procedures, Manual Handling, Computer Workstations, Fire Safety, First Aid etc. etc.. In these days of difficult financial climates more and more companies are going for on-line training rather that in house trainers or bringing in an external trainer as they are much cheaper and have a much smaller impact on the daily running of a business. Please also remember that not only is it up to a company to have a legal duty of care to it's employees but it is also up to an employee to do everything that is reasonably praciticable to look after their own health and safety and those around them. It's a two way street, a company cannot force an employee to follow it's procedures or it's Health & Safety practices but can only do as much as it can to provide the resources needed to help it's employees to be as informed and safe as possible.
Yes, I do see your point but if an employee working from home has not had sufficient training of any kind to create and maintain a safe working environment at home and the employer has made no attempt to monitor and control that situation then I would suspect that the law would come down hard on the employer should an injury or illness come about from that situation.
I also would have thought that if an employee refuses to work in a safe environment then the employer could take proceedings to terminate the employment.
I wonder if there is any case law precedent that could be refered to?
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 6 2010, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 6 2010, 12:17 PM)
Yes, I do see your point but if an employee working from home has not had sufficient training of any kind to create and maintain a safe working environment at home and the employer has made no attempt to monitor and control that situation then I would suspect that the law would come down hard on the employer should an injury or illness come about from that situation.
I also would have thought that if an employee refuses to work in a safe environment then the employer could take proceedings to terminate the employment.
I wonder if there is any case law precedent that could be refered to?
I also would have thought that if an employee refuses to work in a safe environment then the employer could take proceedings to terminate the employment.
I wonder if there is any case law precedent that could be refered to?
Case law as to an employee refusing/failing to work in a safe manner for themselves and those around them or termination of employment for not complying with Health & Safety Regulations/employment contract working practices or the employer not taking their responsibility of duty of care to it's employees?
There are huge fines for an employer failing to put in place safe working practices for it's employees/customers every day. One that most in Newbury will be unfailingly aware of and that is the terrible accident that happened when a customer was crushed by a very large piece of machinery at the Newbury rubbish tip a couple of years ago. This sort of thing happens far too often, unfortunately and the worst culprits for employers or employees not taking their responsibilities seriously enough are building sites/sites that involve heavy machinery when people/companies try to cut corners!
How many people actually do a risk assessment every time for a job that they do day in day out?
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 6 2010, 03:19 PM
QUOTE (Chesapeake @ Dec 6 2010, 03:09 PM)
Case law as to an employee refusing/failing to work in a safe manner for themselves and those around them or termination of employment for not complying with Health & Safety Regulations/employment contract working practices or the employer not taking their responsibility of duty of care to it's employees?
There are huge fines for an employer failing to put in place safe working practices for it's employees/customers every day. One that most in Newbury will be unfailingly aware of and that is the terrible accident that happened when a customer was crushed by a very large piece of machinery at the Newbury rubbish tip a couple of years ago. This sort of thing happens far too often, unfortunately and the worst culprits for employers or employees not taking their responsibilities seriously enough are building sites/sites that involve heavy machinery when people/companies try to cut corners!
How many people actually do a risk assessment every time for a job that they do day in day out?
There are huge fines for an employer failing to put in place safe working practices for it's employees/customers every day. One that most in Newbury will be unfailingly aware of and that is the terrible accident that happened when a customer was crushed by a very large piece of machinery at the Newbury rubbish tip a couple of years ago. This sort of thing happens far too often, unfortunately and the worst culprits for employers or employees not taking their responsibilities seriously enough are building sites/sites that involve heavy machinery when people/companies try to cut corners!
How many people actually do a risk assessment every time for a job that they do day in day out?
If you have done the risk assessment before introducing a new work process then you don't have to do it again unless you modify or change the process.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 8 2010, 08:07 PM
You are all joking about risk assessment at home and health and safety being involved in home work. It's not exactly an iron foundry in the living room.
Just try and keep it in perspective, more likely to scald themselves when making a cup of tea. That would be laughed out of any compensation against the employer but perhaps the kettle was faulty. As the employer didn't buy it and wasn't involved in its' purchase......and so on...
Our whole world has just dropped down from common sense to looking to blame somebody if we are stupid enough to not take care and be responsible for our own actions. A direct result of the legal system ambulance chasing. It is also a good earner for sections within todays business, usually driven by the fireproof employees in the Human Resources department.
Posted by: user23 Dec 8 2010, 08:09 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 6 2010, 10:32 AM)
How would say WBC defend a position where they knowingly allowed a staff member to work from home and that staff member electrocuted himself and died because his/her work station was not safe. I would think that unless all staff working from home are properly assessed then WBC are libel for claims for injury and illness resulting in compensation claims and considering that money would come out of the public purse then I believe that WBC and any other public body should not be taking this risk.
I suspect as with many private sector organisations, all employees working from home are required to complete a self-assessment of their working conditions and certify they are safe.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 8 2010, 08:22 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 6 2010, 12:17 PM)
Yes, I do see your point but if an employee working from home has not had sufficient training of any kind to create and maintain a safe working environment at home and the employer has made no attempt to monitor and control that situation then I would suspect that the law would come down hard on the employer should an injury or illness come about from that situation.
I also would have thought that if an employee refuses to work in a safe environment then the employer could take proceedings to terminate the employment.
I wonder if there is any case law precedent that could be refered to?
I also would have thought that if an employee refuses to work in a safe environment then the employer could take proceedings to terminate the employment.
I wonder if there is any case law precedent that could be refered to?
Yes on both points. The employee has a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1986 to cooperate with the employer and the employer has a duty to assess the risks to the employee.
One risk from working from home is that the employee actually doesn't take sufficient breaks, or doesn't adequately seperate work from home. It's not too difficult to end up working all the hours in the day and burning out. Stress is as much an industrial injury as falling from a scaffold and it is rarely adequately managed.
Employers can also be pretty rubbish at assessing the long term risks for people working at computers, especially if they're at home slouched in an easy chair - it's how I used to work. Back and neck problems creep up on you very slowly, but they're serious industrial injuries just the same.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 8 2010, 08:24 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 8 2010, 08:09 PM)
I suspect as with many private sector organisations, all employees working from home are required to complete a self-assessment of their working conditions and certify they are safe.
It wouldn't surprise me, but the management of health and safety at work is a management function and it can't be delegated.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 8 2010, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 8 2010, 08:24 PM)
It wouldn't surprise me, but the management of health and safety at work is a management function and it can't be delegated.
I disagree, employees are obliged to conduct themselves in a safe way and bring to the employer's attention any health and safety concerns while at work.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 8 2010, 08:37 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 8 2010, 08:22 PM)
Stress is as much an industrial injury as falling from a scaffold and it is rarely adequately managed.
Yes, that's another modern syndrome. If they can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and go and get a job where they can cope with the day to day workload. House painting is fairly stress free. If they can't do the job then terminate their employment rather than costing, in the case of public service employees, us the taxpayers for a year at home with a damp cloth over their eyes.
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 8 2010, 09:07 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 8 2010, 08:07 PM)
You are all joking about risk assessment at home and health and safety being involved in home work. It's not exactly an iron foundry in the living room.
Just try and keep it in perspective, more likely to scald themselves when making a cup of tea. That would be laughed out of any compensation against the employer but perhaps the kettle was faulty. As the employer didn't buy it and wasn't involved in its' purchase......and so on...
Our whole world has just dropped down from common sense to looking to blame somebody if we are stupid enough to not take care and be responsible for our own actions. A direct result of the legal system ambulance chasing. It is also a good earner for sections within todays business, usually driven by the fireproof employees in the Human Resources department.
Just try and keep it in perspective, more likely to scald themselves when making a cup of tea. That would be laughed out of any compensation against the employer but perhaps the kettle was faulty. As the employer didn't buy it and wasn't involved in its' purchase......and so on...
Our whole world has just dropped down from common sense to looking to blame somebody if we are stupid enough to not take care and be responsible for our own actions. A direct result of the legal system ambulance chasing. It is also a good earner for sections within todays business, usually driven by the fireproof employees in the Human Resources department.
You are quite right in that you are more likely to have an accident at home. But, if you were expected to work from home on a computer for long/longish hours then a company could be held liable if they had not given you the information/training in how to work at your workstation 'healthily'. If you were provided with this information/training at work you would be expected to apply the same principles at home. If your job was home-based or required working from home it should show in your contract of employment and your contract of employment/terms and conditions of employment should state that you also have a duty of care to yourself and those around you.
Your employer should provide you with the tools (information) in order for you to work safely.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 8 2010, 09:59 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 8 2010, 08:30 PM)
I disagree, employees are obliged to conduct themselves in a safe way and bring to the employer's attention any health and safety concerns while at work.
That's all quite true, but the employer has a legal duty under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess and mitigate the risks, and that assessment is a management function which can't be delegated to the employee.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 8 2010, 10:06 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 8 2010, 08:37 PM)
Yes, that's another modern syndrome. If they can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and go and get a job where they can cope with the day to day workload. House painting is fairly stress free. If they can't do the job then terminate their employment rather than costing, in the case of public service employees, us the taxpayers for a year at home with a damp cloth over their eyes.
Employers certainly used to see their employees as expendable, and the trade union movement grew out of just that attitude. Mental health issues still have more of a stigma than physical health issues and it's a sad indictment of commercial morality that it takes legislation to protect employees. No one should need to suffer ill health and injury as a consequence of their work, and that's as true in the private sector as in the public sector.
Posted by: Jayjay Dec 8 2010, 10:20 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 8 2010, 08:37 PM)
Yes, that's another modern syndrome. If they can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and go and get a job where they can cope with the day to day workload. House painting is fairly stress free. If they can't do the job then terminate their employment rather than costing, in the case of public service employees, us the taxpayers for a year at home with a damp cloth over their eyes.
I do think you are being a little harsh. I only have anecdotal evidence from the media, but the teaching profession must be under a lot of stress between unruly pupils, human rights issues and the ever changing syllabus. It is easy to say get out and a great many teachers have done just that, but to others it is a vocation. I also have sympathy with the public facing employees at Council offices as I have often witnessed them being verbally abused. When you take that on a daily basis for say 15 years, I think I would feel a certain amount of stress. one of the highest public sector jobs suffering from stress is hospital surgeons; on a daily basis you have the responsibility for hundreds of lives and also have to contend with budgets and deadlines.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 8 2010, 10:43 PM
QUOTE (Jayjay @ Dec 8 2010, 10:20 PM)
I do think you are being a little harsh. I only have anecdotal evidence from the media, but the teaching profession must be under a lot of stress between unruly pupils, human rights issues and the ever changing syllabus. It is easy to say get out and a great many teachers have done just that, but to others it is a vocation. I also have sympathy with the public facing employees at Council offices as I have often witnessed them being verbally abused. When you take that on a daily basis for say 15 years, I think I would feel a certain amount of stress. one of the highest public sector jobs suffering from stress is hospital surgeons; on a daily basis you have the responsibility for hundreds of lives and also have to contend with budgets and deadlines.
Maybe but you get the gain so be prepared to take the pain.
Don't start me on teachers, full Christmas holiday then first day back, no kids, inset day.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 8 2010, 10:46 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 8 2010, 08:22 PM)
Health and Safety at Work Act 1986 to cooperate with the employer and the employer has a duty to assess the risks to the employee..
Two points.
1) it is the Health & Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974
2) Where do you draw the line between employer and employee in this debate - after all, a professional, trained and competent H&S Officer is still an employee. The line is not as black & white as youi all seem to think.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 8 2010, 10:50 PM
QUOTE (Chesapeake @ Dec 8 2010, 09:07 PM)
You are quite right in that you are more likely to have an accident at home. But, if you were expected to work from home on a computer for long/longish hours then a company could be held liable if they had not given you the information/training in how to work at your workstation 'healthily'. If you were provided with this information/training at work you would be expected to apply the same principles at home. If your job was home-based or required working from home it should show in your contract of employment and your contract of employment/terms and conditions of employment should state that you also have a duty of care to yourself and those around you.
Your employer should provide you with the tools (information) in order for you to work safely.
Your employer should provide you with the tools (information) in order for you to work safely.
If you haven't got the brain power to organise yourself and your home environment what are you doing working at home without the constant supervision of the office. We spend all our time worrying about H&S, safe working environment etc that we lose site of the fact that we are grown ups and should be able to think for ourselves without our nanny to help us along. I am so fed up with all the political and work related correctness. Just get on and work and use your God given faculties.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 8 2010, 10:55 PM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 8 2010, 10:46 PM)
Two points.
1) it is the Health & Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974
2) Where do you draw the line between employer and employee in this debate - after all, a professional, trained and competent H&S Officer is still an employee. The line is not as black & white as youi all seem to think.
1) it is the Health & Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974
2) Where do you draw the line between employer and employee in this debate - after all, a professional, trained and competent H&S Officer is still an employee. The line is not as black & white as youi all seem to think.
That is because specialists, consultants and other people in the business of scaring us in the workplace have blurred the line by their incessant carping on about taking responsibility for stupid employees to make sure the tea is at the right temperature and the chair has a soft cushion.
Get rid of H&S officers and use common sense.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 8 2010, 11:09 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 8 2010, 10:55 PM)
Get rid of H&S officers and use common sense.
I'd rather we didn't; people can be quite stupid sometimes. In the vast majority of cases, health and safety directives are the application of common sense.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 8 2010, 11:58 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 8 2010, 11:09 PM)
people can be quite stupid sometimes.
Good. Darwinism writ large. The schoolkid who swallows all the marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own....what's wrong with that?
In order to protect one or two stupid people, H and S muck up the childhoods of millions.
Children have a right to fall over and graze their knees, they should have the right to climb trees (if they succeed they learn about themselves, and trees, if they fall they learn about gravity and pain) That's how it should be. We should all have the chance to learn and do daft things, sometimes you get a result, sometimes it's for others to learn from your mistakes. That's how we learn. That's the way it is. Anyone who has a career in H and S should hang their head in shame.
H and S hide behind the adage "if it saves just one life ....it's worth it." NO. IT. AINT. The buggering up of millions of normal childhoods (and learning curves) just to protect a few morons from themselves is never worth it.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 12:06 AM
That is all very well, but these stupid people do stupid things that hurt the not so stupid as well! Like I said, H&S in the vast majority of cases is the application of common sense. Only an idiot wouldn't understand that! Besides, we were talking about H&S at work.
Not bad getting here from talking about people getting paid to look after their sick kid cause the missus doesn't get paid if she doesn't turn up, or if you have to be at home to receive the new freezer cause you've used all your holiday up! 
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 9 2010, 12:52 AM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 9 2010, 12:06 AM)
Besides, we were talking about H&S at work.
Think Brunel would have built the GWR if H and S had been involved?
People start working from home, and H and S will want to start carrying out risk assesments on their houses.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 9 2010, 08:59 AM
QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Dec 9 2010, 12:52 AM)
Think Brunel would have built the GWR if H and S had been involved?
People start working from home, and H and S will want to start carrying out risk assesments on their houses.
People start working from home, and H and S will want to start carrying out risk assesments on their houses.
Yes, I agree with you in that it has all got out of hand but I think it is an employer's duty of care in law to risk assess an employees home work station in order to keep them safe from injury and illness.
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 9 2010, 10:43 AM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 8 2010, 11:09 PM)
I'd rather we didn't; people can be quite stupid sometimes. In the vast majority of cases, health and safety directives are the application of common sense.
Quite agree Iommi. Sometimes people can be stupid. I would hope that the vast majority of people are capable of using their common sense but there is a minority who are not capable and therefore NEED extra guidance.
For example think about the food warnings on packaging... one bizarre example is a packet of fish fingers. If you look on the warning section on the box it says "contains fish"!!I cannot quite comprehend why this warning is needed but someone at some point obviously didn't understand that fish fingers contain fish!
As has been said H&S is needed in order to protect those who do not have common sense and also to protect those around them. I also think though that this country has gone a little H&S mad especially where children having a little innocent fun is concerned. But, this is probably down to the pounds and pence factor relating to how litigious we have become and those wanting to cash in a on a quick buck.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 10:56 AM
Equally, sometimes people need to be protected so they are healthy for their job. It is counter productive for the employer to thrash an excellent employee who eventually submits under the work load. There is more to Good H&S practice than those stories the media like to publish to wind people up.
H&S is for everyone's benefit and should be employed where risks need not exists, just for the sake of a little bit of considerate management.
Risk assessment is just that. It is not about finding a reason not to do something, it is about mitigating unnecessary risk and preparing for likely outcomes.
They failed to perform a proper risk assessment for the design of HMS Titanic which lead to tragic results.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 9 2010, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 9 2010, 10:56 AM)
Equally, sometimes people need to be protected so they are healthy for their job. It is counter productive for the employer to thrash an excellent employee who eventually submits under the work load. There is more to Good H&S practice than those stories the media like to publish to wind people up.
H&S is for everyone's benefit and should be employed where risks need not exists, just for the sake of a little bit of considerate management.
Risk assessment is just that. It is not about finding a reason not to do something, it is about mitigating unnecessary risk and preparing for likely outcomes.
They failed to perform a proper risk assessment for the design of HMS Titanic which lead to tragic results.
H&S is for everyone's benefit and should be employed where risks need not exists, just for the sake of a little bit of considerate management.
Risk assessment is just that. It is not about finding a reason not to do something, it is about mitigating unnecessary risk and preparing for likely outcomes.
They failed to perform a proper risk assessment for the design of HMS Titanic which lead to tragic results.
Great post. Quite agree - after all risk assessment is simply 'think first'; common sense really!
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 11:50 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 9 2010, 11:43 AM)
Great post. Quite agree - after all risk assessment is simply 'think first'; common sense really!
Exactly; if you want kids to explore and make mistakes that hurt, then it would be a part of a risk assessment to decide to have a nurse, or similar, equipped with first aid tools available at short notice. Not to stop kids hurting themselves in the first place.
I think people read the crap in the news and then form opinions from it, without necessarily understand the whole picture.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 9 2010, 12:23 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 9 2010, 11:50 AM)
I think people read the crap in the news and then form opinions from it, without necessarily understand the whole picture.
Ain't that the truth. Commerce and Industry don't like health and safety because it affects their bottom line and the anti-H&S propoganda spread by the likes of the Daily Mail is not just casual hate-mongering.
Risk Assessment is not onerous and it only turns up stupid mitigation when it's done by stupid managers. Analyse the root cause of industrial injuries and it turns out that mostly the risk was pretty obvious but for a variety of reasons people chose to take the risk, and mostly that's because there's a get-the-job-done macho culture.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 9 2010, 03:41 PM
Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."
Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the
meaning of this?"
Hardy: "Sorry sir?"
Nelson (reading aloud): "' England expects every person to do his or
her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious
persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledegook is this?"
Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal
opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting '
England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated
smoke-free working environments."
Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the
mainbrace to steel the men before battle."
Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the
Government's policy on binge drinking."
Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it
............ full speed ahead."
Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this
stretch of water."
Nelson: "**** it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's
nest please."
Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."
Nelson: "What?"
Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No
harness; and they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They
won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck
Admiral."
Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a
barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse
even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral
by playing the disability card."
Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in
the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't
let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want
anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell
the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"
Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being
charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of
legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."
Nelson: "We're not?"
Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners
now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in
this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for
compensation."
Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-ordinator hear you
saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."
Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your
King."
Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural
age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your
life"
Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum,
sodomy and the lash?"
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on
corporal punishment."
Nelson: "What about sodomy?"
Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."
Nelson: "In that case............................... kiss me, Hardy.
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 9 2010, 04:16 PM
QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Dec 9 2010, 03:41 PM)
Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."
Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."
Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the
meaning of this?"
Hardy: "Sorry sir?"
Nelson (reading aloud): "' England expects every person to do his or
her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious
persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledegook is this?"
Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal
opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting '
England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated
smoke-free working environments."
Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the
mainbrace to steel the men before battle."
Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the
Government's policy on binge drinking."
Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it
............ full speed ahead."
Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this
stretch of water."
Nelson: "**** it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's
nest please."
Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."
Nelson: "What?"
Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No
harness; and they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They
won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck
Admiral."
Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a
barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse
even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral
by playing the disability card."
Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in
the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't
let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want
anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell
the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"
Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being
charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of
legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."
Nelson: "We're not?"
Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners
now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in
this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for
compensation."
Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-ordinator hear you
saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."
Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your
King."
Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural
age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your
life"
Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum,
sodomy and the lash?"
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on
corporal punishment."
Nelson: "What about sodomy?"
Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."
Nelson: "In that case............................... kiss me, Hardy.
Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."
Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the
meaning of this?"
Hardy: "Sorry sir?"
Nelson (reading aloud): "' England expects every person to do his or
her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious
persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledegook is this?"
Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal
opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting '
England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated
smoke-free working environments."
Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the
mainbrace to steel the men before battle."
Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the
Government's policy on binge drinking."
Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it
............ full speed ahead."
Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this
stretch of water."
Nelson: "**** it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's
nest please."
Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."
Nelson: "What?"
Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No
harness; and they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They
won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck
Admiral."
Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a
barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse
even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral
by playing the disability card."
Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in
the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't
let the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't want
anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell
the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"
Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being
charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of
legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."
Nelson: "We're not?"
Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners
now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in
this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for
compensation."
Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-ordinator hear you
saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."
Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your
King."
Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural
age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save your
life"
Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum,
sodomy and the lash?"
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on
corporal punishment."
Nelson: "What about sodomy?"
Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."
Nelson: "In that case............................... kiss me, Hardy.
This is THE funniest thing I have read for ages
Where is it from?
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 9 2010, 04:35 PM
This also made me chuckle Think he should have done a risk assessment first!!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101209/tod-blundering-petrol-bomber-hit-by-own-870a197.html
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 9 2010, 07:52 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 9 2010, 08:59 AM)
Yes, I agree with you in that it has all got out of hand but I think it is an employer's duty of care in law to risk assess an employees home work station in order to keep them safe from injury and illness.
You are joking of course. How can a work station in some persons house have a risk attached to it. Nodding off and falling out of the chair perhaps. What about falling downstairs when he gets up to make a cup of tea. Should that also be examined by the employer or their H&S department.
No need for any third party to be involved, no need for these risk assessments that are so time wasting. A short email to the employer from the worker saying "I am working safely at home thank you" is more than enough.
If their are hard and fast rules, then I would bet that they are set by jobsworth's who are making a career from it, are non productive, cost a fortune and set back business by light years. Now's a good time to get rid of them all and the paranoia that goes with them.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 08:01 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 9 2010, 07:52 PM)
You are joking of course. How can a work station in some persons house have a risk attached to it. Nodding off and falling out of the chair perhaps. What about falling downstairs when he gets up to make a cup of tea. Should that also be examined by the employer or their H&S department.
No need for any third party to be involved, no need for these risk assessments that are so time wasting. A short email to the employer from the worker saying "I am working safely at home thank you" is more than enough.
If their are hard and fast rules, then I would bet that they are set by jobsworth's who are making a career from it, are non productive, cost a fortune and set back business by light years. Now's a good time to get rid of them all and the paranoia that goes with them.
No need for any third party to be involved, no need for these risk assessments that are so time wasting. A short email to the employer from the worker saying "I am working safely at home thank you" is more than enough.
If their are hard and fast rules, then I would bet that they are set by jobsworth's who are making a career from it, are non productive, cost a fortune and set back business by light years. Now's a good time to get rid of them all and the paranoia that goes with them.
Unlucky...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg226.pdf
"Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers are required to do a risk assessment of the work activities carried out by homeworkers. Completing a risk assessment involves identifying the hazards relating to the homeworkers’ work activities and deciding whether enough steps have been taken to prevent harm to them or to anyone else who may be affected by their work. A risk is the chance, great or small, that someone will be harmed by a hazard. A hazard is anything that may cause harm."
"If homeworkers use electrical equipment provided by the employer as part of their work, the employer is responsible for its maintenance. Employers are only responsible for the equipment they supply. Electrical sockets and other parts of the homeworkers’ domestic electrical system are their own responsibility. Listed below are simple steps that employers can take to prevent harm or injury to homeworkers, or other people, when homeworkers use electrical equipment in the home."
"The use of VDUs is covered by the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 as amended by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. Employers have a duty to make sure that the display screen equipment used by homeworkers is safe and does not affect the user’s health."
"New legislation required to implement the European Directive on Pregnant Workers was introduced in 1994 and is covered by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. When assessing risks to the homeworker, the new legislation requires the employer to pay attention to homeworkers who are new and expectant mothers. Risks include those to the unborn child or to the child of a woman who is still breast feeding - not just risks to the mother herself. A new or expectant mother means a worker who is pregnant, who has given birth within the previous six months, or who is breast feeding. ‘Given birth’ is defined in the new Regulations as ‘delivered a living child or, after 24 weeks of pregnancy, a stillborn child’."
"HSE Inspectors enforce the HSWA and the Regulations made under the HSWA, that apply to homeworking. Inspectors visit employers and also have the right to visit homeworkers, to ensure that risks from work and working at home are properly managed. They also investigate and help settle complaints about working conditions that could affect the health, safety or welfare of employees, including homeworkers."
Posted by: Darren Dec 9 2010, 08:21 PM
Having done a formal Risk Assessment course, what is taught is mostly common sense.
In the UK there is very little H&S legislation and what does exist is targeted at high risk environments such as mining, railways and the nuclear industry. In 2009 there was 151 fatalities across all industries plus 393 members of the public going about their daily business. In anyone's books, that is an unacceptably high level of deaths, never mind all the serious injuries.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatalinjuries.htm
Far too many people hid behind H&S when they want to stop something. The HSE now refute the stories when they come along.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/record.htm
For working at home, the most that is needed is for the employee to do a Display Screen Equipment survey, which is aimed at reducing RSI injuries and ensuring people take proper breaks.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/dse/
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 9 2010, 08:23 PM
Yes exactly, a load of gobbledygook put together by a load of people who have to secure their jobs. Jobsworths all.
Posted by: Darren Dec 9 2010, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 9 2010, 08:23 PM)
Yes exactly, a load of gobbledygook put together by a load of people who have to secure their jobs. Jobsworths all.
Really. Plain English to me.
Of course, if you happy that people die while at work because management put profit in front of their employees safety, I look forward to you having an accident at work, hopefully serious. That'll show them, eh...
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 08:35 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 9 2010, 08:23 PM)
Yes exactly, a load of gobbledygook put together by a load of people who have to secure their jobs. Jobsworths all.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 9 2010, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 9 2010, 08:31 PM)
Really. Plain English to me.
Of course, if you happy that people die while at work because management put profit in front of their employees safety, I look forward to you having an accident at work, hopefully serious. That'll show them, eh...
Of course, if you happy that people die while at work because management put profit in front of their employees safety, I look forward to you having an accident at work, hopefully serious. That'll show them, eh...
This is about homeworkers, not scaffolders or roofers.
We all should think about our own safety in the home and I agree there are homes that are not safe, when for instance parents leave cooking pot handles in reach of children. But, this is not what it's about. It's about a skilled worker sitting at a computer or stuffing envelopes or operating, in the outer Hebrides, a hand loom. We do need to get this working at home thing in perspective.....or are you H&S employees as you seem to want to perpetuate the whole nonsense.
Posted by: Darren Dec 9 2010, 08:44 PM
What nonsense???? Read the material!
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 9 2010, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 9 2010, 08:35 PM)
That has nothing to do with H&S at home, it is about child labour or oppression IN THE WORKPLACE.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 9 2010, 08:44 PM)
What nonsense???? Read the material!
That's myopia for you!
...industrial disease? QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 9 2010, 08:45 PM)
That has nothing to do with H&S at home, it is about child labour or oppression IN THE WORKPLACE.
I know, it was a joke, but employers (trainer manufacturers for instance) are and should be made responsible for how their products are manufactured. Why should working at home absolve an employer from his responsibilities?
BTW - There is more to working from home than just computing.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 9 2010, 09:05 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 9 2010, 08:57 PM)
BTW - There is more to working from home than just computing.
Just have a quick re-read of my last post, I was ahead of you.
I said.... "skilled worker sitting at a computer or stuffing envelopes or operating, in the outer Hebrides, a hand loom. "
Posted by: Iommi Dec 9 2010, 09:21 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 9 2010, 09:05 PM)
Just have a quick re-read of my last post, I was ahead of you.
I said.... "skilled worker sitting at a computer or stuffing envelopes or operating, in the outer Hebrides, a hand loom. "
I said.... "skilled worker sitting at a computer or stuffing envelopes or operating, in the outer Hebrides, a hand loom. "
Like I said, if an employer is responsible for your health while you do work at a place of work, why should that change because you are working at home? Those boxes of envelopes are just as heavy at home as at your place of work? Those dangerous chemicals are just as dangerous at home as they are at work. And electrical equipment doesn't become safer when it passes the threshold of the work place.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2010, 10:19 AM
QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 9 2010, 08:21 PM)
what does exist is targeted at high risk environments such as mining, railways and the nuclear industry.
Out of context, I know, but I'm musing over what's involved in working at home in the nuclear industry...
Posted by: Andy1 Dec 10 2010, 11:00 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 10 2010, 10:19 AM)
Out of context, I know, but I'm musing over what's involved in working at home in the nuclear industry...
Remote access to IT/Network and Telecomms systems out of hours for 2nd line Engineers
Posted by: Darren Dec 10 2010, 11:04 AM
Watch The Simpsons episode King-Size Homer... 
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 10 2010, 11:39 AM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 9 2010, 08:41 PM)
This is about homeworkers, not scaffolders or roofers.
We all should think about our own safety in the home and I agree there are homes that are not safe, when for instance parents leave cooking pot handles in reach of children. But, this is not what it's about. It's about a skilled worker sitting at a computer or stuffing envelopes or operating, in the outer Hebrides, a hand loom. We do need to get this working at home thing in perspective.....or are you H&S employees as you seem to want to perpetuate the whole nonsense.
We all should think about our own safety in the home and I agree there are homes that are not safe, when for instance parents leave cooking pot handles in reach of children. But, this is not what it's about. It's about a skilled worker sitting at a computer or stuffing envelopes or operating, in the outer Hebrides, a hand loom. We do need to get this working at home thing in perspective.....or are you H&S employees as you seem to want to perpetuate the whole nonsense.
I do agree with you that it could be construed as being over the top but it is the law and as such employers have a duty of care to comply. I wonder how many do and I think that because of the financial implications to the tax payer should a council worker have an accident or develop an injury due to an inappropriate work station then it is important that the assessment is made and kept current as the tax payer will be picking up the compensation bill.
Posted by: Chesapeake Dec 10 2010, 12:27 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 10 2010, 11:39 AM)
I do agree with you that it could be construed as being over the top but it is the law and as such employers have a duty of care to comply. I wonder how many do and I think that because of the financial implications to the tax payer should a council worker have an accident or develop an injury due to an inappropriate work station then it is important that the assessment is made and kept current as the tax payer will be picking up the compensation bill.
Yep, agree. As I stated before I think that a lot of it is down to money.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 10 2010, 02:45 PM
QUOTE (Chesapeake @ Dec 9 2010, 04:16 PM)
This is THE funniest thing I have read for ages
Where is it from?
Where is it from?
Posted on Newburynet about 5 years ago, then re-posted (with permission) on a Sub-Mariners forum. After that it went viral.
Posted by: Strafin Dec 10 2010, 09:10 PM
I believe it was written by Richard Littlejohn - a daily mail columnist.
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 10 2010, 10:01 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/georgeosborne/8193219/Christmas-tree-a-bureaucratic-tangle-for-George-Osborne.html
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)