Dear Forum.. Advice on working practices please

[barleycorn]

'Risk assessments' are a pile of rubbish ... the reason it now takes three 'workers' and a set of scaffolding to change a light bulb. Whoever dreamed the idea up wants shooting with a 'risk assessed' semi-automatic rifle and 'risk-assessed' hollow point bullets (preferably 'risk-assessed' mercury filled).

 

'Risk assessing' is the reason why everything grinds to a halt. The amount of times I've heard some moron say 'Oooh no, you can't do that! ... Health and safety this, risk assessment that' ... idiots! Special little jobs for people who want to look important, with no common sense of their own.

 

What a load of tripe. A properly performed risk assessment will detail all the possible hazards of a task and assess the risk of any harm occurring due to each hazard.

If you tried working in my profession with completing risk assessments you wouldn't last very long, because you would be dead.

 

jb

[Obelix]

Yep ... it certainly does. Mind you, if you think it's advisable to erect scaffolding to change a light bulb, or leave a person to drown in a pond because 'Health and Safety' says 'NO', whilst three fire engines turn up to rescue a cat up a tree, then so be it ... after all, it's 'common sense'.

 

Swings and roundabouts out of a kiddies play area? ... whip 'em out! ... 'common sense'. Cut all the horse-chestnut trees down ... 'common sense' once again. Good old 'common sense', and thank god for 'Health and Safety'.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 02:24 ----------

 

 

That's strange ... no manual for 'Risk assessment'? You implied there was earlier. Are the rules just passed down from scout leader to cub by word of mouth then, or smoke signals?

 

How's an employee (who's legally obliged to follow these rules) supposed to find out about them when they're not written down ... join the scouts? ... 'dib, dib, dob' and all that?

 

You're telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and messing the thread up ... at least I'm sticking to my convictions! You're changing your story to suit! Shame ... and you being a scout leader too.

 

Oh look - more abuse in lieu of an argument. Tell me what have you been doing recently to help people hmm....?

 

 

...

 

 

 

Thought so.

 

Perhaps if you did a little reading on the subject then you'd understand how it worked. I'd recommend it to you makes you look less of a prat.

 

To the OP - if you do want to go into more detail in confidence about the building you can always PM me. I won't be posting any more on here when there's jerks of this magnitude about.

[dosxuk]

And you're actually advising me to go and read up on all this Health and Safety 'law'? I'm not that stupid!

 

It's your anecdotes and rants that make you appear that stupid. I was only trying to help you avoid looking like a fool.

[AMR67]

As one of the many sheffield school caretakers, I have to lock up the entire school on my own every night. Numerous entrance doors, classrooms, all the windows have to be checked, store cupboards locked, computers turned off then walk round turning all the lights out. A few rooms in an office block would be heaven!!

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 14:38 ----------

 

'Risk assessments' are a pile of rubbish ... the reason it now takes three 'workers' and a set of scaffolding to change a light bulb. Whoever dreamed the idea up wants shooting with a 'risk assessed' semi-automatic rifle and 'risk-assessed' hollow point bullets (preferably 'risk-assessed' mercury filled).

 

'Risk assessing' is the reason why everything grinds to a halt. The amount of times I've heard some moron say 'Oooh no, you can't do that! ... Health and safety this, risk assessment that' ... idiots! Special little jobs for people who want to look important, with no common sense of their own.

I'm not disagreeing with you about risk assessments, but they are a legal requirement. If there's an accident or injury whilst this girl is locking up then the first question the HSE will ask is "can we see your risk assessment for locking/unlocking procedures". If there isn't one to hand then the employer is in trouble.

[Cyclone]

Because this specific query is about a women locking up. If it was about man the question would have been the same. It wasnt a general question. Its regarding a specific problem.

 

Thanks to other replies, i cant give building specifics etc as it wouldnt be right

 

The implication is that being female is relevant though, it isn't. Nor is being young really.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 15:05 ----------

 

:hihi:

 

No ... I'd completely ignore somebody who'd read in a little pamphlet ... rule 6, subsection 12, clause 6574/82 (part B) that unless there were three adults (one of whom's passed the daft first aid test) present, under NO circumstances should an attempt be made to change a light bulb.

 

I'm quite capable in my own mind of working out if something's dangerous or not without some pathetic jobsworth reading from a manual at me ... I'm still here for starters.

 

Does the 'Risk assessment' book cover emotional dangers at work? Is it required by law for an employer to be read up on such subjects? Would it help the OP, or would common sense be appropriate?

 

A risk assessment is "working out in your own mind" and also documenting it and your reasoning in case someone asks. It's not some magical process involving a pamphlet produced by a jobsworth as you seem to imagine.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 15:07 ----------

 

Cut and paste from OP ... 'Please could I have some advice. Is it OK for a work place to expect a young woman to lock up a building on their own when they are scared?'

 

Note the word 'Scared' ... that, to me implies 'fear'. Does a risk assessment cover that?. No one should have to work in situations where they encounter fear even if the fabulous 'Risk Assessment' has no mention of it.

I'm sticking to what I wrote in my post #5. Have some sympathy for the person in question!

 

And then a lot of follow up questions to determine whether the fear is justified and/or whether the duties are ones to be expected of someone who took that job.

 

If I get a fear of computers do you think as a software developer that my employer should humour me?

[charmer]

 

[/color]

I'm not disagreeing with you about risk assessments, but they are a legal requirement. If there's an accident or injury whilst this girl is locking up then the first question the HSE will ask is "can we see your risk assessment for locking/unlocking procedures". If there isn't one to hand then the employer is in trouble.

 

 

I am not an expert but I believe that you only need to perform a risk assessment when there is a noticeable risk of injury or ill health.

 

As the situation outlined is vague, it is hard to say for certain. However, I do not believe that locking up a premises that does not contain high value or dangerous goods would require a risk assessment.

[Alcoblog]

It's your anecdotes and rants that make you appear that stupid. I was only trying to help you avoid looking like a fool.

 

If people want to call me stupid, that's fine by me.

These would be the fine educated people that stand behind rules and regulations whereby it's the correct procedure for firemen to stand round a pond and watch someone drown, whilst waiting for 'specialist water rescue' to come to their aid because Health and Safety prevents them from going into water more than ankle deep?

 

Conveniently, these posters glossed over the link I provided of this, preferring instead to call me a pratt (amongst other things).

 

In another post, a poster informs me that 'Risk assessment' covers all manner of things, then, when I ask for a link replies (cut and paste) ... 'Manual? You think there's a manual for this sort of thing?' I can really see why that makes me look like a pratt.

Later on the poster tells me (cut and paste) ... 'Perhaps if you did a little reading on the subject then you'd understand how it worked. I'd recommend it to you makes you look less of a prat.' ... he's already told me there's no manual on the subject. Once again, I look stupid and hang my head in shame.

 

Later on, another poster tells me (cut and paste) ... 'If you tried working in my profession with completing risk assessments you wouldn't last very long, because you would be dead.' This from someone whose advocating the set of 'Health and Safety' rules that legally allowed emergency services to stand round a pond, watching someone drown. Stupid me!

 

So 'Health and Safety' prevents a drowning man from being rescued because the water's more than ankle deep, whilst another poster who maintains that I'm stupid says this (cut and paste) '... Last risk assessment I did was concerning a night hike for my Scouts and if it was safe to let them build a tree trunk bridge over a river. Guess what? We looked at the risks, considered adequate mitigation was a leader standing by downstream with a rope and torches and the event went ahead. Two wet Scouts later and a good night was had by all..' Stupid me once again! (I presume the stream was not more than ankle deep)

 

I could spend all day providing links to the idiocies of 'Health and Safety', but I'd be wasting my time as I'm stupid. I'm sure I'll get mocked for writing this post, and even more so when I suggest that 'Health and Safety' has little to do with either 'health' or indeed 'Safety' and a lot more to do with litigation ... courts, money ... that sort of stuff.

 

None of this has anything to do with the O/P's original post, so I think we should stop now, and also because I don't want to be made to look more of a pratt (or a 'fool' according to dosxuk)

[dosxuk]

I could spend all day providing links to the idiocies of 'Health and Safety'

 

The thing is, you're not. You're providing links to examples of idiotic interpretation and unfair attributal to H&S laws.

 

There is no H&S law which says you need scaffolding to change a light bulb, or that fire fighters can't go in water more than ankle deep. And if you knew the slightest thing about risk assessment, you'd know that too.

[barleycorn]

If people want to call me stupid, that's fine by me.

These would be the fine educated people that stand behind rules and regulations whereby it's the correct procedure for firemen to stand round a pond and watch someone drown, whilst waiting for 'specialist water rescue' to come to their aid because Health and Safety prevents them from going into water more than ankle deep?

 

Conveniently, these posters glossed over the link I provided of this, preferring instead to call me a pratt (amongst other things).

 

In another post, a poster informs me that 'Risk assessment' covers all manner of things, then, when I ask for a link replies (cut and paste) ... 'Manual? You think there's a manual for this sort of thing?' I can really see why that makes me look like a pratt.

Later on the poster tells me (cut and paste) ... 'Perhaps if you did a little reading on the subject then you'd understand how it worked. I'd recommend it to you makes you look less of a prat.' ... he's already told me there's no manual on the subject. Once again, I look stupid and hang my head in shame.

 

Later on, another poster tells me (cut and paste) ... 'If you tried working in my profession with completing risk assessments you wouldn't last very long, because you would be dead.' This from someone whose advocating the set of 'Health and Safety' rules that legally allowed emergency services to stand round a pond, watching someone drown. Stupid me!

 

So 'Health and Safety' prevents a drowning man from being rescued because the water's more than ankle deep, whilst another poster who maintains that I'm stupid says this (cut and paste) '... Last risk assessment I did was concerning a night hike for my Scouts and if it was safe to let them build a tree trunk bridge over a river. Guess what? We looked at the risks, considered adequate mitigation was a leader standing by downstream with a rope and torches and the event went ahead. Two wet Scouts later and a good night was had by all..' Stupid me once again! (I presume the stream was not more than ankle deep)

 

I could spend all day providing links to the idiocies of 'Health and Safety', but I'd be wasting my time as I'm stupid. I'm sure I'll get mocked for writing this post, and even more so when I suggest that 'Health and Safety' has little to do with either 'health' or indeed 'Safety' and a lot more to do with litigation ... courts, money ... that sort of stuff.

 

None of this has anything to do with the O/P's original post, so I think we should stop now, and also because I don't want to be made to look more of a pratt (or a 'fool' according to dosxuk)

 

Here you go: http://www.hse.gov.uk/

In particular this: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/fivesteps.htm

You should also probably read this: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/principlespoints.htm

Paying close attention to:

Sensible risk management is not about:

Creating a totally risk free society

Generating useless paperwork mountains

Scaring people by exaggerating or publicising trivial risks

Stopping important recreational and learning activities for individuals where the risks are managed

Reducing protection of people from risks that cause real harm and suffering

 

Once you've read them perhaps you would like to pint to the parts of the HSE site which state that firemen can't enter water more than ankle deep or it takes three people and scaffolding to change a light bulb.

 

jb

[AMR67]

I am not an expert but I believe that you only need to perform a risk assessment when there is a noticeable risk of injury or ill health.

 

As the situation outlined is vague, it is hard to say for certain. However, I do not believe that locking up a premises that does not contain high value or dangerous goods would require a risk assessment.

Just about every operation in a company has to have a risk assessment. If this young lady is locking up on her own then surely there's a risk, albeit from lone working / risk of attack etc.. Again I don't disagree with people who say it's a load of tosh, but i'm afraid it's the way it is nowadays.