Dear Forum.. Advice on working practices please

[biotechpete]

The HSE guidance on lone working is here:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workalone.htm

 

The most relevant paragraphs are these:

Although there is no general legal prohibition on working alone, the broad duties of the HSW Act and MHSW Regulations still apply. These require identifying hazards of the work, assessing the risks involved, and putting measures in place to avoid or control the risks.

 

Control measures may include instruction, training, supervision, protective equipment etc. Employers should take steps to check that control measures are used and review the risk assessment from time to time to ensure it is still adequate.

 

So the answer, as others have said, is it depends on the activity the employee is doing and what the actual risk is.

[Alcoblog]

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:

 

 

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

 

There we have it then ... a completely ambiguous (dangerous, ironically) piece of legislation which washes the hands of the Government's Health and Safety Executive of any wrongdoing.

 

Although it's a legal requirement for companies (employing more than five people) to carry out 'Risk Assessment', it does point out (and I quote) ... 'You do not necessarily need specific training or qualifications to carry out a risk assessment'.

 

Well whoopee! ... enter all the jobsworths and crackpots, now given free rein to make up daft rules! They now also know that if they've missed out on any conceivable/possible danger, the blame could risk fairly and squarely on their shoulders (we're talking litigation/money here).

 

Hence ... 'Ooh, a conker could fall on some poor child's head and I may get sued ... don't want to go to court ... better cut the chestnuts down quick! '

 

'An employer got injured last year when he fell off a ladder whilst changing a light bulb ... don't want to go to court ... use three people and scaffolding!'

 

'Oooh! ... one of my firemen got pecked on the elbow by a swan and had to go to hospital for a check-up ... don't want to go to court ... better not go in ponds more than ankle deep from now on! '

 

I'm just using examples I've already cited there, so as not to over-complicate things, but I think you get the general idea ... rules written, completely based on nonsense by people sitting at desks with nothing better to do than mind their own backs.

 

As for the 'not creating excessive paperwork' bit ... that's just plain daft. Of course you've got to create paperwork for every stupid eventuality ... it's not only the law ... it's someone's job!

 

But yeah, you're right ... for obvious reasons (as I've mentioned), there's no inclusion of the ankle deep water, or 3 men/scaffolding/lightbulb scenario in the HSE 'get out of jail free' documents. Just a 'pass the buck' waste of time.

[barleycorn]

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.

 

A risk assessment would determine what hazards are present then determine the likelihood of harm occurring (the risk) because of the hazard, the frequency and the severity of harm. From this it is then easy to decide whether to either take no remedial action, put some form of safe guard in place to mitigate the risk or to scrap the task altogether.

For the example in the OP possible hazards could include:

1. Forced entry of the premises while locking up

2. Tripping due to low, or absence of, lighting.

 

For 1. this will dependent upon the type of premises, the material property in the premises, number of entrance, location and alarm system. The risk assessment will identify each one and assign a low, medium or high risk.

For 2. this could be due to positioning of light switches resulting in an employee having traverse a room in darkness. In such a case the likelihood of tripping could be quite high.

 

For people like alcoblob who think this is all a waste of time it is assessments like these which can highlight problems before they happen. It will be little consolation to an employee who has spent a painful night lying on the floor with a broken ankle waiting for someone to find them that alcoblob thinks it's common sense someone can lock up on their own.

 

jb

[AMR67]

A risk assessment would determine what hazards are present then determine the likelihood of harm occurring (the risk) because of the hazard, the frequency and the severity of harm. From this it is then easy to decide whether to either take no remedial action, put some form of safe guard in place to mitigate the risk or to scrap the task altogether.

For the example in the OP possible hazards could include:

1. Forced entry of the premises while locking up

2. Tripping due to low, or absence of, lighting.

 

For 1. this will dependent upon the type of premises, the material property in the premises, number of entrance, location and alarm system. The risk assessment will identify each one and assign a low, medium or high risk.

For 2. this could be due to positioning of light switches resulting in an employee having traverse a room in darkness. In such a case the likelihood of tripping could be quite high.

 

For people like alcoblob who think this is all a waste of time it is assessments like these which can highlight problems before they happen. It will be little consolation to an employee who has spent a painful night lying on the floor with a broken ankle waiting for someone to find them that alcoblob thinks it's common sense someone can lock up on their own.

 

jb

[barleycorn]

There we have it then ... a completely ambiguous (dangerous, ironically) piece of legislation which washes the hands of the Government's Health and Safety Executive of any wrongdoing.

 

Although it's a legal requirement for companies (employing more than five people) to carry out 'Risk Assessment', it does point out (and I quote) ... 'You do not necessarily need specific training or qualifications to carry out a risk assessment'.

 

Well whoopee! ... enter all the jobsworths and crackpots, now given free rein to make up daft rules! They now also know that if they've missed out on any conceivable/possible danger, the blame could risk fairly and squarely on their shoulders (we're talking litigation/money here).

 

Hence ... 'Ooh, a conker could fall on some poor child's head and I may get sued ... don't want to go to court ... better cut the chestnuts down quick! '

 

'An employer got injured last year when he fell off a ladder whilst changing a light bulb ... don't want to go to court ... use three people and scaffolding!'

 

'Oooh! ... one of my firemen got pecked on the elbow by a swan and had to go to hospital for a check-up ... don't want to go to court ... better not go in ponds more than ankle deep from now on! '

 

I'm just using examples I've already cited there, so as not to over-complicate things, but I think you get the general idea ... rules written, completely based on nonsense by people sitting at desks with nothing better to do than mind their own backs.

 

As for the 'not creating excessive paperwork' bit ... that's just plain daft. Of course you've got to create paperwork for every stupid eventuality ... it's not only the law ... it's someone's job!

 

But yeah, you're right ... for obvious reasons (as I've mentioned), there's no inclusion of the ankle deep water, or 3 men/scaffolding/lightbulb scenario in the HSE 'get out of jail free' documents. Just a 'pass the buck' waste of time.

In your pursuit of the few headline grabbing instances of poorly executed risks assessments you fail to mention all the people who have been saved from serious injury or death due to correctly performed and administered risk assessments.

How about we start with my five employees. Can you explain to them why you are promoting a working system which would result in their deaths? Believe me, without the risk assessments that have been performed on some of their duties they would now indeed be quite, quite dead.

 

jb

[Cyclone]

To be fair, the requirement for risk assessments shouldn't save lives as common sense should have indicated that whatever the risky thing was, was risky... All it does is make it explicit and require that it be documented.

It doesn't in itself prevent an accident, it does at least prove that the risk was considered and determined to be acceptable though. Nor does it in any way stop people from just behaving reasonably. (Which is what alcoblog seems to be claiming in a rather ranty way).

 

A risk assessment for locking up alone might be as follows;

 

Risks

Robbery, highly unlikely, no mitigating action to be taken.

Injury whilst alone on premises. Unlikely. Mitigation, phone/text designated person when lock up complete, if that call isn't made, designated person to investigate.

Assessment complete.

 

Oh, and that bit about being alone can probably be copied and pasted from the working alone assessment.

[erebus]

Can you tell me where this shop is, what it sells, and will get the lads to go round, and encourage the girl to let us in, or encourage her to hand the keys over, and we will clear up. Scrap has a value, and a woman is easy prey, easily frightened, and maybe you could also get her to take the days takings round to the bank as well.

 

Obviously make sure your insurance is up to date and we shall all be happy, apart from the woman either needing another job once she recovers from the trauma.

 

Thoughtful and creative bosses are just my cup of tea.

 

If you want a backhander, then please e-mail me directly, and we can come to some arrangement.

 

Killjoy!

[Alcoblog]

For people like alcoblob who think this is all a waste of time it is assessments like these which can highlight problems before they happen. It will be little consolation to an employee who has spent a painful night lying on the floor with a broken ankle waiting for someone to find them that alcoblob thinks it's common sense someone can lock up on their own.

jb

 

 

Hey ... if you want to spell my username incorrectly in a childish strop, fine.

However ... don't lie to suit your needs. I have never suggested that the person be made to do the job herself ... far from it in fact!

 

In post #5, I stated that it would be unreasonable for the

girl to be expected do a job she felt uncomfortable (scared) of doing. I was thinking here of panic attacks which I can assure you are not very pleasant, at worst resulting in hospitalisation. I admit, this would most probably not warrant any thought so far as Health and Safety is concerned as no one could be sued, but with me being a person who does feel for the thoughts of others, I thought it may be worth a mention.

[charmer]

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.

 

No it isn't.

 

There needs to be reasonable risk.

[Cyclone]

Can you tell me where this shop is, what it sells, and will get the lads to go round, and encourage the girl to let us in, or encourage her to hand the keys over, and we will clear up. Scrap has a value, and a woman is easy prey, easily frightened, and maybe you could also get her to take the days takings round to the bank as well.

 

Obviously make sure your insurance is up to date and we shall all be happy, apart from the woman either needing another job once she recovers from the trauma.

 

Thoughtful and creative bosses are just my cup of tea.

 

If you want a backhander, then please e-mail me directly, and we can come to some arrangement.

 

Killjoy!

 

Because a bunch of people couldn't possibly force a single man on his own to let them in. And of course, because a group of people could possibly force two people to let them in.

 

What difference do you think it makes that it's a single female instead of two men, if for example an armed gang want to break in.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 00:11 ----------

 

Hey ... if you want to spell my username incorrectly in a childish strop, fine.

However ... don't lie to suit your needs. I have never suggested that the person be made to do the job herself ... far from it in fact!

 

In post #5, I stated that it would be unreasonable for the

girl to be expected do a job she felt uncomfortable (scared) of doing. I was thinking here of panic attacks which I can assure you are not very pleasant, at worst resulting in hospitalisation. I admit, this would most probably not warrant any thought so far as Health and Safety is concerned as no one could be sued, but with me being a person who does feel for the thoughts of others, I thought it may be worth a mention.

 

And I said that fear did not make it unreasonable. (And I keep spelling your name correctly).