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

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

Some dangers do not change.

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

'elf and Safety Poster - Soviet Style (1)

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

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

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

Would it change or influence behaviours?

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

Discuss!

(you can guess my view)

Health & Safety Week of Action - Wed 2nd March 2011

double click to bring up details.

The Tragic Launch of HMS Albion

"On 21 June 1898 the public launch of the warship HMS Albion at Blackwall in London was attended by over 30,000 spectators.

It was to become one of the worst peacetime disasters in Thames history. The Duchess of York (later Queen Mary) tried 3 times to break the champagne bottle on the steel hull but it just bounced off. When the launch finally went ahead, the ship rumbled into the water and created a mini-tidal wave that caused a gangway to collapse and swept spectators into the river. Thirty eight people drowned and repercussions were felt in the local community for a long time to come.

During the morning session, historian’s Chris Ellmers (founder of Museum in Docklands) and John Graves (curator of Ship History at the National Maritime Museum) will lay out the wider historical context and social significance of this momentous tragedy.

The event was recorded by early film makers and work survives from two figures, R.W. Paul and E.P. Prestwich. Prestwich filmed from a high altitude and Paul shot his footage from a boat while his fellow crew were allegedly rescuing people from the water. When RW Paul exhibited his work soon after the disaster it became a source of bitter controversy.

BFI Silent Film curator Bryony Dixon will illuminate early film history and the key figures at the centre of this momentous event. Patrick Keiller (artist and director of London, Robinson in Space, Robinson in Ruins) will consider why this event captured his interest and imagination and why he decided to include it in his acclaimed exhibition, The City of the Future. The films are a key moment in early cinema and raise important moral questions. Finally, a speaker from the British Board Film Censorship will consider the wider debate around regulations that would begin over a decade later.

Details of this event are on-line at :
http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_southbank/events/the_tragic_launch_of_hms_albion"

Interesting bit of East End history.  Hat-trip SERTUC

UPDATE: Check out this contemporary report in the East Ham Echo Hat-tip Newham Story

More Bangladeshi Garment Factory Fire Deaths

"On Tuesday there was yet another factory fire in Bangladesh, killing at least 28 workers and leaving many more injured. This factory made clothing for Gap, Abercrombie, JC Penney, Phillips-Van Heusen  and other brands...

2011 marks the centennial of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, a pivotal moment in the movement for labor rights. In 1911, 146 garment workers, mostly girls and young women, died in the fire as a result of abusive labor practices.

...Labor rights abuses are still rampant throughout the world. In Bangladesh, garment factories have been ravaged by a series of fires and building collapses that have killed hundreds of workers.

In February 2010, a fire at the Garib & Garib sweater factory killed 21 workers who died of smoke inhalation because of heavily sealed windows and locked exits". (ILRF)

This has gone on long enough.  Not only deadly fires but factory collapses.  When I worked for Tower Hamlets Council, we use to raise money from the sale of purple Remembrance ribbons on Workers Memorial Day. In 2005 we gave the money raised to support the relatives of the 64 dead and those injured in the Spectrum disaster.

In the UK we have access to very cheap clothes often produced at the expense of other peoples misery.  British Retail stores and pension funds needs to take responsibility for not only financial outcomes but for the human inputs.

Check out International Labour Rights Forum and Asia Times.  Hat tip Ruby Cox, Chair of London UNISON International Committee.

Grieving for a dead partner who never got to meet his son: Want to know about "Burdens"?

Mum of two Laurie Swift 27 lost her partner Alan Winters, crushed to death at work. The 28 year old crane driver was killed just 6 weeks before the birth of his son Alan Jr.   The Tory/Coalition want to slash and burn basic health & safety legislation and essential regulation. For further details check out Hazards

National Health & Safety Inspection Day: Safety First!

Today is National Inspection Day! Check out this UNISON link for resources and check out your workplace. 

Lord Young Report on “‘elf n’ safety” A modern day siren?

I’ve just done my duty as an union safety rep and have read this completely nonsensical report bizarrely titled “Common Sense, Common Safety”.  Imagine a Daily Mail editorial 58 pages long evidenced almost entirely by “stories” (myths) published in the Sun, the Star, the Daily Express and the Torygraph.   It starts off by talking about the so-called rise of “compensation culture” in the UK even though he includes a summary that accepts the “consensus of evidence” from "stakeholders" describes this as a “myth” (page 46).  This is not the only myth in this “report”.

Good health and safety, systems and practices, have nothing to do with any supposed failings regarding personal injuries claims and compensation.  Frankly like the “stakeholders” I don’t believe that the UK is a compensation Nirvana since I have seen people hurt at work down to employer negligence and who don’t get any money or got pitiful amounts.  In the "Forward" Lord Young confusingly moans that “if there’s a blame, there’s a claim’... “and any claim means financial recompense”.  Of course if someone is to blame there should be compensation?  This is entirely different from saying “any claim” must result in compensation. 

On Page 10 he states that “the standing of health and safety in the eyes of the public has never been lower” This is complete rubbish.  You can only believe this if you rely on the tabloid media.  Health and safety is a key issue for people at work and is given as a major reason by members for joining unions.  There are very few of us who do not know someone, a relative, work colleague or family member who was killed at work or died of work related ill-health.  Only if you read the Daily Biles would you think this.  Lord Young states “Almost every day the papers compete to write about absurdity after absurdity” page 20.  True, but he misses the point.  These absurdities are nearly always absurd myths and often blatant untruths.  As his “Annex D: Behind the myth: the truth behind health and safety hysteria in the media” even makes clear.

“Officials who ban events on health and safety” should put it in writing.  This is another silly myth.  Health and Safety Enforcement officers rarely “ban” events and if they do of course it would be in writing and open to challenge.  Has he never actually read or seen an enforcement notice from the HSE or a local authority?  Once again Lord Young appears to be just currying favour with the tabloids.

Words rarely fail me but I was completely taken aback at his recommendation that police officers or fire fighters should not be threatened with prosecution for putting themselves at risk for a “heroic act”! I have ever heard or read of any Police officers or fire fighters being “threatened” for such acts and could never imagine it would happen?  He has the cheek to talk about a “common sense” approach to things!

He wants less regulation of “low risk offices” and states that “No office workers died in 2009 due to accidents at work”? I would like to check this but how many office workers died from asbestos related disease and how many committed suicide due to occupational stress in 2009?  How many office workers now live in agony due to repetitive strain injuries they picked up in 2009?  It takes about 5 minutes, once a year, to risk assess a well managed office.  How is this a “burden”?  How much time and money does it cost a business if a worker is injured after tripping over a hazard and being off sick for a week?

Lord Young also confuses “eliminate risk” and “gold plating” (that bloody term again).  He actually implies that you should not try and eliminate risk since it encourages too much paperwork?  Everyone with the slightest knowledge of health and safety know you cannot eliminate all risks in life but it is an absolute basic building block of any safe system of work that you eliminate all significant risks that it is reasonably practical to do so.

Another myth being perpetuated in this report is that he states (page 11) that under the EU Framework Directive 1989 businesses have to risk assess everything. This is nonsense. You have to assess “significant” risks not everything.  For example you do not have to assess the risk of a meteorite falling on your head at work.  It may well be a risk but it is clearly not a significant risk. Common Sense?

I agree with the recommendation that health and safety consultants should be regulated (but that was already in hand under the previous government).  But he clearly does not understand existing safety practice by calling for “processes are in place to ensure that assessments are proportionate” since this is already in place, doesn’t he understand the concept of “reasonability”?

How can you possibly exempt people working from home from being covered by risk assessments?  Most such assessments I have seen just require an employee to email a digital photo of their workplace at home, do their normal Display Screen Equipment (DSE) training and fill out a tick list.  Hardly rocket science.  Lord Young despite apparently being an successful businessman doesn’t “get it” that risk assessments are there to protect the employer as well as the employees.

How on earth can he stop insurance companies requiring health and safety audits? (page 12) Insurances companies are independent and competitive businesses who decide policies and practices based on hard statistics? If they did not think that an audit was not necessary they wouldn’t ask for it.

My final myth is the recommendation that accidents and ill health should only be reported after someone is off work for 7 days instead of the current 3 days.  Since it is apparently too time consuming for businesses.  What twaddle.  He even supports the idea that employers will still have to investigate such incidents and look for yourself how you can make such a report online or on the phone in minutes.  He simply does not understand that prevention is better than the cure.  The HSE/LA want to know if an employer has a usual number of (so-called) minor accidents since it would indicate that there are problems that need investigating.

There are indeed “no win, no fee” corrupt lawyers in this country (and many honourable and professional ones).  By all means sort out the thieves who effectively steal compensation from their clients and make us all pay more in premiums but don’t blame elf n’ safety for this. 

There are also elf n’ safety con merchants who sell over the top and usually useless procedures to businesses.  However, don’t confuse this with an attack on health and safety itself.  Don’t pander to the mythology of the “Daily Biles”. 

What this report does demonstrate is that such is the widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of basic safety issues at the highest levels that we actually need greater regulation and enforcement not less.  I hope against expectation that no one  will listen to this completely flawed and potentially dangerous siren call.

Work related ill-health: this, that and the other

As a trade union branch secretary I get these sort of questions quite often so I’m thinking of sending this check list out to all branch stewards and safety reps on how to respond to union members who asks for representation on work related ill-health matter.  Have I missed anything out?

This: If there is any chance of a personal injury claim then make sure they are referred immediately to a union lawyer.  Do not delay since there are strict time limits. Some so-called “no-win no fee” solicitors will charge you for an insurance  policy in case they lose and expect you to pay up front for very expensive medical or other specialist reports.

That: Reassure that this referral should not affect your member’s employment and is usually dealt with by the employers’ insurers!

Other: Most (not all) of no-win, no fee firms are simply crooks. 

This: Was an accident/incident form filled out at the time?  If not then do a retrospective one backdated and send to manager(s).  If our member was off work for more than 3 days (at any stage due to the accident or incident) ask for confirmation that this report will be sent to the relevant Health & Safety enforcement unit (either the HSE or the Local Council depending on where you work). If your member is off sick due to work related stress, bullying or harassment - report this as well. 

That: You cannot rely on my managers to always fill out an accident/incident form.  Make sure they do and keep copies of report and ask for a written copy of management’s  investigation into the original report.

Other: if an accident or incident form is not filled out the member may lose out in state benefits and a personal injury claim - regardless of its merit.

This: Ask for copies of the health & safety risk assessment covering what the member was doing at the time. 

That: There is a statutory requirement for suitable and adequate risk assessments for all significant workplace activities to be in place. (use your common - but this requirement pretty much covers everything a worker does)

Other: If manager does not respond or risk assessments are inadequate or none existence or out of date then take up with local joint safety committees first but if no joy take it up further and if necessary report to the relevant Health & Safety enforcement office. Get advice first from your union.

This: think about advising your member to go to their local Citizen Advice Bureau (or Law Centre if they do welfare rights) and have a full benefit check.  Union reps are not specialists in this area.

That: Many ill-health benefits are NOT means tested so it does not matter what your savings are or what your partner (if you have one) earns.   

Other: Remember if work related to ask about Industrial Injuries benefits which are also none means tested and “no fault” (you do not have to prove negligence).  This work related benefit covers mental and physical health illness.  Apply to have it backdated to date of accident or onset of illness. 

This: What do the Employer Occupational health advisers say about the illness and the likelihood (prognosis) of recovery? 

That: Has the government funded “access to work” advisers been contacted?  Will they/Employer pay for such things as a taxi to take your member to work or provide specialist equipment? (the employer will usually have to pay as well – quite right too)

Other: If Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) should apply the employer should make reasonable adjustments and/or consider redeployment.  Remember under DDA such employees have to be given priority for suitable redeployment.  If a disabled member can at all realistically do the new job they should ring fence it for them.   Argue about redesigning a potential job around his disability (HR don’t generally like this argument).

This: If your member is off long term and their contractual sickness pay has run out check to see if the company has a Permanent Health Insurance Policy (PHI).   If there is any delay in payment find out who is responsible for the delay.  If an unreasonable length of time is taken (and there usually is) consider making a formal complaint of maladministration to the employer and insurance company and ask the employer make up the wages until a decision made. 

That: If someone is off long term sick then the insurance company should assess our member and start paying as soon as the sick pay runs out  (if eligible) .  Always appeal the decision if the PHI Company turns down unreasonably any claim and ask the Employer to pay for an “independent health assessment”.   

Other: Remember nearly all (non-mutually owned) insurance companies are simply crooks.

Finally: Does your union have a welfare fund?  If so consider referring the member if in financial difficulties (some unions have disability and/or ill health benefits as well?)

What have I missed out?

Safety Matters: Pre-employment health checks, asbestos in schools and risky work fines

Nothing much is supposed to happen in August but check out this week’s TUC weekly on-line bulletin  “Risks”.

Pre-employment health checks are to become illegal under the Equality Act in October. Employers will not be able to ask health questions or make medical checks on job applicants before offering them the job. This will make it far more difficult for them to discriminate against the disabled since they would then have to “justify” why they are withdrawing a job offer after they discover someone has a disability.

Excellent news!

Waltham Forest Council Ace UNISON health & safety rep, Su Manning is mentioned also for “hammering” her employer over HSE enforcement notices about their failure to carry out checks over asbestos and legionnaire disease in schools (schools????? I kid you not)

Another important advance reported was that the Appeal Court has ruled that it was legal for courts to give firms big fines over significant (risky) safety failures which could (but luckily didn’t) have resulted in large numbers of people being killed.

This is fundamental to the H&S principle that prevention is much, much better than cure.

(picture I took of disturbed and crumbling asbestos pipe lagging in a library basement used as a storage area during a trade union safety inspection in 2003)

Getting rid of 'elf & safety cowboys?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reassuring them that their job is safe

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

• Providing a phased return to work

• Helping them adjust to the workplace at a gradual pace

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

• Encouraging colleagues to support the individual's rehabilitation

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

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

"We didn't Vote to Die at Work"

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

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

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

UNISON NDC 2010: “Bullied at work?” fringe

This packed standing room only official UNISON Health & safety fringe was held on Tuesday lunchtime. The fringe was used to launch a new UNISON document on “bullying at work” which is based on recent UNISON surveys and research on bullying. Portsmouth University business school lecturer, Charlotte Raynar was the main guest speaker (left). Nick Green of National Health & Safety Committee was Chair and Hope Daley (National Health & Safety officer) the second speaker. There was also a very personal contribution from a UNISON member who had been badly bullied at work.

There had been a survey on bullying in 1997 and a new one undertaken last year. A definition of bullying (it’s not the only one) used was having “weekly negative experiences” at work. Before only 50% of workers who reported such weekly negative experiences were willing to call this behaviour “bullying”. However in 2009 80% reported it as “bullying”. So the percentage of workers who now recognise they are being bullying had almost doubled. Which I suppose in a strange way is "positive" since it means that the message about what is bullying and that bullying is unacceptable - has got out.

Some interesting analysis about bullying and what to do about it.

When not being bullied 71% said that they would make formal complaint if they were to be bullied in the future. However only 17% of workers who reported being bullied had done so. 82% said if they were bullied they would see a UNISON rep but actually only 37% did in practice.

Only 20% of those who chose to confront a “bully” thought it had resolved the situation. Which is very low but only 5.9% of those who went to HR thought it resolved anything. Charlotte thought that in some cases when workers reported bullies to HR it ended up being treated as a performance management matter about the worker who complained! Those who made formal complaint thought it was resolved in only 15%. Surprising only 17% of those who had taking out collective grievances thought that it had worked but in this case Charlotte reported that in 1997 such grievances were very rare.

The price of bullying is clear. Workers being bullied suffer depression, stress, suffer lack of confidence and 28% of people leave work directly due to bullying.

Recession and the possible (probable) £34 billion in cuts will result in “negative behaviours” going up? Yes! Bullying is inefficient means of management. Doesn’t make them work harder. This is not just a HR issue this is a "people issue".

Next was Suzanne who was a UNISON member who had been bullied at work by a group of workers who made her life a misery. They made her life seem like “torture”. She put up with it for 2 years. She then reported it to her line manager who agreed that she was being bullied but did nothing. She went to UNISON. Who eventually got Thompsons solicitors involved. Lack of training and understanding by managers is the reason why bullying is “allowed” to carry on. Her managers were redeployed and don’t manage people anymore. She spoke movingly about how she used to be a very confident person but the bullying at the time made her cry all the time.

Hope Daley also spoke about the survey results and UNISON response. Apart from the research and the new policy document UNISON have introduced a specially designed one day course for activists on bullying. There is also new literature and campaign materials. Anti-bullying action should also be used to recruit new members and reps. 80% of members want specific legislation on tackling bullying. UNISON will press for this. Many employer policies on bullying are over 10 years old and not effective. UNISON will be pressing the HSE and the Council enforcement bodies to serve improvement notices about inadequate policies and risk assessments.

In the Q&A I asked whether or not the survey could identify if there was more bullying amongst UNISON members in the private sector (or who work with private contractors) since our branch often comes across “life on Mars” attitudes towards bullying by some private sector managers (it didn’t identify where members worked).

One delegate present told us that she was a former HR officer who was now a union rep. She was very critical of some of her former colleagues. She said she had joined HR because she thought it was a “caring profession”. She said that to be a good HR officer you need tremendous character and need to draw a line and stand up and say “no” to managers.

Finally, Charlotte reminded everyone one of the more positive outcomes of the research was that you are more likely to deal successfully with the abuse if you deal firmly with it on the first or second occasion. If you let the bullying go on for more times without doing anything then it is far more difficult to deal with it. So UNISON must encourage members to go to their reps as soon as there is a problem and the rep must deal with it quickly and firmly. Food for thought.