'PC/Health & Safety gone mad' gone mad.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We've all heard or read the ridiculous stories in the tabloids that sound like you couldn't make them up, but which myth is your favourite?

My top 3:

1) 'Baa baa black sheep' has been banned because it is racist.

Some nurseries did actually start to sing 'Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep' but this is to extend the song and teach adjectives. Incredibly, some teachers have actually bought into the myth and believe that the original version is banned!

2) Children must wear safety goggles when they play conkers.

It seems like one headteacher made this rule in his school and the newspapers decided that it was an official health and safety regulation.

3) EU have banned curved bananas.

I have no idea where this one came from. Some journalist writing for The Daily Express...?

[schmenke]

This is not a myth:

One of our contractor’s offices requires staff drink coffee, tea (or any hot beverage) from only cups with lids. The office has removed all coffee cups from the kitchens and has issued all their staff with thermos-style cups with lids.

[EuroTroll]

3) EU have banned curved bananas.

I have no idea where this one came from. Some journalist writing for The Daily Express...?

This was covered in an episode of QI. If I remember correctly, the banana story was thought up by a couple of journalists over a pint in Brussels, with the intention of testing whether tabloids and their readers would fall for it. They did... :laugh:

[EuroTroll]

This was covered in an episode of QI. If I remember correctly, the banana story was thought up by a couple of journalists over a pint in Brussels, with the intention of testing whether tabloids and their readers would fall for it. They did... :laugh:

In fact, I've got my myths mixed up, as this clip will demonstrate. ;)

oqVJEZnYiZo

[Rudy Tamasz]

This is not a myth:

One of our contractor’s offices requires staff drink coffee, tea (or any hot beverage) from only cups with lids. The office has removed all coffee cups from the kitchens and has issued all their staff with thermos-style cups with lids.

I've read this about BP. They also require their staff to use guardrails while walking up and down the stairs. This was mentioned in the context that they pay too much attention to personal safety while neglecting the collective safety. And that's how the Mexican Gulf disaster happened.

[schmenke]

I've read this about BP. They also require their staff to use guardrails while walking up and down the stairs. This was mentioned in the context that they pay too much attention to personal safety while neglecting the collective safety. And that's how the Mexican Gulf disaster happened.

I’m not surprised. My example is an Imperial Oil project office :mark: .

Like BP, everyone must hold a handrail, and I’m o.k. with that, but also female staff are discouraged from wearing heals with pants as this is considered a tripping hazard.

I’m also o.k. with employees being issued small bottles of hand sanitizer but at the same time Muslim staff are permitted to wash their feet in the bathroom sinks before praying in their offices during working hours :s

[BDunnell]

Like BP, everyone must hold a handrail, and I’m o.k. with that

I'm not, because I like to think I know best how to ensure my own safety. Such things (and I've heard this story too) are never brought in as a means of ensuring the safety of anyone. They are solely intended to avoid companies or organisations being held liable in the event of an incident. I abhor the untrue stories about 'health and safety' as much as anyone — in their basic form, such laws have undoubtedly saved many lives, especially in factories — but we increasingly see it taken to a ridiculous extent, and for the wrong reasons.

[schmenke]

I'm not, because I like to think I know best how to ensure my own safety. Such things (and I've heard this story too) are never brought in as a means of ensuring the safety of anyone. They are solely intended to avoid companies or organisations being held liable in the event of an incident. I abhor the untrue stories about 'health and safety' as much as anyone — in their basic form, such laws have undoubtedly saved many lives, especially in factories — but we increasingly see it taken to a ridiculous extent, and for the wrong reasons.

I had a coworker injure herself quite badly falling down a flight of stairs, with both hands full. It was a stupid, avoidable accident. Had she had at least one hand on a stairwell she wouldn’t have suffered the concussion, stitches and 4 weeks of missed work.

I’m not sure I agree with the rest of your post.

My company at least is generally concerned about the safety and well-being of our employees. Also, I do not, in my ~20 years in the work force, much of it in the construction industry, ever remember a law suit by an employee against a company for a work-related accident. In fact, this is why every company must enroll with, and pay premiums to, a provincial Worker’s Compensation Board.

[BDunnell]

I had a coworker injure herself quite badly falling down a flight of stairs, with both hands full. It was a stupid, avoidable accident. Had she had at least one hand on a stairwell she wouldn’t have suffered the concussion, stitches and 4 weeks of missed work.

With all due respect to her, no-one should need to be told how best to use a set of stairs, nor that some means of traversing them are more hazardous than others. I object greatly to being considered as a potentially litigious moron; unfortunately, this is how most people are viewed by companies and organisations these days, thanks to the unchecked rise of compensation claims in relation to minor incidents.



My company at least is generally concerned about the safety and well-being of our employees.

Every company should of course be concerned about those things. But it is possible to have this genuine concern and not patronise workers by means of written rules and risk assessments. And let's not be too generous about the underlying motivation — these exist largely to avoid liability, otherwise there would be no need for a lot of them.

[Mintexmemory]

And so it begins........ Some forum members may have looked at my profile and noticed that my occupation is H&S consultant. I have a professional duty (incumbent upon all members and fellows of the Institution) to correct common misapprehensions about the practice of H&S.
Many companies worldwide (including BP) are following the model for corporate safety behaviours developed by the Du Pont company. They largely 'pirated' the work of industrial psychologists active in the 1970s.
The emphasis on personal safety behaviours by rote always causes the hackles of intelligent people to rise because 'after all safety is common sense'. Actually it isn't. 21st century man is still not very more evolved than 1st century man. We all have instinctive fight or flight response to wild animals (especially with black and yellow colour schemes) but will happily approach unguarded machinery, vehicle engine bays etc. without the slightest inherent concern. Ok so we aren't afraid of things that can do real harm and this includes the use of ladders in domestic circumstances. There is an additional complication that even if we do have a fleeting thought that passes for analysis of risk we inherently prioritise time saved over protection assurance.
So to ensure people take the time to recognise personal risk and respond accordingly it is necessary: a) to demand a ritualistic approach (i.e non-ordinary) to the safety behaviours in the workplace. b) To constantly be re-inventing the message. and c) to make compliance a condition of employment.
Mostly this is done not to avoid liability for injury accidents (you'd be surprised how difficult it is to pursue claims in the UK, especially in a non-unionised environment) but to ensure that the minimal levels of manning most companies run at are not compromised by absent team members.
It is the same reason why some of the major swiss companies prohibit their employees from skiing.
The money that BP have paid out as a result of the Gulf of Mexico, and before that Texas City, dwarfs the payouts for successful injury compensation claims worldwide. There is a lot more that goes on in big companies, including the major UK construction players, to ensure employee safety over and above the the obvious (and frequently trivialised) conduct rules. BP's big mistakes were to take their eye off the technical safety ball which if not constantly audited will degrade (human nature again) and to fail to be rigourous in their contractor selection.
It is a very lucky person who can say they have never come to harm because they made a poor judgement of risk on at least one occasion in their adult lives

[rjbetty]

I hear that you aren't allowed to call a blackboard a blackboard now, since that's racist!

Now we have to say chalkboard.

It's absurd, and when you think about it, it's probably more racist to ban the word blackboard than to say it.

I also don't think it's any more racist to mention a person has dark skin than mentioning a person has blonde hair. But everyone seems to quick to shout racist at the slightest thing.

[BDunnell]

I hear that you aren't allowed to call a blackboard a blackboard now, since that's racist!

A nonsensical myth propagated by the tabloid press and perpetuated by people who believe the first thing they read in their poisonous rag of choice.

[BDunnell]

And so it begins........ Some forum members may have looked at my profile and noticed that my occupation is H&S consultant. I have a professional duty (incumbent upon all members and fellows of the Institution) to correct common misapprehensions about the practice of H&S.
Many companies worldwide (including BP) are following the model for corporate safety behaviours developed by the Du Pont company. They largely 'pirated' the work of industrial psychologists active in the 1970s.
The emphasis on personal safety behaviours by rote always causes the hackles of intelligent people to rise because 'after all safety is common sense'. Actually it isn't. 21st century man is still not very more evolved than 1st century man. We all have instinctive fight or flight response to wild animals (especially with black and yellow colour schemes) but will happily approach unguarded machinery, vehicle engine bays etc. without the slightest inherent concern. Ok so we aren't afraid of things that can do real harm and this includes the use of ladders in domestic circumstances. There is an additional complication that even if we do have a fleeting thought that passes for analysis of risk we inherently prioritise time saved over protection assurance.
So to ensure people take the time to recognise personal risk and respond accordingly it is necessary: a) to demand a ritualistic approach (i.e non-ordinary) to the safety behaviours in the workplace. b) To constantly be re-inventing the message. and c) to make compliance a condition of employment.
Mostly this is done not to avoid liability for injury accidents (you'd be surprised how difficult it is to pursue claims in the UK, especially in a non-unionised environment) but to ensure that the minimal levels of manning most companies run at are not compromised by absent team members.
It is the same reason why some of the major swiss companies prohibit their employees from skiing.
The money that BP have paid out as a result of the Gulf of Mexico, and before that Texas City, dwarfs the payouts for successful injury compensation claims worldwide. There is a lot more that goes on in big companies, including the major UK construction players, to ensure employee safety over and above the the obvious (and frequently trivialised) conduct rules. BP's big mistakes were to take their eye off the technical safety ball which if not constantly audited will degrade (human nature again) and to fail to be rigourous in their contractor selection.
It is a very lucky person who can say they have never come to harm because they made a poor judgement of risk on at least one occasion in their adult lives

I agree that there are many misapprehensions regarding health and safety legislation. But in the last couple of years in particular, experience gained through aspects of my own line of work has led me to believe that a self-perpetuating growth industry has come to develop around the subject, doing a fair deal of damage to certain activities in financially straitened times, and for little practical reason.

With respect, I personally resent the fact that an attitude exists whereby someone not known to me can seriously suggest that they know better than do I how I should behave. This is on the grounds that I consider myself an intelligent and, furthermore, a naturally cautious person. Of course we all make poor judgements, but I am willing to accept this fact and, if necessary, take the consequences if it was genuinely my own error. I am able to conduct myself safely in my own home; therefore, I tend to think I can do so elsewhere, too. The notion that I need to sign a risk assessment in order to climb some stairs — which I had to do last year — I find insulting and troubling, not least because it was portrayed as being 'for my own safety'. Nonsense.

By all means, let's do everything possible to increase safety in genuinely hazardous situations. But when it comes to everyday tasks and actions, let's not take it too far. Suggesting I might not know how to climb some stairs safely, or, indeed, safely descend them, is patronising and unnecessary.

[EuroTroll]

I hear that you aren't allowed to call a blackboard a blackboard now, since that's racist!

Now we have to say chalkboard.

I hear that from 2014, we can't use the word "black" at all anymore. Racist! Instead we have to say "African white". :p

[Malbec]

With respect, I personally resent the fact that an attitude exists whereby someone not known to me can seriously suggest that they know better than do I how I should behave. This is on the grounds that I consider myself an intelligent and, furthermore, a naturally cautious person. Of course we all make poor judgements, but I am willing to accept this fact and, if necessary, take the consequences if it was genuinely my own error. I am able to conduct myself safely in my own home; therefore, I tend to think I can do so elsewhere, too. The notion that I need to sign a risk assessment in order to climb some stairs — which I had to do last year — I find insulting and troubling, not least because it was portrayed as being 'for my own safety'. Nonsense.

By all means, let's do everything possible to increase safety in genuinely hazardous situations. But when it comes to everyday tasks and actions, let's not take it too far. Suggesting I might not know how to climb some stairs safely, or, indeed, safely descend them, is patronising and unnecessary.

Whilst I do find most H and S guidelines rather patronising unfortunately it is also true that there is evidence that where there is lax H/S there is an increase in the risk of accidents occurring and the number of casualties when they do. Accident and mortality rates in Italy and Spain where there is less of an H and S culture are far higher than in the UK for example where it is pervasive:

http://crywolfproject.org/sites/default/files/Global%20estimates%20of%20occupational%20accidents .pdf

The problem with the H and S system is of course that it is not personalised and therefore has to treat everyone as if they were the lowest common denominator which is why most people find it demeaning.

[Malbec]

A nonsensical myth propagated by the tabloid press and perpetuated by people who believe the first thing they read in their poisonous rag of choice.

Like all things though, there probably is a grain of truth in the matter which has been twisted out of all proportion to suit an agenda.

I had heard blackboards are no longer called that because they have been replaced by whiteboards instead, and the original title is no longer descriptive.

I'm not sure this comes under H and S but there was an urban myth that a particular council had banned Xmas decorations as various ethnic minorities had complained.

It turned out that the council had previously just put up Xmas decorations but in order to save money switched to using winter decorations from October or so and kept their Xmas decorations back until late November. The rationale being that Xmas decorations generally use lights and were therefore more expensive to keep up.

The same council hadn't any record of any complaints about the lights, whether old or new from any ethnic group either.

[BDunnell]

Whilst I do find most H and S guidelines rather patronising unfortunately it is also true that there is evidence that where there is lax H/S there is an increase in the risk of accidents occurring and the number of casualties when they do. Accident and mortality rates in Italy and Spain where there is less of an H and S culture are far higher than in the UK for example where it is pervasive:

http://crywolfproject.org/sites/default/files/Global%20estimates%20of%20occupational%20accidents .pdf

The problem with the H and S system is of course that it is not personalised and therefore has to treat everyone as if they were the lowest common denominator which is why most people find it demeaning.

Very well put. However, this fact does nothing to change my view that we are now seeing the concept applied over-zealously, in aspects of life and in relation to activities where it has little or no place.

[Garry Walker]

With respect, I personally resent the fact that an attitude exists whereby someone not known to me can seriously suggest that they know better than do I how I should behave. This is on the grounds that I consider myself an intelligent and, furthermore, a naturally cautious person. Of course we all make poor judgements, but I am willing to accept this fact and, if necessary, take the consequences if it was genuinely my own error. I am able to conduct myself safely in my own home; therefore, I tend to think I can do so elsewhere, too. The notion that I need to sign a risk assessment in order to climb some stairs — which I had to do last year — I find insulting and troubling, not least because it was portrayed as being 'for my own safety'. Nonsense.

By all means, let's do everything possible to increase safety in genuinely hazardous situations. But when it comes to everyday tasks and actions, let's not take it too far. Suggesting I might not know how to climb some stairs safely, or, indeed, safely descend them, is patronising and unnecessary.

The man has finally said something intelligent, I have nothing more to add.

My better half was subjected to some H & S last year in her company, with her favourite warning being that when the floor is wet, it will be slippery and she should be careful. Telling that to a grown up person is just plain insulting and degrading.

[Dave B]

I had a coworker injure herself quite badly falling down a flight of stairs, with both hands full. It was a stupid, avoidable accident. Had she had at least one hand on a stairwell she wouldn’t have suffered the concussion, stitches and 4 weeks of missed work.
I reported a second-hand car dealer to the authorities because I the handrail I grabbed came off in my hand, exposing a 20' drop to the workshop below. The salesman laughed the incident off saying "that always happens". Needless to say I didn't buy a vehicle from them... :s

[BDunnell]

I reported a second-hand car dealer to the authorities because I the handrail I grabbed came off in my hand, exposing a 20' drop to the workshop below. The salesman laughed the incident off saying "that always happens". Needless to say I didn't buy a vehicle from them... :s

Again, that sort of thing — fine. But the legitimate health and safety cause is done no favours — indeed, I think it's done a lot of damage — by the concept's application to mundane, everyday tasks. It leads people to think the whole notion is pointless, and to ignore proper concerns.

[D-Type]

Being in the construction industry, I've had to live with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM Regulations) for the last 20-odd years. Two concepts the regs introduced were the 'Designer's Risk Assessment' and the role of "Health & Safety Co-ordinator' (or Planning Supervisor as it was originally called). So far so good, but the result has been a proliferation of quantified risk assessments which run to about 20 pages as people struggle to identify esoteric hazards and debate whether they are 'very unlikely' or 'highly unlikely' with the result that the things that should be highlighted and warned about - ie the unusual or the unexpected - get submerged in the morass. The most ridiculous I've had recently was when I had some dealings with our client's 'Health & Safety Co-ordinator' - this so-called expert knew his employer's 'cover our corporate backside' procedures backwards but he had never been on a construction site in his life.

[Sprocket]

Stairs though are properly dangerous. Look at the accident figures, more people get killed and seriously injured by stairs each year than practically any other non-disease related issue other than the roads. The fact many of us use them without a second thought just puts it all in perspective though. We learn from a very early age they are a risky business and do our best to mitigate the risk without someone telling us about it.

It's all about perspective. I've worked on BP sites before, OMG talk about H&S hoop jumping. At least a mornings induction course warning of the dangers of falling into containers with gases at the bottom... it did at times get just plain silly as my workers were not going anywhere near open containers etc and all of them had figured out already that smoking at a fuel depot was probably not a good idea.

I also hate filling in endless risk assessments for contracts, you end up just cutting and pasting them from the last contract any way, so they fail to do their job of concentrating the mind on potential risks.

I wrote out one recently, all about the risks of twisting ankles, the health risk of contact with Brown Tail Moth caterpillars etc etc etc.. the most dangerous thing though was getting up in the morning and tackling those deadly stairs and driving to the site every day. :)

[Mintexmemory]

Being in the construction industry, I've had to live with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM Regulations) for the last 20-odd years. Two concepts the regs introduced were the 'Designer's Risk Assessment' and the role of "Health & Safety Co-ordinator' (or Planning Supervisor as it was originally called). So far so good, but the result has been a proliferation of quantified risk assessments which run to about 20 pages as people struggle to identify esoteric hazards and debate whether they are 'very unlikely' or 'highly unlikely' with the result that the things that should be highlighted and warned about - ie the unusual or the unexpected - get submerged in the morass. The most ridiculous I've had recently was when I had some dealings with our client's 'Health & Safety Co-ordinator' - this so-called expert knew his employer's 'cover our corporate backside' procedures backwards but he had never been on a construction site in his life.

Sad but true - a large number of clients go for the cheapest CDM - C (not a H&S co-ordinator if you've read the regs) they can get away with. You pay peanuts you get monkeys who are seldom cost-effective because they have to research every damn thing. I have been on a construction site and have investigated fatalities. I have trained site agents and engineers from some of the biggest construction companies in the country. Sorting the wood from the trees is exactly the problem that brings the profession into disrepute -usually because insufficiently qualified / experienced people are used!

[D-Type]

Sadly this CDM-C* was an employee of the client. I can't name the client, but I can say that they are a major infrastructure company.



* I used 'Health and Safety Co-ordinator' so that non-construction people would understand what I was talking about.

[BDunnell]

Stairs though are properly dangerous. Look at the accident figures, more people get killed and seriously injured by stairs each year than practically any other non-disease related issue other than the roads. The fact many of us use them without a second thought just puts it all in perspective though. We learn from a very early age they are a risky business and do our best to mitigate the risk without someone telling us about it.

It's all about perspective. I've worked on BP sites before, OMG talk about H&S hoop jumping. At least a mornings induction course warning of the dangers of falling into containers with gases at the bottom... it did at times get just plain silly as my workers were not going anywhere near open containers etc and all of them had figured out already that smoking at a fuel depot was probably not a good idea.

I also hate filling in endless risk assessments for contracts, you end up just cutting and pasting them from the last contract any way, so they fail to do their job of concentrating the mind on potential risks.

I wrote out one recently, all about the risks of twisting ankles, the health risk of contact with Brown Tail Moth caterpillars etc etc etc.. the most dangerous thing though was getting up in the morning and tackling those deadly stairs and driving to the site every day. :)

Very good post, in my view. All pertinent points.

[Knock-on]

Again, that sort of thing — fine. But the legitimate health and safety cause is done no favours — indeed, I think it's done a lot of damage — by the concept's application to mundane, everyday tasks. It leads people to think the whole notion is pointless, and to ignore proper concerns.

Unfortunatly it is exactly the mundane accident that continues to be the biggest killer in the UK. Falls down stairs has already been said and is by far the biggest domestic cause of fatality. (worn slippers, worn carpet, kids toys, family pets, carrying items in both hands - all things people encounter without the thought processes Mintex referred to!!) Wouldn't you want someone to be told about the use of ladders, reversing of vehicles, loading of flatbed wagons, dismantling of scaffolding if you knew that for every 1000 people who think it's an affront to their intelligence you stop one fatality?

[wedge]

The right-wing press and those towards the right's fixation over the BBC's liberal agenda

The BBC's propaganda for fundamentalist Islam (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100052009/the-bbcs-propaganda-for-fundamentalist-islam/)

[BDunnell]

Unfortunatly it is exactly the mundane accident that continues to be the biggest killer in the UK. Falls down stairs has already been said and is by far the biggest domestic cause of fatality. (worn slippers, worn carpet, kids toys, family pets, carrying items in both hands - all things people encounter without the thought processes Mintex referred to!!) Wouldn't you want someone to be told about the use of ladders, reversing of vehicles, loading of flatbed wagons, dismantling of scaffolding if you knew that for every 1000 people who think it's an affront to their intelligence you stop one fatality?

For all the health and safety notices in the world, you're not going to stop every fatality as a result of such accidents. If someone feels they need to undertake a formalised risk assessment every time they descend some stairs, that's their problem. I feel I know how to do it cautiously without having to think about doing so, and would hope the majority of people are the same. However, all of the specific examples you mention are perfectly reasonable applications where a greater degree of thought is sensible.

[Sprocket]

Unfortunatly it is exactly the mundane accident that continues to be the biggest killer in the UK. Falls down stairs has already been said and is by far the biggest domestic cause of fatality. (worn slippers, worn carpet, kids toys, family pets, carrying items in both hands - all things people encounter without the thought processes Mintex referred to!!) Wouldn't you want someone to be told about the use of ladders, reversing of vehicles, loading of flatbed wagons, dismantling of scaffolding if you knew that for every 1000 people who think it's an affront to their intelligence you stop one fatality?


That is a fair argument. However where the affront tends to occur is in endless induction courses conducted by disinterested people who see it as just part of their job. They seem to have no facility to tailor the courses to be relevant in any way.

I know a lot about cleaning road cones. I spent a fascinating morning of my time learning how important it is to clean them and put them out in nice straight rows. This was despite the fact I was working on the motorway verge, and nobody was kind enough to provide any cones any way! I guess I was not important enough for them to cone of several miles of hard shoulder for 3 months.

So there was me playing with the ABM on the hard shoulder for 3 months, knowing lots about cones (which there were none of) but using my common sense to stay alive. I had no idea previously how often people mistook hard shoulders for live lanes until I did that contract, but I soon learnt.

A useful thing was the contact number for the maintenance contractor for that stretch of motorway. This was not given to me in the induction course, I requested it. It was useful because I was able to prevent a major accident when a large part of lorry tyre was deposited in the outside lane. People were slewing all over the place trying to avoid it. I was able to get it removed quickly before a serious accident. That is common sense and you would think an important piece of safety information for anyone working their stretch to have, not part of the induction course or paper work though.

It is perspective and relevance that is key, there is too much going through the motions but missing what could be important information to have. You can't sit intelligent people in front of a video for two hours which is either irrelevant or states things they have known since childhood and not expect them to switch off to the whole concept.

I participate in several leisure activities that are inherently dangerous. I'm more than happy to take in any safety information provided, learn from the mistakes of others and mitigate risk at every opportunity. H&S can work, but not when it is presented in a tiresome irrelevant format. You also cannot mitigate for the individual who takes unnecessary risks, tries to work outside their ability or is simply not 'switched on'. It could all be summed up with 'Life is DANGEROUS' most of us have been getting on with it for a while just fine. Now and again someone slips up, and one day it could be me, but that really cannot be taken out of the mix.

[Knock-on]

For all the health and safety notices in the world, you're not going to stop every fatality as a result of such accidents. If someone feels they need to undertake a formalised risk assessment every time they descend some stairs, that's their problem. I feel I know how to do it cautiously without having to think about doing so, and would hope the majority of people are the same. However, all of the specific examples you mention are perfectly reasonable applications where a greater degree of thought is sensible.

The initial issue in question was mandatory instruction to behave in certain ways (holding handrails, not having to carry out a risk assessment to go down stairs.)
Are you advocating some sort of extreme Darwinism where those whose thought processes are not sufficiently developed to avoid hazards cull themselves?

C'mon fess up - have you never had an accident that you could have avoided if you'd thought about your actions and considered the consequences?

You're starting to sound like the Daily Mail!!

[BDunnell]

The initial issue in question was mandatory instruction to behave in certain ways (holding handrails, not having to carry out a risk assessment to go down stairs.)
Are you advocating some sort of extreme Darwinism where those whose thought processes are not sufficiently developed to avoid hazards cull themselves?

Not at all, but avoiding such hazards is, let's face it, not difficult. Do you feel you need mandatory instruction to hold a handrail? I don't.



C'mon fess up - have you never had an accident that you could have avoided if you'd thought about your actions and considered the consequences?

Nothing of any consequence, no. As I said, I am a very cautious person. I behave safely because I know it's sensible so to do. I don't need to be told how and when to be safe. This I can manage for myself.

The last paragraph of Sprocket's previous post I think sums up my views very well.

[BDunnell]

It could all be summed up with 'Life is DANGEROUS' most of us have been getting on with it for a while just fine. Now and again someone slips up, and one day it could be me, but that really cannot be taken out of the mix.

Indeed. Nor can every such slip-up be blamed on a lack of awareness of health and safety-related issues, or an individual's recklessness. If I slip on some ice and break a leg, it won't be down to my being reckless — I'm not a reckless person. Rather, it will have been simply an accident. Better health and safety awareness would in no way have prevented it, for I always take suitable precautions in such conditions. Precautions can't always save you. They can give you a better chance, but, as I've said before, there are limits, and we are today seeing health and safety used too often as an excuse for not doing things, undue paperwork, increased costs and so on.

[gloomyDAY]

Well, a school was evacuated for a mix-up in lyrics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atq41uF89E0

Stay Fresh!

[Rudy Tamasz]

In Belarus they recently adopted a bylaw on keeping cattle. Now we have to keep pigs, cows and horses in heated and ventilated buildings, with no mice. Pigs should be kept at 14 to 16 degrees centigrade, horses 6 to 8, goats 3 to 6 etc. We are only allowed to slaughter them at certified slaughterhouses, which costs quite a bit. Needless to say in most cases animals do not live in such luxury. In an instant keeping cattle became very expensive. If this bylaw is really enforced it won't be too long before cattle is only left at large industrial scale farms.

[ioan]

In Belarus they recently adopted a bylaw on keeping cattle. Now we have to keep pigs, cows and horses in heated and ventilated buildings, with no mice. Pigs should be kept at 14 to 16 degrees centigrade, horses 6 to 8, goats 3 to 6 etc. We are only allowed to slaughter them at certified slaughterhouses, which costs quite a bit. Needless to say in most cases animals do not live in such luxury. In an instant keeping cattle became very expensive. If this bylaw is really enforced it won't be too long before cattle is only left at large industrial scale farms.

Horse living between 6 and 8 degrees celsius? You call that luxury? :p

[Rudy Tamasz]

Horse living between 6 and 8 degrees celsius? You call that luxury? :p

Building a stable where you can maintain this temperature is a luxury in the climate with ambient temperatures ranging from 10 below in winter to 30 above in summer. Mind you, my country house is not good enough for that. ;)

Nice article you have posted,I appreciate you for these tips we should have awareness for that.
Keep sharing stuff like this it will help us a lot about health related things.

Nice article you have posted,I appreciate you for these tips we should have awareness for that.
Keep sharing stuff like this it will help us a lot about health related things.


Any comments guys?


orlando weight Loss (http://www.fortefitness.com/orlando-weight-loss/)

[donKey jote]

yes, eat spam everybody ! :andrea:

[A FONDO]

beware, kixote, there are no reports, no posts deletion, no infractions, no ban for spammers like this one. menawhile you can get permanently banned if you say something against him, that happened to one guy from the Rally section.

[D-Type]

beware, kixote, there are no reports, no posts deletion, no infractions, no ban for spammers like this one. menawhile you can get permanently banned if you say something against him, that happened to one guy from the Rally section.
I think you are referring to an accidental deletion by a certain ten-thumbed moderator. :mad:

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

[Bagwan]

So far , nobody has mentioned what it costs a company when the employee does something stupid , like falling down some stairs .

I know people feel stupid , getting schooled on things that seem pretty basic , but how do we propose to sort out who needs that schooling and who doesn't ?
It comes down to the employee , who might well be very agile , and able to do two stairs at once , thinking they are saving the company time , by moving quickly .
It might be down to what my dad used to call " a lazy man's load" , where you simply carry too much trying to avoid a second trip .

Those two simple scenarios are both seemingly a benefit to the company , but they both carry inherent risk that the employee doesn't usually take into consideration .

It costs a heck of a pile of down-time , when someone falls down a set of stairs .
It can be , firstly , life threatening for the individual(s) involved , and can result in significant time away .
Those helping , as they should , will be doing no work at that time , and can be traumatized or at least drawn away from normal work though processes for sometimes a significant time afterwards .

If any employee involved is essential to the production of the company , it can be devastating .

[ioan]

It costs a heck of a pile of down-time , when someone falls down a set of stairs .

About as much as it costs when employees experience burn-outs.

[donKey jote]

About as much as it costs when employees experience burn-outs.

yes, but there are health & safety measures to help there too.
... the European working time directive for example :)

[ioan]

yes, but there are health & safety measures to help there too.
... the European working time directive for example :)

Yeah sure, that is if you work in 9 to 17 and do not have deadlines, pushy corporate customers as well as many customers in the Middle East.
Anyway, the point is that the European working time directive is great... when there are no ways to go around it.