|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 23, 2021 6:52:14 GMT
That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins, and a time advantage over the competition in terms of speed of response to customer's needs. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability. It depends on your reference point - that’s all well and good for a one man band operating by the skin of his teeth. Is that the last of the snide remarks, . . or have you got any more to throw about ?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 23, 2021 7:27:45 GMT
Legal responsibilities of employers Health and safety law states that organisations must:
assess risks to employees, customers, partners and any other people who could be affected by their activities;
arrange for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventive and protective measures;
have a written health and safety policy if they employ five or more people;
ensure they have access to competent health and safety advice; consult employees about their risks at work and current preventive and protective measures.
Failure to comply with these requirements can have serious consequences – for both organisations and individuals. Sanctions include fines, imprisonment and disqualification.
It's all fun and games until someone is seriously injured or dies. No one deserves to goto work and not go home afterwards.
It took a death of a customer in one of our stores for the business be to take H&S really seriously. No one should ever be put at risk for the sake of earning a few more pennies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 7:49:47 GMT
It depends on your reference point - that’s all well and good for a one man band operating by the skin of his teeth. Is that the last of the snide remarks, . . or have you got any more to throw about ? Who said it was directed at you? Really Tony, If you are looking for a fight to pick I'm not your man - I thought it an interesting side discussion, as I have said repeatedly, I don't necessarily agree with all I have written, but like it or not it's a fact of doing business. But so be it - I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 23, 2021 7:50:27 GMT
A lot of elfinsafety is good and sensible but unfortunately some activities involve risk. As long as those who take them are fully aware of the risks and do not take them unnecessarily, I do not understand the paranoia of the risk averse society we now live in. As far as I am concerned the only risks that must be avoided are ones that cause risk to a third party who has not agreed to be in that risk zone.
edit this was not a post directed at @gazza but a general observation on the whole theme .... just he posted a few seconds before me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 8:26:04 GMT
Man goes to sort out a Ellum on a narrow boat. One of the tools is a sledge hammer. While tapping away he accidentally dislodges a small shard of steel which flies off towards the towpath, striking a high speed cyclist in the eye. Cyclist loses control of bicycle and crashes into three young mothers with pushchairs and baby carriers causing 7 people to be thrown into the freezing canal water and die from drowning. Meanwhile on a nearby road a van driver who is playing with his phone notices the commotion and accidentally drives onto the wrong side of the road, colliding with a school bus which rolls down the embankment into the canal, drowing 34 people most of them small children. This draws the attention of a nearby helicopter pilot who starts flying erratically and clips the wing of a Boeing 777 coming in to land at a nearby airport. The plane crashes into a large building killing 372 people on the aircraft and a further 19 on the ground, in a huge fireball. So just one bloke with a sledge hammer ends up killing well over 400 people. This is why we do need elfin safety
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 23, 2021 8:29:03 GMT
and all because some stupid butterfly flapped its flippin' wings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 8:50:47 GMT
... @socks has made the arrangements to @socks satisfaction and the job is in hand. We can all relax and leave it to @socks now Rog Ten days ago :-- " Wayne has been, the boat needs to come out. . . Dunkley now dismisses the guy who came to look at my boat, I have taken the advice of the man who has seen the boat. . . The boat has to come out as there iis no way other way to access the rudder." Today :-- The boat does not need to come out, it needs to stay where it is. . . No crane required. . .The mover never turned up, I dont think the welder wants to do the job, or he's not happy to do the job, certainly not started it yet. . . I've rung him several times, he's not sent his truck. . . The boat can stay where it is, so it can be repaired in situ. . . There are no boat movements even if I wanted a tow. . . Nope, not the Dunkley method. . . The proper method, I'm a bit more confident than I was two weeks ago. . . I now know what the problem is and I'm pretty sure it can be sorted, with assistance. . . I was never going to be able to do anything myself. . . The boat has moved a bit, but not of its own accord" What was that you were saying, . . Alice ? Socks is an adult and can do whatever she wishes with her boat, employing whoever she wishes. She asked for advice in her first post and this was provided speedily by @twerp By page three of this thread (24 hours later) Socks made it clear the solution was in hand to her satisfaction ... and let us not forget that exactly what the problem is, remains pure speculation. However thereafter, a stream of constant criticism of her judgement and decisions prompted yet another poster to delete their account. You must be very proud of your actions thus far and now to add to your fun you can gloat at Socks ongoing problems. Of course without your efforts we'd be able to read the latest on thunderboat rather than the other place. But I've only commented in response to your direct question ... and I'll repeat ... Socks is at liberty to do what she wishes with her boat, whether it's right, wrong or ridiculous and does not require approval from you. There seems little advantage in being the most knowledgeable man in the world if your people skills mean no one wants to listen. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 23, 2021 8:59:02 GMT
During your career as a pilot, did you regard every incident free successful flight as something you had 'got away with', . . or did you see things somewhat differently ? I didn’t get away with not complying with relevant legislation - because I did comply with it to the best of my ability. I and my company certainly didn’t ignore some pieces of legislation in order to gain some financial or other advantage over our competitors. That would be a recipe for a short career. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes it is something that couldn’t be foreseen and for which one isn’t directly culpable that scuppers one, at which point of course every iota of compliance is checked with a magnifying glass by HSE (or in my case, AAIB). So I did “get away with” each successful flight because not all flights are like that, especially when it comes to the mechanical complexities of a helicopter and the unforgiving nature of eg flying 100s of miles over of a raging sea at night. I never had a serious incident arising from mechanical failure, and neither did most people. But a few did, and I’m thankful I was never one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 9:09:13 GMT
I and my company certainly didn’t ignore some pieces of legislation in order to gain some financial or other advantage over our competitors. That would be a recipe for a short career. So not a cowboy then.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 23, 2021 9:12:10 GMT
I and my company certainly didn’t ignore some pieces of legislation in order to gain some financial or other advantage over our competitors. That would be a recipe for a short career. So not a cowboy then. No. Although I did wonder when I had a flight scheduled for takeoff at 09:50.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 9:15:45 GMT
Jane always calls that Cowboy time ... how very strange.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Nov 23, 2021 9:36:02 GMT
Man goes to sort out a Ellum on a narrow boat. One of the tools is a sledge hammer. While tapping away he accidentally dislodges a small shard of steel which flies off towards the towpath, striking a high speed cyclist in the eye. Cyclist loses control of bicycle and crashes into three young mothers with pushchairs and baby carriers causing 7 people to be thrown into the freezing canal water and die from drowning. Meanwhile on a nearby road a van driver who is playing with his phone notices the commotion and accidentally drives onto the wrong side of the road, colliding with a school bus which rolls down the embankment into the canal, drowing 34 people most of them small children. This draws the attention of a nearby helicopter pilot who starts flying erratically and clips the wing of a Boeing 777 coming in to land at a nearby airport. The plane crashes into a large building killing 372 people on the aircraft and a further 19 on the ground, in a huge fireball. So just one bloke with a sledge hammer ends up killing well over 400 people. This is why we do need elfin safety Yeh but, he has drained the canal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 9:43:02 GMT
No need to tag me Rog, was staying out of this thread quite happily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 9:58:01 GMT
Jane always calls that Cowboy time ... how very strange. Rog So did Mouse - in the midst darkness a ray of light must shine, Thanks to you and Telemachus
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 9:58:41 GMT
I got dragged back in ... least I could do is drag you in too Rog
|
|