Comments by Stacey Collins

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

An opening gambit starting with the words "you know you can now be sued for..." is probably not worthy of a response. However, may I just say that hysterical reaction to what you can be sued for precludes the possibility that there is common sense in Britains court system (which there most definitely is despite what the papers say).

In fact a lawsuit on the grounds of referring to someone as "love"would never even get as far as a court and if it did it would be treated with the contempt it deserves. A corollary is the fear people have that they might be sued for malpractice for giving first aid if someone dies as a result, which is complete nonsense although a good money spinner for insurers. What we might call common sense has a name in this case - an obiter dictum called the "good samaritan principle". It is not in the public interest for such a case to proceed.

I expect that if the "love" case came to court it would be similar. In fact a judge would have very little difficulty distinguishing between a figure of speech and an act of sexual harrasment simply by relying only on the definition of harassment in existing statutes: Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 . No appeal to nebulous and undefined "common sense" is needed at all. Common sense is not something we are born with, is not universal and there is no agreement on its scope or contents. The phrase is meaningless itself. Either the rights of a person have been infringed or they haven't.

Some people like to get hot under the collar about nonsense legislation, PC gone mad and so on, but very ,very few of the examples cited that Britain is being slowly strangled by red tape wielding nannies actually ended in a reasonable, well behaved and considerate member of the public, who was going about his or her rightful business, being either sued or jailed unjustly. It doesn't happen.

One issue we should seriously concern ourselves with is the stress that is induced by getting upset over newspaper articles like these (april fool or otherwise). Newspapers know as much about lawmaking as they do about science, i.e. not nearly enough. Next to no preparation, care or knowledge goes into 50% of what you read in a newspaper. They also make stuff up, sensationalise and deliberately misinterpret hings, and they lie.

That said the Guardian reports today that Hooters plans to open 36 more branches in the UK. I think most law firms specialising in harrasment will be far to busy with that little lot to bother if you call someone "love".

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

I had some success when I managed to agree with staff, space planners and managers (or whoever organises your office layout) an agreed performance standard: i.e. we will provide "x" amount of space, maintain "y" office temp etc. (which was pretty much the workplace regs ACOP and CIBSE standards, with one or two specifics relating to our offices, furniture and equipment) Proved very effective for me in managing the middle ground between staff asking too much and managers wanting to cram more people in.

But looking for a minimum allowable distance (or any other quantitive standard ) goes against the spirit of the thing, even if it does meet some guidelines. The watchword is always "reasonable". When you watch people work and they are patently cramped up, that's not right. If you think you could reasonably move them closer together with no loss of productivity, no fair complaints, and no increased risk to their health and safety, then you probably can.

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

Most people are familiar with infrared (PIR) for presence detection where breaking the beam actuates a light coming on and then it switches off after time has elapsed (the beam needs to be broken again to switch it back on). But it is also possible to use radar or ultrasound detectors that are sensitive to any motion and can even detect speed and direction through solid objects (and tehrefore might be more appropriate for WC's). These can be tuned to the extent that, for instance, an automatic door can be opened more slowly and stay open for longer if an elderly person approaches it; very handy for balancing DDA compliance with Security concerns.

Also the heat-up time for compact flourescents is often an issue if the detector range and position are not set up properly. Don't just stick PIR's roughly in the centre of the ceiling; consider tuning them. The longer the range of detection the narrower the arc of the beam and equally if you need a wide arc of detection, remember that the range will drop. You could also use more than one detector to overcome blackspots or cope with corners/cubicles. We have sintalled motion detectors on stairway lighting that detect presence on a landing and bring on lights in the stairway above and below. This is in conjunction with compact flourescents and works pretty effectively (and has saved a considerable amount of electricity)

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

We installed a Contemplation Room for people who may wish to pray, meditate or reflect. It is unadorned, apart from a simple linen curtain partially dividing the room into two. It is windowless, unfurnished and in a secluded and quiet part of the building. We feel it is sensitively designed to be suitable for multi-faith use, and for non-believers if they would like somewhere quiet to go and think. We used a standard size office 6m x 3.6m (which would nomally hold 2 associates or one partner). It could feasibly accomodate up to 10 people seated on portable chairs, though and the curtain is removable.

It is a compromise, but the important thing is that there isn't anyone who is excluded from using the room (though some may choose not to).

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

A rise in claims, yes, but you can't sue for profit thank goodness. When that day comes maybe we can start to be scared of employees. But for now only lawyers make any real money out of claims.

Skin Cancer does have some occupational causes that are preventable and a competent person should be able to assess the risk of these in a balanced way just like anything else and just like they've been doing before. There's no guarantee a claim will be any more successful now - with this news - than it would have been in 1996.

What has changed is that people are tired of New Labour - pure and simple. We're really talking about "The Nanny State of Mind", more that the Nanny State.

Blair says he's a "radical" when he's in California (but maybe didn't realise it means something different over there, which is being able to do a 360 on a skateboard).

This government hasn't actually done anything radical for years. Blairs "team" tinker with things but never grasp the nettle. They use the popular press to sound out ideas and see what the reaction is ....because they aren't intellectually strong enough to kill stupid ideas at birth.

There's alot of talk and very little action. No Corporate Manslaughter still - now that really would be a dose of cod liver oil from Ms Poppins - but plenty of parliamentary fiddle-faddle ...like amending the management regs twice in 2 years.

They bungle and drop the ball so often that maybe it's just as well they aren't working on anything truly revolutionary. But you'll still hear about what they plan to do to utterly change the face of ".....", and you'll still fail to see much of it come to fruition.

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

Could be a useful technology for lone workers in high risk outdoor occupations though.

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

Additional legislation might be needed to tackle a very serious health and safety issue for which current legislation is inadequate. For the vast majority of employees workplace temperature is NOT one of those serious issues - very few if any fatalities occur in UK offices as a result of hypothermia or heat stroke. Existing legislation is sufficient.

Why, whenever there is an evident hazard in the workplace, does everyone think we need more legislation to tackle it? Why don't people know that every law regarding your health and safety at work has basic guidance (or even approved codes of practice of quasi legal status) attached to it; guidance that you can easily read and that your employer would be taking a considerable risk in ignoring.

Workplace Regs requirement for a "reasonable temperature" allows all manner of workplaces to set the temperature that allows them to operate. A maximum temperature is an absurd notion. Walk-in fridges and steel furnaces clearly can never be 23 degrees C at all times, and 13 degrees C within the first hour of work. Any legislation with a set maximum would have to have myriad exemptions for every kind of workplace where a set max or min temp made it impossible for them to continue their business; it would just create another too unwieldy weapon in the fight against those employers who really don't give a monkeys how uncomfortable you are.

Instead we go from the basic requirement of "reasonable" temperature (and by extension, what most people would agree is unreasonable almost always is) to some practical guidance to consult on how to achieve this: HSG194 Thermal Comfort in the Workplace (it is also on the HSE's website as a hazard topic in the drop down list).

If you have a workplace temperature problem, draw your employers attention to HSG194. The TUC would do well to tell their members that as well, instead of lobbying for loads more paperwork for enforcers and practitioners alike, loads more taxpayers money to be spent, loads more moaning from the CBI, with inevitable delays, fudges and contentious posturing, and more confusion for everyone who isn't working actually working in an office and only having to consult a thermometer and remember a 2 digit number.

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

It really depends on whether you are the competent person under the Mnagement regs or whether you are a Safety rep. Most H&S professionals would probably see their role as that of the "competent person to assist them in complying with the law" that an employer is required to appoint under Reg & of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The role need not necessarily be full time (some combine the role with HR, Security, Facilities Management or Environmental Management or Managing Director). But it is a defined role within an organisation and Reg 7(8) suggests it should be an employee. Competence is generally understood as being held by a person with the relevant knowledge, training and experience. Formal professional H&S qualifications are usually a prerequisite.

If your organisation is unionised and has requested a Safety Committe under the Safety Representatives Regulations 1977 (or is a non-unionised organisation andyour employer has chosen to establish a Committee as its means of compliance with the Consultation with Employees Regulations 1996) then safety representatives do have certain entitlements. They have the right to time off with pay during working hours as necessary for training and, significantly, for performing their duties. As a representative on a committee, especially as a union rep, one might be able to negotiate with management/HR about what amount of time is spent on these duties and about what they reasonably expect of you. Note that this right is enforceable through an employment tribunal if an employer refuses. Reps are also entitled to training and to information from their employer that they need to carry out their duties.