Stephen Turner's newest comments

Hi David,

I have a few technical points to add to your info. The standard language for websites is HTML. This is a text markup language which identifies things such as headings, lists, etc and the browser, whether it is display or spoken, interprets this markup in it's presentation of the text.

One of the major problems is that there are other standards and tools that are being used to the detriment of voice browsers. For example, the really nice workplacelaw network logo with the clock at the top of this site is a mix of graphics, javascript, flash images, tables etc, that a voice browser simply wouldn't be able to interpret. The rest of the site is fairly neutral, plenty of text and standard items.

Imagine a site that only uses flash animations, graphics and other non textual tools. The content of this site could be locked up away from any voice browsers to the extent that it is impossible to read. It is often done to make the text and content hard to copy to other sites, but it can really make a site inaccessible to voice browsers.

A good starting point for further information is http://www.w3c.org/WAI/ this is the web accessibility initiative from the organisation that defines open standards for web markup etc. The have some good and simple guidelines for improving accessibility.

Um... not so long ago!

"Since the incident on 26 May 1995, ..."

2-3 years might be more typical and 6 months might be better.

If it wasn't for the fact that about 2 people die on construction sites every week it might have held the media attention.

sturner at lasius dot com

Legislation doesn't mention door closers.

From the building regulations

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002531.htm#sch1

External fire spread

B4. -

(1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.

L1. Reasonable provision shall be made for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings by: -

(a) limiting the heat loss through the fabric of the building;

It is open to interpretation by the local authorities in their enforcement. Obviously the spread of smoke and fire through an open internal door is a severe risk, but if there is no risk of fire spreading from one building to another i.e it is seperated by a suitable gap then the same requirements for door closers wouldn't apply.

As you say internal doors have closers to prevent spread of smoke and flame. The main risk of having an external door without a closer is that it might fan a fire and cause smoke to spread more rapidly in other parts of the building.

Other risks are that the smoke could be sufficiently contained outside the exit to cause a problem to those who have escaped (if you have poor safe areas) or that fire may spread to flammable materials outside the building.

Another consideration is that open external doors have a big affect on building efficiency and security. You might want to fit closers just to keep the internal environment at the desired temperature and allow locking mechanisms to engage.

sturner at lasius dot com

I found this site interesting http://www.openerg.com/dse/stress.html

One of the points it mentions is that finding your own solutions puts you in control, whereas having solutions forced on you can just increase the stress.

So who has responsibility, the employee or the employer? The HSW act and MHSW regs say employees must take reasonable care and report shortcommings. The employer must; ensure a healthy environment, assess risks, provide information and training, etc.

How can an employee take reasonable care of themselves if they don't know how. How can they raise it as a shortcomming if they don't know there is a problem, especially if it is seen as part of the job. It is up to the employer to find the problem, and deal with it. Usually some training and a change in management style is all that is needed, this is both reasonable and practical.

Workplace stress is a serious risk to health and can be prevented. It is the employers duty to do minimise the risks.

sturner at lasius dot com

I don't have an answer for you but here is my train of thought.

I assume that you are talking about a woman, though it could apply to men, I wouldn't have thought that the requirement for time off would be as high. It wouldn't fall under the maternity or expectant mothers duties, as she isn't yet pregnant, not would it be covered by sick pay as it is 'elective'? a treatment that has been chosen. Could it be argued that infertility is a disability? possibly but not in terms of work.

This leaves a leave of absence, with you fairly free to determine the terms.

Of course it could go pear shaped, if a woman was dismissed because they expressed a desire to become pregnant then you could be open to a sexual discrimination case. How much this would apply if you decided not to pay her for time off for infertility treatment I don't know. Could there also be an oppourtunity for you to negotiate leave in return for a reduction in maternity leave? possibly not.

The best course would probably be to openly discuss and document the request, and come to an agreement that works for both of you.

Like I say, I don't have the answers (IANAL) but it's interesting to think about.

sturner at lasius dot com

Should be as per the contract with the employee. If the contract doesn't mention the notice period I think there is a statutory minimum which is the same as the redundancy period. If they haven't been working for a whole year then I think there is no staturtory notice period.

s.turner@lasius.com

I have had experience of having to deal with this problem with an employee. I had a private conversation with the him where I raised the issue of his odour. Despite it being quite strong he was unaware of it and was at a loss as to it's cause, that was the first question he asked me. His odour did improve and both his confidence at the workplace and his relations with other employess benefited.

I agree with Ciaron that you should try and address the cause, and be prepared to do so. These could range from inneffective laundry, through to diet or a more serious medical problem. You should also act promptly, it may harm the employees relationship with other staff if the problem is not dealt with.

You may also be able to get some guidance from EMAS.

As to Simons comments, I can find little but fault! As I said the employee I dealt with was unaware of the problem. A card and a smile probably won't do much to manage stress, and the cure is probably best left to the employee personally (unless he requests help) or his medical practicioner.