Hello Again Joanne,
Could one of the "issues" with MSD related injuries be that we are continually seeking comfort in our activities?
Are we masking stresses and strains on the body by making these positions bearable for longer periods and are actually encouraging sedentary work?
The short answer is yes. Excessive noise is a hazard which is currently being controlled.
An increase in production, reconfiguration of machinery, introduction of new equipment and inadequate preventative maintenance schedules can all increase noise levels so what you have in place to mitigate against these factors should be included.
My question would be why are you carrying out hearing tests on workers if the noise is at an acceptable level?
In your opinion, to counter against complacency (and confirmation biased KPIs) is it better to review and tweak the safety strategy periodically or to carry out a hard reset after a certain length of time?
If all phone companies agreed to render their phones inoperable when they detect travel at a certain speed, that would be a form of engineering control which would eliminate the risk. — Peter Bateman
Although my phone now knows when I'm in my car (I assume via Bluetooth connection) I don't think current technology would allow this to be viable. Simply turning off GPS would circumnavigate the devices ability to measure speed. Its also worth remembering that phones are more than just comms devices, the Sat Nav, Music library, GPS tracking devices are all useful (and hands free) to drivers, and that usefulness goes up a notch when you think of services such as Uber/Ola taxi services.
There's also the problem of this solution potentially not differentiating between a drivers and a passengers device.
Maybe we're left with the airlines behavioral solution for the time being, which is to ask all phone users to partially disable phones by using airplane mode before moving. A very safety 1 approach of making the punishment fit the crime would add an element of self policing too :grin: .
As mentioned it will be dependent on the risk assessment, but your default position should be that a harness and lanyard is to be used (unless there is a risk of the EWP falling into water).
When assessing the pros and cons of the use of harness/lanyards, consider the normal operations of the EWP and also what is needed in the event of a rescue at height due to an unresponsive person or machinery.
You're right, although there will always be additional costs associated with refurbishment or demolition activities due to the need for a specific survey for this type of work.
My own understanding on the requirement for a Asbestos Management Survey is that you would always default to needing one unless it is unlikely that ACMs are present, e.g, due to the age of the building.
The presumption of ACMs is an acceptable approach where it is not possible to access areas, but shouldn't replace the need to carry out an evaluation of the type, condition and the likelihood of being disturbed. It will also provide advice on any treatment required to ensure that fibres are not released.
Hopefully any person who may be working on the fabric of the building is provided with this assumption, and has received the right level of training to control the release of fibers from their work.
An underrated and often overlooked measure of competency is knowing the limits of our capabilities and expertise.
In my experience there are very few Safety Advisors/Managers who have the perfect balance of practical knowledge to go along with the knowledge they have on the legal requirements for the activity, equipment etc.
A conversational tool I once coordinated prompted managers to get up from behind the desk and go and have conversations with shop floor workers to discuss the tasks they were carrying out at that time. The conversation could go anywhere but must include questions on "what's the worst thing that can happen?", followed by, "What stops the worst thing from happening?".
The initiative lived or died by the level of genuine engagement by the manager who was there to facilitate the conversation. If they were talking more than the guy on the shop floor, then they were doing it all wrong.
A H&S management system cannot simply identify risk, it must always evaluate it as part of an assessment process.
Suggesting that a rule can replace this process is certainly not where I have pitched my examples, nor do I wish to elevate the rule to an adequate-in-isolation risk mitigation status.
A well engrained "rule" is an effective means of informing workers of a mitigating control that was crucial in evaluating an inherently high risk down to an acceptable residual risk.
When used in the right way, the non negotiable rule is an effective means of highlighting where workers should pause and confirm the presence of safety before carrying out an otherwise high risk activity.
I'd agree if they were prescriptive enough to tell workers how to achieve a safety standard, rather than telling workers of the safety standard that needs to be achieved. They can be very useful in promoting the autonomy of workers by allowing them to be adaptable within clearly defined boundaries.
Ha ha, well let me know when you start that thread, I'll put on a hard hat and join in on the debate!
Being true to my shop floor working past, I have found as a health and safety professional that the problem makers are those who don't accommodate for the fallible but predictable nature of workers (including policy writers). For every behaviour there is an antecedent.