Risk Assessments at Work
Discussion
Hi,
The company I work for carry out work at a number of different sites (I don't want to be to specific).
We issue a method statement and risk assessment for each job, but they are all very generic.
Many sections on the risk assessment state the client should advise us of any risks. For example some sites we are working around chemicals, biomass, oils etc. None of these are ever actually directly mentioned in the risk assessment other than to say the client should advise us of 'any other hazards'.
Surely my employer should find out what potential substances we may come across before we go, and advise us on any potential risks of said substance. As the employer is responsible for providing a safe place of work. Is it the responsibility of the site we visit?
Anyone agree with me, or am I wrong?
The company I work for carry out work at a number of different sites (I don't want to be to specific).
We issue a method statement and risk assessment for each job, but they are all very generic.
Many sections on the risk assessment state the client should advise us of any risks. For example some sites we are working around chemicals, biomass, oils etc. None of these are ever actually directly mentioned in the risk assessment other than to say the client should advise us of 'any other hazards'.
Surely my employer should find out what potential substances we may come across before we go, and advise us on any potential risks of said substance. As the employer is responsible for providing a safe place of work. Is it the responsibility of the site we visit?
Anyone agree with me, or am I wrong?
Sort of agree with you there.
What I'm getting at is - if there was an accident, my employer may get shafted for inadequate risk assessments because employees were not fully aware of what they were dealing with.
And...I wouldn't really want that to happen (I realise this all quite unlikely).
What I'm getting at is - if there was an accident, my employer may get shafted for inadequate risk assessments because employees were not fully aware of what they were dealing with.
And...I wouldn't really want that to happen (I realise this all quite unlikely).
Why don't you draft a suggested improved risk assessment (list possible substances you are concerned about with check boxes) and submit this to your employer as a potential process improvement?
It's that sort of problem / solution ownership that good employers would like to see from a good employee.
It's that sort of problem / solution ownership that good employers would like to see from a good employee.
It's part of why it all angers me so much. If your employer fails to foresee something which could not, by any reasonable measure, be foreseen, then they remain liable, and that creates an environment in which everyone makes sure there will be somebody to blame before anything goes wrong.
I employ people because of their specific skills. I like to think those skills include not falling into vats of acid, and not walking under ladders on a Friday. If I needed to handle hazmat, then I'd employ somebody with the necessary skills.
If I then have to risk assess everything he is going to do, then I may as well do it myself. Because he has the requisite expertise, I shouldn't need to tell him how to do his f
king job without maiming somebody.
I employ people because of their specific skills. I like to think those skills include not falling into vats of acid, and not walking under ladders on a Friday. If I needed to handle hazmat, then I'd employ somebody with the necessary skills.
If I then have to risk assess everything he is going to do, then I may as well do it myself. Because he has the requisite expertise, I shouldn't need to tell him how to do his f
king job without maiming somebody.Doofus said:
It's part of why it all angers me so much. If your employer fails to foresee something which could not, by any reasonable measure, be foreseen, then they remain liable, ....
No, the employer doesn't remain liable. The employer never even becomes liable in the first place, let alone remaining so. Bloke in pub may tell you that the employer becomes liable. Bloke in pub is wrong. If bloke in pub is your HR advisor, HS advisor, lawyer or insurer, then bloke in pub is still wrong, and you should get a better HR/HS/legal/insurance advisor. Or go to a better pub.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th April 08:24
Breadvan72 said:
No, the employer doesn't remain liable. The employer never even becomes liable in the first place, let alone remaining so. Bloke in pub may tell you that the employer becomes liable. Bloke in pub is wrong. If bloke in pub is your HR advisor, HS advisor, lawyer or insurer, then bloke in pub is still wrong, and you should get a better HR/HS/legal/insurance advisor.
Fair enough Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 24th April 07:48
Still an infuriating exercise, nevertheless.HS and risk assessment can be done sensibly or badly, and are sometimes very needful and sometimes just silly. Too many mediocre types work in HR and HS. They have attended mediocre courses given by mediocre course leaders, and they have fallen asleep before the only sensible bit of the course, and only remember the silly bit. It's the same with data protection, a thing that is widely misunderstood and misapplied.
Get good advice on HR, HS, data protection, and all that, and these things can be done sensibly.
Get good advice on HR, HS, data protection, and all that, and these things can be done sensibly.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff